 Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for Tuesday, December 18th, 2018. First time on the agenda, Directions on Emergency Evacuation Procedures from the Conference Room. If we do have an emergency, we have two doors there, and we should meet in the South Parking lot to make sure we're all safe. There is a sign-up sheet going around. It is an interested person's sign-up sheet. If you want to maintain party status, you should sign that sign-up sheet with your name and address, name the project that you're interested in, and for as it is for, the accuracy of the minutes, which are a legal recording of what has happened. Next item on the agenda, additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items. Would the Board like to move the review of minutes to after item number four, or after item number six, maybe, so that the members who are recused can leave? Sounds good to me. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, ma'am. Comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda. Any comments or questions from the public not related to the agenda? Bring none. Announcements. Announcements? I'm going to join Jennifer. This is going to be my last six months on the board. I'm going to step off. Really? Yeah. My wife and I want to travel. So we have two new seats to fill as of July 1st. So if anyone's interested, it's a ton of fun. Next item on the agenda, number five, miscellaneous permit application MS-1807 of the City of South Farrington, Department of Public Works, for stormwater upgrades on Kennedy Drive. Kennedy Drive. Right. Yes. We'll do minutes next. The upgrades consist of replacing a stormwater detention basin with a gravel wetland and an expansion of the treatment practice to the north and east at West Twin Oaks Terrace and Kennedy Drive, who is here for the applicant. Hi. Dave Wheeler from the City of South Farrington Public Works, stormwater division. So another great stormwater project we have here before you. Basically when Kennedy Drive was widened some years ago. So before you dive in, no conflicts of interest in the board. I mean, if you raise your right hand and promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you very much. So widening Kennedy Drive required installing seven stormwater ponds along Kennedy Drive. So that's why this one is called Kennedy Drive Pond Three. That was the naming convention during the widening project. As part of our fluoresceration plan for Potash Brook, we looked at all seven ponds to see if we could retrofit them and upgrade them. Each of them was only designed to treat the runoff from the associated expansion of impervious surface of Kennedy Drive at the time. In this instance, there's a bunch of water that's going right past pond three. We saw the opportunity to reroute that water into the pond to provide treatment to that untreated runoff. That required expanding the pond significantly, almost doubling it in size. And then we chose to retrofit it to a gravel wetland to increase the phosphorus reduction of the treatment system because we have the Lake Champlain phosphorus team deal that we have to comply with as well. So in addition to pond three, we're also looking at modifying a few other ponds. So you will see me back here for pond two and pond seven in the not too distant future. Additionally, there's a bond vote recently. It was approved, I think, 81% approval to obtain a loan through the state. And that loan is paired with the Hadley Road pump station sewer project that we're doing right now. That's a $2.9 million project. And this is a partner project to that. And through that loan, they're going to completely forgive this loan for the storm water aspect. So essentially, the state is funding this project entirely to the tune of almost $300,000. That didn't go through the municipal bond back, they went through the state. Through the state, yeah. Well, all of the different upgrades on Kennedy Drive? No, this is unique. So anytime we do a sewer project, we can pair a green storm water infrastructure project with that, 10% of the total sewer project cost. So if we have another pump station upgrade, we could pair another project with that. I don't see that happening. And the virtue of pairings that the state picks up the tab for a piece of it? Yeah, so the state picks up the entirety of the green storm water infrastructure project. In this case, Kennedy Drive upon three retrofit. So we had a couple of comments from the staff on the application. Would you like to step through those? Yeah, I do have responses to all those comments. Hard copy, a few folks would like. All is Marla's happy, we'll be happy. Marla and Goliath. So we received Dave's responses today. Haven't had a chance to spend a lot of time on them. So our recommendation was that Dave step through the comments one by one. And this is some of the board. Great. Dave, since you've written them up, why don't we follow along with you? A civic comment, it's Marla saying that we didn't get a wetland permit, stay wetland permit. So I outlined the process that we did go through to show that there was some effort involved here. We did coordinate with the state wetlands program. There was a site visit conducted by, yes? Sorry. Did you miss the bottom of page two? Yeah, I have no, sorry, I have no issue with this comment. As far as putting in the solution. So if you would step through the comments in red and the staff notes, and then sort of point to where your response is in the document. Okay, sorry. There is one. I didn't, I did not include all of the comments. Okay, that's fine. But if you want to just talk about each of them. Okay. So the first one is about erosion control. And the alteration of a distinct grade. The board has the ability to impose a condition limiting the duration of the permit. I don't know that there's a lot of input needed from Dave for that. Well, how long will the project take? The goal was to bid it out in January. So, you know. Over the summer next year? Yeah, over the next construction season. So it'll be done by November of next year. So if you had a year, you'd be okay? I believe so. But you never know if. Well, you can always come back. Yep. I mean, two years would be great. Yeah, exactly. Why come back? As much flood as this is. Next. All right. So the second one was, let me get into my own section. Encroachment paraphrasing may be permitted upon finding that the overall development, erosion control, stormwater treatment system, stream buffering and landscaping plan achieve the following standards. The encroachment will not adversely affect the ability of the property to carry or store floodwaters. The applicant has not submitted documentation demonstrating that the practice will decrease peak flow rates. That's not to say that it won't, just that there was no documentation provided. Yeah, so I guess that jumps to essentially page three here. So I'm sorry, where are you when you're done? So on the third page of the letter. Number three. Number two. Yeah, number two. Rolls on to the third page. So in summary, this project provides a 49.5% reduction in peak flow during the one-year storm as compared to existing conditions, and that's summarized in further detail in the description above. And we've also expanded the storage by 13,000 cubic feet in this stormwater treatment practice. So no permit as needed is what you're saying, first of all? Yeah, so first of all, and that was what the first page was about. Basically if we had a state wetlands permit, then we'd be complying with the wetlands standards of the LDRs. But we were non-jurisdictional because any modifications to the stormwater treatment practice itself are non-jurisdictional. Then the additional new impacts were under 250 square feet. So the state came out, looked at it, and said, you're good to go. This area has a ton of wildlife in it. How's this going to be affected by putting more water through it? So we're not building any impervious as part of this project, so we're not generating any new runoff. We're actually capturing existing runoff that is flowing uncontrolled into the wetland, and we're detaining it and reducing those peak flows. We're actually reducing the amount of water that's getting to the lake. And to the wetland. To the wetland, too. Yep. By retaining it. By retaining it up high. Is this similar to the strategy that's in the ongoing construction of the wetlands or the stormwater retention in Nolan Farms? What's going on now? Yeah, similar to that. Yeah, so we have a bunch of projects across the city that's been watching that go in. So there will theoretically be less water in the wetlands area, which is where all the turtles in the... Well, same quantity at a slower rate. Is there any likely effect to... Significant improvement on the wetlands, and the stream and the lake. And to the wildlife. Sure. Okay. Just asking a question. So yeah, we're providing significant reduction in flow, and then the next question or the next comment, the applicant has not submitted documentation of the performance of the proposed gravel wetlands, nor have they submitted documentation of state review and approval of the proposed reconfiguration. So their spots here, using the EPAs, they show gravel wetlands get a phosphorus removal rate of 17 to 18 percent. So there's a significant improvement in phosphorus reduction for just the component that currently drains to the ponds. In addition, there's another 2.47 acres that is, that discharge is untreated, so that's going to go from zero percent treatment to 61 percent phosphorus removal through the gravel wetlands. And then additionally, we do have approval from the state, and I've got an email showing that that is submitted to Marla as well. That was dated December 12th. So that just came in the other day. Trying to move all the pieces forward. After that, there's a comment about the landscaping plan. The criteria is the impact of the encroachments on the specific wetland functions and values identified in the field delineation and wetland report is minimized or offset by appropriate landscaping, stormwater treatment, stream buffering, and or other mitigation measures. So we do have a landscaping plan in there to basically just restore some of the cleared vegetation. We're also removing some invasive type in species and replanting with native vegetation. Additionally, in this criteria, it lists stormwater treatment as a mitigation option, so we are doing that. So our impact is the stormwater treatment practice, which also can be a mitigation thing. So essentially, it is landscaping. Right. It's kind of offsetting itself. And it's temporary impact, this new 250 square feet. So it's being regraded by like less than a foot, a foot to less than a foot. So it's going to essentially be going back to existing conditions as well, that impact area. So the question was, how will this restoration provide mitigation for the functions and values of the impact of wetlands? Yeah. So the 250 square foot of new impact, again, it's only temporary impact, it's going to be restored to essentially. What's going to disappear? And then on top of that, we're providing substantial environmental mitigation to the wetlands. Staff left with a question after these responses. We're ready to close then. Yeah, it's public. How many questions or comments on this? Identify yourself. My name is Norman. 1575 Dorset Street, South Carolina. Why has no wetland permit been received? It's not required. Why is it not required? Because we're below the threshold. There's a 250 square foot threshold that we're below. Our impact is 221. And you mentioned sewage treatment. Pardon? Can you explain that to me? There's a separate sewage treatment project that doesn't. There's a happy road pump station project that the city is currently wrapping up construction on. It was an almost $3 million pump station project in another part of the city. The state has got this new program where they will forgive 10% of the loan on that if you construct a green stormwater infrastructure project. So this is in a different part of the city. We're basically getting loan forgiveness for doing this green project. Kennedy Drive on three. But we're not treating any sewage in the pond. Obviously not. You mentioned the green, but you said how you're only going to do a foot of grade. Specifically on the pond. I guess on the perimeter of the pond. But having done some projects on my own property, I see what a foot of grade can do and how it can change an ecosystem. And I'm wondering if you've done an environmental impact study that could actually explain how a foot of grade will not do anything to the wetlands that you're proposing to change. Yeah, so on this point here, this shaded area is the 250 square feet of impact. And the grading here is it's basically just tapering out. But you're incrementally laying. Yeah. Not making like a lip. No, it's just tapered in. So this slope will be slightly steeper back. And the normal farm project that you're doing right now, I've watched that because I actually drive by it almost every day taking my kids to school. And I would say the impact has been pretty dramatic on the wildlife there. It really didn't. You mean the hole that was created, the construction, the traffic problems that were created by that, the depth of it, and all of the, it wasn't even gravel. I mean, it was just, it was large stone. I mean, I just put the same thing in on the swell. I put it for my own stone mortar issues because I have flooding on my property. And it was done in a scaling. I don't know how that does affect the environment. Because right there at that property, it was straight at the edge of the gym there. I've seen soft-shelled turtles, which are an endangered species, you know, killed or on the roadside. And I don't know how that would help the environment. Yeah, so I mean, definitely, impacts the environment in a positive way. How does that happen? So the existing detention basins provided essentially no stormwater treatment. Water was essentially short-circuiting right through the system. So we reconfigured them putting flow control orifice on them and retrofitting them to gravel wetlands and other types of, you know, better treatment practices. Increases water quality? Yeah, exactly. But not on a spot line. Mr. Hyman, the protocol should be that you address the board. I'm sorry. That's all right, that's all right. It was moving in a, it was moving in a control direction. So I want to keep it just slightly in the control. I just, I'm not sure how that affects. I can see how it would affect water quality for the whole Lake Champlain Basin, for example. Sorry, but I'm not sure how that would affect quality of water in the potash or in South Burlington. That's my question. I don't know, does that help us or does that help someone downstream? Right. That's essentially my question on wildlife. Wildlife. If you're holding it there, does that make it worse for the water quality? Right. That's, I've seen it happen. I mean, like. But he says the quantity of water isn't changing. It's just the speed of the water that's coming into it. That's how I interpreted it. Well, if you're going to grow it, I'm sorry, but if you're going to grow it, then the quantity of water by cubic centimeter must increase. If you're increasing volume or capacity, the volume goes up. Well, it's short circuiting right now if I get this right, Dave. Right. I don't know if there's, is there a picture of this where the stream comes down? Well, we're talking about different projects entirely. I understand. But in the case of the project we're talking about, which is what we're supposed to be talking about today, the idea is it's making it to the wetlands. Yes. It's just short circuiting it. It's bypassing. It's bypassing it. And this would stop it, flow the water through a holding area and then drop it into the same area. So I think the net result is right. I think you're right, but is it detracting of above in order to improve down below? I don't know. Yes, sir. The department, fair to ask you about wildlife if the department didn't consider wildlife. Did the department consider wildlife at all? I mean, absolutely. Everything's tied together in improved water quality. You can improve wildlife throughout the whole Lake Champlain basin. But I think you're saying it would keep it a little more local. But I think you're saying it will improve the wildlife in the swamp area. Currently there's no fish in Potash Brook or Bartlett Brook or Monroe Brook. They're all in paired watershed. So if we can restore those, then maybe one day our kids could go out and fish in those streams. But none of you watersheds need fish. Some just need frogs and bugs. They're not all supposed to be fishable. So again, in order to keep protocol. Okay. Are there any other comments from the public? Well, I move that we close MS-1807. The second we close this application, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thanks very much. Take care. Next on the agenda, let's do the minutes. Everyone had a chance to review the minutes and question comments, corrections. The hotel on Wallstone Road. That's where Larkin was referred to as Larkin, but. Actually, with an E. With an E. Oh, Larkin. Larkin. Stony. Thank you very much. Well, one comment. You kind of overstated my concern about the musicians. Doesn't have to accommodate the musicians. The musicians will be unhappy if it doesn't accommodate the musicians. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you want to make a correction? Pardon? Do you want to make a correction? Do you want to suggest to me? Yes. How do we want to say it? It doesn't need to be in there at all, but felt it would be nice if the entrance could accommodate musicians and other performers who need to bring equipment in through that entrance. I move that we approve the minutes with corrections as suggested by Jennifer and by Frank. The movements of Tuesday, December 4th. Second. They can move in second. We approve the minutes. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. On to next item on the agenda. Number six, miscellaneous application, MS-18-6 of Champlain School Apartments Partnership for Alternate Compliance with the Entrance Requirements of the T-4 Urban Multi-Usted Building Envelope Standards as allowed under Land Development Regulations Section 8.06H for a 20,200 square foot and 100 room, five-storey hotel building at 1068 Wilson Road. So if I could just provide a little background because there's a lot of people in the room that weren't here for the first hearing of this application. This application is for Alternative Entrance Compliance. The project is in the form-based code district, which is subject to administrative review. The board will only review certain aspects of this project, so their review in this instance is limited to the project's compliance with the required entrance number and spacing. The board heard this application at our last hearing, and this is to address some of their comments that they made at that hearing. So it's really about the doorway on Wilson Road, as I understand it. And musicians. So that should be in the LDRs, but it is. FC, were you both here last week? Last? I was here. We had a different representative from the architect. You raised your right hand, promised all the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. Oh, and identify yourself, please, of course. Marcus Parkinen, BMA Architectural Group. Peter Smeyer, VHB. Thanks very much. Walk us through little changes. So I think just following up on what Marla had said, as you know, we were here two weeks ago to talk about use of the Alternative Compliance Standard for the Doris. During that meeting, we talked about the building itself and ways that we could work on the south entrance to make it better comply with the Alternative Standard. So since that meeting, we incorporated some of the thoughts of the board and presented a revised set to staff to be presented here. Musician's notwithstanding, I have to say, as a former musician myself, it's not so bad. Oh, yes. They need the exercise. They get so little daylight. They might want to have a little bit of an extra bit of exertion there. So we're here with the revised plan for review, and we're seeking approval of use of that standard. So I think Marcus, parking unit from BMA, will run the board through the changes that were made since the last meeting. On the first sheet on AP 201, we created a enlarged plan to help clarify our intentions for the Williston Road entrance. You want to zoom in on that inset right there? The one on the right-hand side, the middle. Partial floor plan, right? Yes, sir. Off the page. So what we did was we created the enlarged plan just to show what our intentions are. As you can see, the door facing Williston Road is designated as a public entrance. It will be operational during business hours. And then we created a south lobby. We renamed pre-function to south lobby, and then created an interior set of doors that would only be accessible to guests with a card reader. So whether that becomes a soft seating lobby or a small local art gallery where artists can display work is to be determined. And then to address your other comment regarding enhancing the entrance at that south side of the building, if you want to flip to AP 206. Hang on a sec. So you've changed the use effectively. Is that correct? It was the intention at the last meeting, that door. If you look at the last, that door was designated as a blue door as it was a public entrance. That part I understood. If it's a public entrance to the hotel, then it has to be open to the hotel. It's now a public entrance only to the meeting rooms, correct? It is open to that end of the hotel. Meeting rooms. That's all that's in that area, right? Are the meeting rooms connected to the lobby? Yes, through the corridor. Card-controlled doors, yes. So we can't. Well, we went through this last time. If there's an actual separate use, like a separate cafe, the public doors would only be open for the public period. And so the question is, during the public period, are the boardroom, the meeting room, or either the meeting, I guess one's a meeting storage and a meeting room, are they open? Or are you just walking into a lobby? You'd be walking into a lobby. That's all you'd get to. That's all you'd get to. So the same question comes up for me then. Because effectively, you're closed. You've got a public door to nowhere. If the public door was to something to an operational use, like a cafe, and the cafe's open from 8 to 6, and the door's open from 8 to 6, then it's fine. But what you're making is a public entrance to a lobby. Yeah, the intent of this hotel is a limited service hotel. We've been through this. You missed out on the last time. We've gone around, around, around on this. So the question is, what is the lobby doing that makes it a public use, other than being a lobby? Because being a lobby is not really a public use. If it's a heart gallery, then you'd have a public use. And that is one of the options we've discussed with the client is it could be a local heart gallery where people can display their works. Well, I think it's up to you to tell us what the use is. From my perspective, it doesn't work yet. Right. This still doesn't do it. The important thing, what John's saying, is that if it's a camera and a buzzer system so that somebody at the front desk can know that somebody's there and let them into the hotel. And we can most certainly do that. And it's a hotel entrance. It's just a limited public entrance. But at least it gets closer to what we talked about. So if we conditioned our approval on providing an intercom system to the front desk, that'd be acceptable. It didn't sound like it would at the last meeting. So what has changed in your client's thinking since then? I'm not aware of that. It wasn't an option. So it's always been an option. It was a threat of denial. Well, to be fair, there's a couple of different options floating around there. It didn't seem like it was buy-in on any specific one. Now, I guess what we're hearing is for more definitive answers on how you're going to fix the problem with maintaining a public entrance on that street. And what we're hearing now is it's going to be a lobby with a buzzer entrance that allows people to access the lobby, the main lobby. To the rest of the first floor, correct. Just a personal comment that seems to be putting a lot of responsibility on whoever is manning that desk. It would be very similar to the same responsibility they would have at the main front desk. You're still only have limited visual control of who you saw check into the hotel. Right, so that person is looking at a video monitor. I take it. And they make a decision on the spot whether that person comes in or not. If I'm walking on the street and I'm staying there, I use my key card to get in. If I don't have, if I'm either checking in, I have no other key yet, or I want to use a restaurant in the hotel, I use the buzzer, and that's how I access. And that's what makes it public. And ordinarily, it wouldn't be a big deal because your corridor to the lobby pretty much only goes to the lobby, except it goes to the elevators right in front of it. So now you really have access to the whole place. Yeah, well, the security issue is yours. Yeah, I agree. Well, the security issue is theirs, but I don't think we want to set them up to fail. No, but I think as long as there's a camera and a buzzer. We would have to have card reader control at the elevators as well to deny public access to the rest of the room. That would be better. Yes, that would fix everything. Visually, from the outside, it looks right. Yeah, I think. Turnover is a black door that only certain people can access. And it gets people out of the weather, which is the idea. And the musicians can move smoothly into the meeting. Yeah. And people from the public can go in there with their laptops and use the Wi-Fi. I'm sure there's some public Wi-Fi available. There usually is. Well, you could probably get there around the back way too. OK. So just because I'm not totally clear where we just landed on this discussion of elevators and security desk, can we summarize someone who did follow it on this? What I'm hearing is that they're going to have a lobby that's open to the public with access to the main lobby. They have a mini lobby, access to the main lobby via either a buzzer or a key card if you're a hotel guest. Correct. Interior door. Yeah. So if you're in the rain and you're just getting out of the rain for a little bit, you can sit there until someone buzzes you in. Or you can use your key card, or you can just leave. Right. I am left with the question. I think it might have been covered, but I'm not sure I got the answer. So if there's an event going on in the meeting room, is does the meeting room have access to the interior of the hotel? Yes. At some point during an event, the red doors on the inside would probably be fully open, allowing access to the entire hotel if someone's in the meeting room and using that south lobby as a pre-function. So when the meeting room not in use, will that door to the meeting room be locked? Yes. More than likely. Yes. The one from the mini lobby? Yes. So this still doesn't quite get to what you required, which was a fully public access. We felt that it got to the public access because it allows the public into the building and can be communicated with the front desk. Got it. OK. I'm OK with it. OK. Public comment. No more questions from the board, right? Public comment, questions. There are none. Entertain a motion to close. That we close MS-1806 of 1068 Wilson Road, miscellaneous application. Second. It's been moved in second. We'll close this application. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Very good. Thank you. Thanks very much. Take care. Next on the agenda, number seven, master plan application MP 1801 of Gorsuch Metals Associates, LLC, for a planned unit developed on two lots developed with one single family dwelling. The planned unit development is to consist of 103 single family homes, 26 dwelling units in two family homes, 20 dwelling units in multi-family homes, one existing single family home, conservation of 15.8 acres on site and conservation of approximately 55 acres off site through the purchase of 66.4 transfer development rights at 1505 Gorsuch Street. Who is here for the applicant? So you'll need to spread out across a couple of tables. If you could reserve for one table for public comment and pull up whatever chair you need to share the other two homes. Charlie, maybe keep another microphone. Professor, it's still going to be public comment over there. Thanks, Charlie. So we are also going to consider at the same time the preliminary plan application. Preliminary plan application SD 18-29 of Gorsuch Metals Associates, LLC, for a planned unit development on two lots with one single family housing. And that's all the same description. So I'm not going to read that again. But it is the preliminary plan application and the master plan application that we're considering at once. So we are at this point in the process. This is currently the master plan and preliminary plat stage of review. Earlier this year, the board reviewed a sketch plan and provided oral guidance to the applicant. We're now at the first formal stage of review. At the end of this stage, the board will vote on whether to close the hearing. And once closed, we'll issue decisions on the master plan and preliminary plat. The next stage would be a final plan application in which we're going to include all the final project details. A more detailed description of preliminary plat is available in the back of the room. Oh, keydoke. So recusals. Recusals, yep. So John Wilking and Brian Sullivan have recused themselves. So Matt, if you would list the public comments the board received. And then have a public action. So it should be noted that John Wilking is retaining party status. And the instruction to the board is that if John offers questions, we are not to allow his comments to have larger weight than any other member of the public, just because he's a member of the development review board. And I should say that there is a request from Mr. Seff to postpone the hearing. So board members, would you like to proceed or postpone the hearing? I read the letter from Mr. Seff and appreciate his concern about wasting the time, everyone's time and resources with regards to the DRB staff and to the applicant. But I feel comfortable directing us to proceed. OK. I agree. I would also add that if they want to test the validity of their objections, it's perfectly what's available to Mr. Seff is to move through a study of these proceedings. And he'll get an early weather report from the court about whether the court thinks he's going to succeed. What was the phrase you used? When you appeal to the environmental court, there's not an automatic stay. That is, our proceedings go forward unless the court stops them on a temporary basis while the appeal is considered. And the court will only do that if there is a motion to that effect. So when Mr. Seff files his appeal, he can also file a motion for stay of the proceedings. And the value of that from everybody's perspective, including the neighbors, I would sense of whether they ought to proceed beyond that stage because one of the criteria for allowing the stay is a probability that the appeal will succeed. In this case, frankly, if I thought the appeal would succeed, I would be supportive of Mr. Seff's suggestion. I don't think it will. But that's for the court to say. And you can find out sooner rather than later what the likely tendency of the court will be. Thanks very much, Frank. I've already stated that the board is going to discuss both the master plan and preliminary qualifications at the same time. And we will take as much time as necessary to review staff comments and address board questions. We have received some written comments. Anyone else who wishes to provide comments is welcome to do so. Once the board review is complete, the public is invited to provide additional comments. Everyone who wishes to speak will give them the opportunity to do so. At 9.30, Matt will be doing a check to evaluate whether to continue public comment portion of the meeting to a future date so that commenters can have the board's full attention. Because after 9.30, you won't. Comments will be limited to two minutes per person, and commenters are encouraged not to repeat each other. For anyone who feels that two minutes are not enough, the board welcomes written comments. And if you provide them to the staff, the board will read them before the next meeting. OK, so we're going until 9.30. Let's see, very good. OK, so if you'll please describe the project as though we just went through staff comments. Now, so first thing we need to do is are there any conflicts of interest with current board members, non-recuse board members? None? And please raise your right hand. You promised all the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the penalty of poetry. Thanks. Could you all three identify yourself for the record? Thanks. I'm Mike Buescher with T.J. Boyle Associates, landscape architect. Brian Currier with the Lurie Burke Civil Associates. Peter Kahn with Dorset Meadows. Welcome forward, and identify yourself also. Great. So I'm going to give you an overview, talk about some of the changes we're going to be showing you tonight from what you just said. All four of you have been sworn in? Yes. All four raise their hands. So I'm going to present to you the changes, the refinements that are incorporated into the preliminary plaid application, where we brought the plans from the sketch plan. Can we go to the overall site plan? Actually, we got the latest, so you want probably the brand new one, right? Yes, please. So go into the supplemental folder, sheet two, overall site plan there, that one, yep. So we don't have these, right? No, I received that slight modification from what was in the packet this afternoon. And this is SD1829, but we're not going to have that. But it's the same, I mean it's the same project. So I'll just start by saying that we had a meeting with planning staff the other week. And as part of that meeting, we talked about the zoning boundary. And instead of putting that boundary in off of the plans, we were directed to put them in off of a GIS database. And that resulted in a minor shift to the boundary line in this area. So this plan is not 100% in an alignment with some of the more refined, like landscape, lighting, stormwater plans just on the rear of these lots and the layout of these lots. All the roads, everything else are the same. So as we proceed to this, it's been recommended that this meeting be continued. The rest of the plans would be updated for that next meeting. So where we are at this point. Everybody follow that? Sorry. So you did not change any of the roads. You changed the lots on. So there are a series of lots along the western side of the neighborhood in this area. So we amended the width of some of these lots right in this area and the depth of these lots. And we removed some single families and added in townhouses. So the changes from last time, those four units, the two townhouses, prior to that, they were. Those were not shown. So as you look through our preliminary package right now, if you look at some of the other plans incorporated into the package, the landscape plan, the lighting plan, some water cellar plans, all the other plans, these particular lots will not line up. So did you add units? That's what I'm trying to get at. Did you add units or? He's not talking about change from sketch. There's more changes than that from sketch plan to now. He's just talking about from the packet to the packet with all those plans to the overall, this overall plan has changed on that western line. The rest of the packet like that, all the other plans in the packet does not reflect that change. And to answer your question regarding unit number, it is slightly different. Brian, can you? It went from 151, I believe, to 154. And that's just because some of the lots got smaller. And we added a couple of duplexes where there were single-family lots previously. Specifically right there at the, yep, yep, yep. Yeah, everything else is the same, except for that little section of road. If you want to start with that description of where we are today, now that the board understands there's a minor change. Yep, if we can stay on that one plan, that would be great. So we are at a total of 154 residential units, 95 single-family lots, detached single-family lots. And that's a mixture of small, medium, and what we're considering large lots that range from less than a quarter acre up to less than a half an acre. There's 35, what I'm referring to, as townhouse-style multifamily lots. There's some in this area and there's some in this area. And there's 24 duplex units that are incorporated throughout the neighborhood. So I'm going to sort of direct you to some of the specific areas where the project has changed. Last time we were in front of the board, there were actually two entrances to Nolan Farm Road. One has been retained. The second access was off of the area near the townhouses and it connected in over the wetland here. There was a desire to have the project connect from staff. There was a desire, and I think from the DRB, to have the project connect directly to Dorset Street. And to do that, there was really a requirement to have only a single wetland crossing. So we exchanged this wetland crossing for this wetland crossing. The result was we ended up picking up two additional townhouse units, but we lost six duplex units. All this area on the east side of the wetland is within the village residential district. The rest of the development is within the neighborhood residential and then the back portion of the projects within the natural resource zone. In doing so, we were showing a small short dead end street that had 10 duplexes over off Dorset Street, and that's been redesigned to incorporate 15 townhouse multifamily units. Based on the Larry Burke review of Stormwater, at Sketch Plan, we were anticipating a more holistic stormwater pond up near on Farm Road. Under further review, that has been split into two areas. We picked up a couple or one or two single family lots here, and we lost single family lots here. We've added some duplex units. We lost a duplex unit in what I'm referring to as the Crescent Park to create more of a green connection. As we just discussed, we've picked up a couple of units, duplex units up against the natural resource district. There was changes to the internal green space. There was a desire expressed from the board and staff to widen the spaces, but also create connectivity between the natural resource zone and complex that runs through the site. So there's additional green space here. All these green spaces have been widened to accommodate that as well as green spaces added on the east side of the road. There is also a connection that was created between Elderberry Lane and the end of Bellflower Road. So this is a new green connection that wasn't there previously. What do you say, green connection? Not single family. There's no development. It's common space. There's gonna be a path through it. It's accessible to the entire community. Technically, if somebody walked off the street, they probably wouldn't get kicked off out of that area too, but it will be controlled by the neighborhood. So just to remind you of some of the design elements here, we oriented this central road, which the name of that. Dewberry. Dewberry. So we oriented Dewberry towards Camelshump. It's a wider street. It's gonna have sidewalks and parking on both sides. And there's gonna be smaller street trees. So this is somewhat of an organizing element. The other issue that we really sort of have developed along with the DRB is this really internal network of green spaces. So almost every single lot within this neighborhood, every single unit backs up to green space, whether it be the wetland or the NR district or these internal green spaces. So we have only a handful of exceptions where we have lots that actually back up into other lots. So it's a really nice buffer plan. It really adds a lot of green that can be controlled by the neighborhood overall. Some of the other items that we were asked to look at were the recreational elements. So the recreational elements includes a lot of passive recreation and we added benches through a lot of areas in the neighborhood. There have been paths that we've talked to the path committee as well as the recreation committee about. And there's going to be sure pack pathways. So that's like a crusher fine gravel in that will be laid down the fabric to control weeds, things like that. Most of the roads internal have sidewalks on one side of the road as mentioned. The central have has sidewalks on both sides of the road. And then elder Barry way lane has a recreation path on the one side and it has a sidewalk on the other side. Trillium also has a rec path that continues from elder Barry all the way out to Dorset street. And the applicant is committed to reserving funds for a mid block crossing across Dorset street to eventually connect with the future bike path that will be located on the east side of Dorset street. Other recreational elements were proposing a small playground area, play equipment within the neighborhood. Again, pathway benches. We really see this as a connection down to second park in this area. And there's a basketball court, like elementary school size basketball court proposed down in this area. It's one of the, if you look at recreational standards it's one of the higher scoring recreation components that you can provide just because the hard surface can be used for multiple of items, not just basketball. We have the passive recreation. We have the bike pass. We have the sidewalks, a lot of walking. We have the benches and technically not within our internal park system, but we are planning to maintain a large open field for informal recreation purposes in our district. This area is currently maintained as lawn. So in our discussions, we felt that that still complies with the intent of the NR district. That will be, this is the existing tree line. So no trees will be removed as part of that. There will be a smaller maintained green in the middle here. And then there's going to be some large, some edge meadow areas that would be annually mowed to define that location, but just to maintain it as an open space and not let everything grow into woods. One of the other changes that you'll notice is there's some additional green areas that have been incorporated on the edges of the neighborhoods, of the neighborhood. Can we go to the landscape lands real fast? Yeah, I think you're gonna have to scroll down a little bit. Might be. Probably like 20 pages down. You might be easier to grab the, yeah, there you go. So you'll see a full set of landscape plans. We're meeting the landscape requirements through a series of landscaping on the individual single family lots, the multi-family lots, as well as common plantings within the common areas and the buffer areas, street trees as well. We provided plans, yep, there we go. So we've got plans that show all, call out all the street planting, shows all the internal planting, planting in the stormwater areas. And then we provided, if you can go to the next page, we've provided typicals that show the general intent for the single family lots and for the multi-family units. If you scroll to the next page, there's another plan that shows the multi-family. Part of the landscape treatment includes delineation of different areas. That includes delineation of the wetland areas, as well as delineation as the common green areas. So there's gonna be a combination of cedar split rail fencing to delineate the wetland areas that will be spaced intermittently, along with landscaping, and that'll really define the edge for people so they will know not to maintain their yards further beyond that. In the rest of the neighborhood where there's internal green space, there was a concern that people would sort of extend their yards out into that common green space. That's gonna be delineated by a combination of plantings as well as by boulders. We anticipate through the earthwork on site to uncover a solid supply of boulders that will be used to help delineate those locations. Just quickly about lighting. We have lighting plans, if you can keep scrolling down one. So the way that the lighting has been designed for this neighborhood is based on sort of a rural standard for neighborhoods. So we're lighting intersections and we're lighting mid-block crossing areas. The lighting levels are based off of ISNA standards for isolated intersections as well as mid-block crossings and we're using the standard South Burlington decorative fixture at these locations. So that's really a good overview of where we came. A lot of the changes are specific to address the staff comments, the DRB comments. There's been a strong desire to maintain the density and we've been doing our very best to do that and that means losing more single-family detached lots and adding more multifamily in. We are looking at preserving existing trees through the site and some of these areas now. So in a lot of these areas, there's grading throughout so it's fairly difficult for us to maintain the trees internal onto the project. On the outside though, there is definitely an opportunity to maintain trees. We're going to be taking a little bit closer look at that and providing a tree preservation plan. We were trying to get to that point tonight but given the last minute shifts here and there that's something that we'll be looking at and providing at the next meeting. So I can turn it over to you if you want to get into some of the more technical details. Yep, so I figure we start going through the- Before you do that, could I ask a couple of questions? Could you go back to, up a good bit where you show the, there was a plan, a silhouette of the multifamily, of a multifamily structure. Yeah. There's one more down. Maybe one more down. Yeah, that. Yeah. What are we looking at? Are we looking at separate lots there? No, those are fence lines. So one of the intention is to really give these units a sense of ownership. So instead of having just a big open rear yard to these units, good fences make good neighbors. So these are all just, this shows fence lines. But those are not going to be property lines. Those are not going to be property lines. These will be condominiums? Yes. That's true. The duplexes as well as the townhouses. I believe that's true. Yes. The other observation I had, this observation is, it looks like there's three distinct neighborhoods here. A multifamily neighborhood up on one road, another multifamily neighborhood on another road, and then a large, basically single family neighborhood. Is there any reason that the multifamily hasn't been or couldn't be integrated into the general neighborhood? Why did you do it that way? Well, number one, that there's a zone change. This area is actually intended to have higher density development within it. It's the village residential area as opposed to the neighborhood residential area. So we actually, we did actually have some more duplex, lower density that was more similar to some of the other development internal into this area. And we're actually directed to increase the density and change the look of that to be a little bit higher density from staff. As far as. I agree with you, Frank, on the, I mean, I definitely see the two, you know, but that's a wetland issue. So that's, yeah. It looks like two different projects because the one right on. There are environmental constraints. And you know, we're not looking at this as a project separate from everything else. You know, this is meant to integrate to everything else that's going on in the Southeast quadrant. You know, there's a lot of development going on on the other side of Dorset Street. We've got a lot of single families and duplex development up here. And the current town plan shows us being a village mixed use center. So as we get closer to that. In reality, just an observation, the townhouse units are de facto dramatically segregated from the larger neighborhood. Whether by design or environment or wetlands or what have you, they're somewhere else. And that's partly a result of the line that the applicant showed that creates a different zone. I mean, so you have to go back to the planning commission and ask why they created village residential there. Because the village residential is intended to be higher density and more affordable, more workforce housing. So it's a question for planning commission, not for us. They're just doing what the LDRs and planning commission said to do. But the wetland is a major feature as well. I mean, you can't. The wetland is a major feature. Right. I mean, it does look, what about phasing? What would you, what was the approach of, what would you go after first? There's actually a phasing plan. Yeah. Yeah, we'll go through the phasing plan during the staff comment part. Yep, that's part of it. Do you want to start with the master plan or preliminary plan? We got two sets of staff comments. Okay. Okay, we'll start with the master plan. Great, thank you. So page three, number one, total site coverage for the proposed plan is approximately 20%. The applicant has somewhat revised their layout based on initial staff feedback since their initial submission. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the total site coverage prior to closing the hearing. And we have no problem with that. Number two, staff recommends the board discuss. So the density, let me just quickly cover this. The density is 151 residential units on 70-ish acres. Yeah. So that's like 2.1 plus 2.15 or something like that, units per acre, right? Yep. Okay, thank you. So number two, staff recommends the board discuss this designation with the applicant. And if accepted, require the applicant to revise the master plan as a condition of approval. That is in conjunction with the project contains two roadways with a width equivalent to the collector roadway width identified in table 15-5. The applicant has identified both these as local roadways in the master plan, but staff considers Aldebury Lane, which is the north-south collector roadway the labeling issue in Wollah. Changes in location, layout, capacity or number of collector roadways if they change require an amendment to the master plan. So by designating that as a collector roadway, it means that if you change that, then you have to amend your master plan. So staff's thinking on this is the board has historically in larger developments included some collector roadways so that there is some trigger for master plan amendment. You can't just change your entire project and say it's the same master plan. Can we go take a look at that? The, probably the overall say, Aldebury Lane. So Aldebury Lane is the north-south. Aldebury Lane is this one right here. So that in the future would connect to the parcel to the south at such time, either 10, 50, 100 years when that's developed. So we thought that was appropriate to be designated as collector roadway. The other one that's 60 feet wide is that center roadway that Mike talked about. Not so much a collector. So despite the whiff, staff didn't feel it was appropriate to designated as collector. Even though it looks to me like collector. Okay. Happy to be overruled when the board overruled it. No, no, no. So does the board have comments on whether that big long Aldebury looks like a collector. I mean, it certainly looks like a collector to me. Everything comes off it, you know, it goes off the Dorset Street, it connects to Lone Farm, it looks like a connector to me. So I agree with you. It's the only way out. Yeah. It should be designated. Yeah, right. So we ought to call out a collector and size it appropriately. Yep. Thank you. Number three, staff notes the applicant has labeled open space three on some plans and seven on other plans. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to correct this as a conditional approval. And that's fine with us. Yep. Number four, staff considers the applicant has attempted to address the technical review comments, but does not have adequate expertise to determine if the response has been adequate and has referred to the revised study to the third party reviewer for confirmation. Staff will provide feedback to the board regarding the revised traffic study at a continued hearing. So we submitted a traffic impact study for the project. Proactively, we requested that I get reviewed by the city's third party. They reviewed it. We provided responses and now we're waiting for responses to our responses. And we're fine with that condition there. So that comment feeds a little bit into the next, because there was this comment about the Spear Street intersection. And in the traffic study that was in the packet, Lamar and Dickinson, it looked like there were only two cases in which the build versus no build resulted in a reduced level of service. And in both cases, it looks like there are several areas that are at the F level of service build or no build. So, but I guess we'll get more comments on those as we go forward. So we can skip this, go ahead. Okay. So number five is related. Staff is reviewing the Spear Street corridor study to evaluate options for this intersection. And I believe that's one of the intersections. So that really refers to, we'll hear more at a future continued hearing, right? Right, because one of the intersections, as you noted, was that intersection and the city has studied that intersection. So though typical responses may be intersection slip lanes, we wanted to just check to see if there were other more creative solutions. This is the Nolan Farm intersection? Nolan Farm and Spear Street, yeah. And one of the options looks like a roundabout. Yeah, Nolan and Spear, potentially. The Spear Street corridor study has some feedback on that. I did take a quick skim through it today. It doesn't seem like that's a strong recommendation in that report. Sorry, the Spear Street Nolan Farm intersection, the study, they didn't strongly recommend a roundabout at all. They thought that it would have a lot of impacts. Okay, so number six, staff recommends the board consider continuing the hearing to allow the Natural Resources Committee to complete their review. Staff recommends the board evaluate the requested continuation date when it is received. And we have no issue with accepting the comments. I don't think that the letter we got from the Natural Resources Committee, which was in the packet, requested a specific date. So hopefully there's a representative when we get to public comment that they can make a specific recommendation for what would work for them. Okay. Unless you wanted to skip ahead to that. I was wondering if Betty or someone was here. I think that. You mentioned for comment regarding that state, who made that report. That'd be helpful if you could just fill us in on that. Dave, proper. Yeah. Why don't you come on up and sit at the seat. Thanks, Dave. I'm not sworn. Sorry. I haven't been sworn. You promised tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth and I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Here basically to answer any questions you have about our request. Request is to get more time so that we can examine it and be able to make a good report back to you for the next time. We don't have a specific time if you, we know that it'll take at least a meeting. We have to ask the developer to come in and prepare some questions that we're working on right now. I thought that you're, so do you have more questions than what was in the letter in the packet? I thought the, I'm sure there'll be substantially more just from since that meeting of our natural resource committee. We've seen the amount of information the staff has produced this all this long document. I think I've distributed it, sent it out to the various members, but we haven't had a chance to have any discussion of it. Our next meeting is next Wednesday. Okay. Could you say your name and title of the meeting is? David Crawford, I'm the chair of the Natural Resource Committee. Thank you. Great. It's agreeable to the developer that meets with the Natural Resources Committee to discuss questions. Great. Thank you. Fantastic, look forward to it. Thanks very much, Dave, we appreciate it. Number seven, staff recommends the board discuss whether to require the applicant to provide an elevation for the multifamily home facing Dorset Street, demonstrating that both the Dorset Street and Trillium Street sides will be presented as fronts. So if you wanna zoom in a little. Yeah, so we're talking about that building right there. So that's fine, we can do that. Right now we do not have the elevation that we provided or we're actually offered the five plexus. So that's a four plexus and we can certainly do that. Essentially making, if you're on Trillium Street and looking at the side of that building, it's the front of the building and same on Dorset Street. The two end units, excuse me, two end units is what you're referring to. Yeah, the two end, yeah. Yeah, well the front of the, what we would consider the front of the building would be fronting on Dorset Street. And then yes, that end unit, the same building. But not one, four, I can't read the writing there. Not the one on the north side. That would just be, yeah. Right, right, not that one, right. Like on Market Street, the end unit looks like the front one, both, yeah. That's not actually a bad idea. We can look at that too. Because then there'd be some nice symmetry. I just don't wanna see a wall. Yeah, right, right, right, we have one window out. One window, right. I believe that's the only unit where this is the case too, where it's on the corner. That's not a public bill that, where you were just circling, that's not a public way. So we're not looking at making those end units look like front theater, right? That's just access to parking, right? Correct, yeah. But to clarify, if they wanted to. That's right. Yeah. Okay. Because Mike just said, oh, that might not be bad. So we do actually, on the five places, we do have porches on the ends of those buildings. Number eight, staff considers the phasing plan should also take into consideration communal elements of the project, such as parks and paths, so that each phase is accompanied by a proportional amount of infrastructure and recommends the board require the applicant to amend the phasing plan to assign the communal elements to the phases. We have no problem with that. If you want to look at the phasing plan, we can do that, otherwise we'll. I think that's important. And we've done that in other projects that I'm aware of. Yep. To make sure it's not all saved to the end. Yep. Yep, so we'll just. Because you want to look at the phasing plan? I don't know if now is the appropriate time or? I mean, we can come up with a proposal and look at it since it's going to be continued. Yeah, let's look at the phasing. Okay. So it makes sense. One of the top ones, it's a sheet P. Yep, right there. So the first phase is in red. Comes off Nolan farm road and does a loop around like this. So obviously we don't have a community space designated with that district yet. What staff's getting at is they want us to add either the park or the, you know, this is kind of further away, you know, the basketball hoop. Obviously everything else is going to be open at that time. So it's really, you know, there is this, the walk path, the walking path will be, you know, encompassed by that phase. But as far as a designated, I think they wreck department called them a program, you know, some sort of infrastructure, a playground or something like that. There isn't anything included with that. So whether we, whether we include the playground or that's what we're going to have to look at and see kind of what makes sense with what phase as we're building out. And it'll probably mostly be proximity. Really, that will dictate what goes in. So the first phase is red. Second phase is the green, which is off to Dorset street. Yep. Second phase is this, this second connection and this area of Alde Berry and Dew Berry. That gets us our other connection so we can go above 50 units. And then from there, we go to the cyan, which is this loop, the Southern loop here and the feature access portion of it. And magenta would be this piece up top, which would circle the Crescent park up there. And we also have this designated phase for these, these multis, since there is really no public infrastructure, no public roads, we'd like to be able to start that phase really at any time because it's not dependent on two access points or it's not dependent really on another phase to get started. So if there's a high demand, we'd like to start those whenever possible. So that could float anywhere. Correct. That phase. Yeah, cause there's no infrastructure, you all the infrastructure you need there. Correct. It's kind of on an island. Yeah. Yeah. As Frank noted. Right. The wetlands a good separator. And it does have a large community park as part of it there, so. That's a good point. Yeah, proximity. Very good. All right. Thanks very much. Number nine, staff recommends the board approve the requested pre-construction grades and consider whether the, whether to request the applicant smooth the rear yard grading to create a more uniform appearance from the rec path. We have no problem. I think we might have graded it one on six. I think, you know, we can flatten that out a little bit more. That's not a big deal. Nope. Okay. So consider, we'll consider that. Okay. Okay. Yeah. It's a, most of them are graded to be garden style units. Obviously if those change, you know, if they become walkouts or more traditional style grading might get revised slightly, but right now they're graded mostly as garden style with a slower grade down to the rec path. What does the garden style mean? That's full size windows in your basement. But not walkout. Correct. Full size windows in the basement. Well, three and a half, usually we're three and a half a four foot window. So half your wall is concrete. Nope. And then the, if it's an eight foot two, basically the top half is a window. Does that allows you to have living space? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. We can meet, eat, rest on windows windows. So in order for that to happen, you have to grade across the unit, you know, at least four feet to give space. And I think that's where some of the, you know, sharper grade might, might be. For the sharper, sharper grading to grade across the unit so we can get that four foot drop. So we'll look at, we'll look at how the grading's been presented. And if there's any questions, we can definitely smooth it out. Try and make it a little easier. Okay. Number 10, staff recommends the board grant this waiver request and consider whether to create a limit on individual ratios, such as no lot having a width to depth ratio, less than one to one. This is in regards to the one to two lot ratio as part of the LDRs. We're asking to meet it on average rather than for every lot. It gets, it's easier to meet it on an average because you get curves and you know, those sort of things. And not all the lots are perfectly square. And there's certain dimensional requirements. We're going with smaller lot sizes. We have corner lots that have additional setbacks on the corners. So when you start to go into those components, all of a sudden you have a lot on the end of a row of lots that doesn't meet it, even though the rest of the lots do because we're trying to create a building envelope to meet the building size that's proposed in that area. Yet the extra setback on those corner lots extended out. The other thing to really take into consideration with a lot dimensions is we've been pushed continuously to have more green, to widen these green quarters behind the lots. So we don't have lots that are backing up to the lots. So there's, you know, nobody's going to look and say, this green, this lot isn't as deep as say, that same lot if there was no green space in the back. So there's a lot of green space being, common green space that's being incorporated that we're, you know, there's definitely a compromise happening, although on average we are meeting this lot dimensions. I'm fine with that. So we should make a decision on whether to create a limit on individual ratios. So would this impact you negatively to not be able to have a width to depth ratio less than 1.1? Wouldn't hurt. Wouldn't hurt. The 1.1 would be fine. Yeah, yeah, one to one. Not less than one to one. That would be fine. Okay, so let's do that. So board, do you want to do that? I'm fine with that, yes. With the explanation, yeah. Frank, you okay? Okay. Meh, all right, next. Number 11, staff considers therefore that the applicant must reconfigure lots 82 to 88 to not require subdivision of area within the SEQ NRP zoning district. And Mike touched on this in the beginning. That's in respect to these lots here before we showed these lots encroaching into the NRP district. And this is our response to the reconfiguration of those lots. So they were to keep the one to two ratio they were significantly wider and deeper. Now they match more closely to the ones across the street and they slightly get bigger as you move to the south. And then these were lots previously also those have been proposed as duplex units. So with this comment is the request by the applicant to use the allowances within section 15.03 C to relocate the district boundary line by 50 feet. So what's shown on that plan is the relocated boundary line that the applicant is requesting. The existing boundary line is 50 feet farther to the east. The applicant has, and stop me if I overstep here but what we talked about on the phone was that because you're making that request you have shown additional green areas Delilah if you could zoom back out on the homes what is 78, 79, 80 and then again up at the top at 92 through 97 there. So those areas in the back would be they're proposing to use those areas as compensation for originally they had those planned as backyards but those areas would be sort of one for one swapping of the adjusted boundary line. It's approximately 1.2 acres would be the swap. So would you be proposing those would be conserved or I just didn't want to let that slip through the cracks because that's a. But that resolves the issue with regards to the non-NRP CQ. Right, so they have addressed the subdivision of NRP with this plan but also embedded in that is the boundary line adjustment request. I'm good, okay. Okay, number 12, once reconfiguration is complete staff notes that the project acreage within each zoning district is necessary for calculation of impervious coverage and recommends the board require the applicant to provide updated acreage prior to closing the hearing to allow the correct values to be recorded in the decision on this application and we will do that. Okay, be shown on the plot itself. Areas of the lots is shown on the plot but not the areas within each zoning district. I suppose you could request it if you wanted to. Well I've seen many plots that show percentage of coverage, of lot coverage endorsed right on the face of the plots. This is in regards to the zoning district though I believe. I think what you're referencing is the coverage is shown as a typical on every lot. I think this is speaking more to the coverage would be, I mean there's no coverage in the NRP but it would be the coverage in the NR district and the VR district. There's a specific standard and I apologize for not referencing it precisely but there's a specific standard that says the board can waive lot coverage on a lot by lot basis but it must be met on a district by district basis. I think you have that in the preliminary plot piece of it. Okay, therefore I think it should be enforced. We should show it. Calculated and you know. Okay, yep we can put that on the plot. Yep, no problem. Number 13, staff supports the applicant's waiver request but recommends the board require overall building and lot coverage calculations by zoning district be submitted prior to final plot approval for the project. So that's basically what we just went over there. Yep. And that ends the master plan. Staff notes. The waiver's still on that, can you just fix the header to be the. Ah, Jennifer what am I going to do without you? Hold over. You too, the call. I use it as a template though. I am. Oh yeah. So on to the preliminary plan. Just to go back on that the application received date on the master plan I think needs to be updated too. Yep. I promise I'm not the only one that looks at these before they go out the door. So item number one, staff recommends the board require as a condition of approval that the documentation of an option to purchase sufficient TDRs be submitted as part of the final plot application and we have no problem with that. Wait a minute, did we just. Now we're in preliminary. We'll be back up for a minute. There's something that we just went past. I don't think staff picked up on it because I didn't see it in the comments, but the neighbors have submitted a handout. Let me be more precise. The save opens spaces South Burlington has submitted a handout, one portion of which I think needs some discussion. Have you, do you have a copy of the handout? So let's just got it. One of the things I handed you just now. Yeah. Okay, we didn't receive that until just now. Okay, did you get a copy? We have it here, I think. Is this it? Well, the important thing I want you to look at to start is the map on the second page. Do you folks have another copy? If they don't have it, I'd like them to have a copy. I gave them a copy. I think I gave them actually two copies. I got a question to start, because this could become a somewhat intense discussion. Do you agree that this overlay map is accurate? So we're just looking at this for the first time right now. Okay, take a look at it because it's going to become potentially a significant issue. Let's start with the accuracy of the map, whether in fact, this riparian community area. The map is set at the top of the page. Yeah, but I can't tell from that. I don't read the map. I'd rather know that we have agreement on the basics here before we get into any further discussion. And if we don't have agreement, let's find out why not. Yeah. Yeah, so we'll provide comments on the next hearing. No, no, I want to talk about it now. Can you determine whether this overlays, whether this riparian community overlays, the district or your development? Not at this time, we can't. Paul? So I invite Paul Conner, director of, what is he? Director of Planning and Zoning. Director of Planning and Zoning. Let's go with that one. That guy. You promised. Don't choose, don't choose, nothing much to choose on the penalty of perjury. I do. So just looking at this briefly, and we'd be happy to come back with a little more review. This does appear to be a blow up of a portion of one of the maps in the city's comprehensive plan, zooming in on this area, which is one of two natural resources maps that the comprehensive plan has. There is a layer in the comprehensive plan, a mapping layer in this map called riparian connectivity that was taken from the open space report. The open space report discusses what that represents and what it means. I can say that this afternoon, sort of by coincidence, we had a meeting with one of the state wildlife biologists and asked him what riparian connectivity represents from a mapping layer. And he said that in the prior version, so 2014-ish of the state's mapping system, they had, it's called the state biofinder atlas. They, the state had compiled a series of different potential resources where there's waterways, where something that they call valley bottoms. So looking at sort of basic topography, what's lower, what's sort of around the streams and some other ones sort of put it together as an area to consider for riparian connectivity. Since that time in the newer version of the biofinder, that layer doesn't exist anymore. It's been a find. But that's a state document, right? It's a state mapping tool. Yeah, so it's been. Our comprehensive, let's focus on the issue. Yeah. The issue is not what the state is doing. The issue was whether comprehensive plan map seven identifies the area that they've crossed that year as a primary, as a riparian connectivity area. That's a yes or no. You know where you don't. The comprehensive plan map shows that as a riparian connectivity area. Thank you. All right. Now, does, is the riparian connectivity area a primary conservation area within the meaning of the comprehensive plan? Forget the state. Stay within the four corners of the comprehensive plan. Can you, well, can you, can you please for folks can you repeat the question? I just want to make sure that I'm accurately answering the question. Does within the four corners of the comprehensive plan forget about the state. We've established point A that the comprehensive plan shows that the cross hatching on what the neighbors have done here in fact is accurate in relation to the, to the project. It overlays the project. The map overlays the project. Yes. The riparian connectivity area identified in the map overlays the project. It appears to yes. Now, what I'm saying is, is the riparian connectivity area, a primary conservation area as far as the comprehensive plan is concerned. Yes. The comprehensive plan has a map of which this is zoom in that is called primary conservation areas. Okay. Thank you. That's, now I would like to understand I would like to developer understand. I got a little preliminary first to tell the neighbors where I think they're on base and where I think they got it may, may have a point. The relationship between the comprehensive plan and the LDRs is a difficult one. It's been ruled on variously by the Supreme Court. It's not an easy question. So for example, mere expressions of desirability or I think what's the word the court uses? Aspirational statements in the comprehensive plan are not binding. Positive mandates of the comprehensive plan are binding. That's what the case, that's my interpretation of a summary of what the case is say. In addition, the theory of behind that is that when something is stated in the plan, it only becomes reality for the most part when it's reflected in a positive command of the LDRs themselves. So those aspirations that are left unaddressed in the land development regulation itself don't matter for our purposes to determine whether a development is viable. We're in a tricky zone here. What your opponents are saying to you is that there's a specific section of Article 15 that they cite to 15.1810 that requires the project, requires the project to be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. Now, let's be clear. If there was a goal and objective of the comprehensive plan and the LDR didn't say you must comply with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the fact that it's a goal and objective wouldn't matter. What makes it matter is that the LDR says you will comply for a PUD with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan for the district. Now, what they're saying is that on page right up front in the comprehensive plan, and by the way, they selectively quote somewhat to my annoyance, the relevant line, what they say is the comprehensive plan mandates that development is pro, excuse me, says one of the conservation plan's goals is quote, conservation of identified important natural areas. In fact, the goal is promotion of conservation of identified important natural areas. So their case even on this point is not quite as strong as they purport. It is not conservation, it's promotion of conservation. You might think about that when you're preparing your response. Nevertheless, they accurately quote on page two of their handout just beneath the graphic. The above graphic demonstrates that I'm recording from them that a large portion of the Dorset meadow sits in a riparian connectivity area which is a primary conservation area. We've established that. That is quote, off limits to development. And that's what in fact the comprehensive plan says. So I'm not gonna make a final judgment now. I'm letting you know you got a serious issue talk to your lawyer in addition to whoever else you talk to and come back with how this fairly dramatic overlay does not effectively violate the relevant section of the LDR which is 5.18, I think 810. 15.8. I'm sorry, 15.18810. So the specific answer I'm looking for is basically is you gotta show me the negative. How doesn't it violate the goals and objectives of the district? That's the question. I don't, you didn't come prepared for it. You got hit with this today. I don't expect an answer now. But I'd like you to focus on the issuing and address it next time you're here. Thanks, Frank. Thank you, Frank. Any other questions, Chairman Miller? That's very helpful. Thanks, Paul. Thank you. Documentation of 2DRs, you're fine with that? Yep. Number two, staff recommends the board discuss the issues above pertaining to homestyles and determine whether to approve the applicant's request for a side setback waiver. Let me take it off. That's that Dubri Lane. Yeah, so in particular they mentioned that only two of the house designs would meet the dimensional constraints on Dubri Lane. And I think that we are willing, correct me if I'm speaking out a term to look at alternative additional building designs to comply with the setbacks that we are proposing along elderberry lane. And then the second part is we are asking for setback waivers as shown, as outlined and shown on the internal lots within the development. Yeah, I believe what happened is we submitted a variety of building elevations and staff noted that only I believe two of them fit within some of the smaller lots, most of them being on Dubri Lane. And with only two varieties kind of to go from based on just the elevations, we thought, or we'd agreed to provide more of the smaller footprint building elevations. And then the second part of it was that we'd be willing to revise the guidelines to not, to limit more than I believe it was two adjacent of the same style. And we're fine doing both of those things. We take a look, it's been helpful in previous, like in Cytor Mill, it's been helpful to look at specific areas where you're asking for specific waivers. So if we could, yeah, take a look, thank you. If we could take a look at where these waivers are going to be most effective. So if you consider this sort of a perimeter loop around here, oops, no worries. Maybe zoom out just to touch, zoom out, yeah, negative. Yeah, so if this is a, it really is this area. So if this is a perimeter loop, the setback requests are for the interior lots, not for any of the exterior lots, not for any of the lots set up about against any neighboring properties, not for any of the multifamily units. It's specifically for those interior lots that we're concentrating that smaller single family detached lot design on. Like is that for both the side and the front request or just the side request? Well, you know, the LDSR is conflict a little bit. I think I'm not gonna be able to quote it right. But for instance, the multifamilies are requested in the NRDIS or the Village Residential District. The LDSR state that they must be a certain setback, which actually is, so if you go to the section on the Village Residential, the actual Village Residential section in the LDRs. So what's the question? We don't have them available to put on the screen, but we can look at the answer. So I believe it's quotes that they must be a certain distance back from the road, which is actually within the setback that the overall dimensional requirements. Right, so the setback request that was made was for the single and two family homes to have a reduced front setback of 15 feet, I believe. And I can check really quickly that you actually don't need it for the multifamily homes within that district. So NR, VR, multifamily, oh yeah, you did need a 20. So you're asking for the front setback waiver to 15 feet for all homes, exterior and interior. And then the side, you're saying it's only within that outer loop, or within the inner loop. That would be accurate. There's my, yeah. Right, Jennifer, you got it? We can clarify that at the next meeting. So they're asking for a front setback waiver from 20 to 15, and then they're asking for a side setback waiver from 10 to five, but only within the loop road. It's permissible, I mean, if it said four feet, it would be not permissible. Five feet's permissible, if you feel it's all right. I'm not gonna argue with you. And Frank's right, Marla, right, he said that four feet would be impermissible and five feet is permissible. Yep. Okay. Okay, number three. Staff considers that buildings meeting the allowable height of 28 feet should fall below the maximum allowable elevation, but recommends the board include as a condition of approval that the applicant demonstrate that each proposed structure is compliant with the view protection zone prior to the issuance of a zoning permit for each building. And we're fine with that. Number four. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to propose a payment schedule and inflation adjustment methodology as part of their final application, but otherwise considers this criterion met. This is in regards of an impact fee for the existing pump station on Nolan Farm Road. And we're fine providing. Schedule. Yeah. Yep. Number five. Staff considers the applicant has attempted to address the technical review comments, but does not have adequate expertise to determine if the response has been adequate and has referred to the, has referred the revised study to the third part of reviewer for the confirmation. Staff will provide feedback to the board regarding the revised traffic study at a continued hearing. And we touched on that for master plan. It's the same thing here. Number six. Staff has discussed compliance with this criterion as part of the review of MP 1801 based on the available information. Staff considers this criterion met, but recommends the board consider continuing the hearing to allow the National Resources Committee to complete their review. Staff recommends the board evaluate the requested continuation date when it's received. We touched on that. They're meeting Wednesday, I believe. Thanks very much. Number seven. Staff has discussed compliance with this criterion as part of the review of MP 1801. Staff recommends the board discuss whether to require the applicant to provide an elevation for the multifamily home facing Dorser Street demonstrating that both the Dorser Street and Trillium Street sides will be presented as fronts of the building. And that's another piece that we touched on for master plan. Number eight. Staff recommends the board continue the hearing to allow the stormwater section and opportunity to review the revised plans. And we're fine with that. Number nine. Staff recommends the board consider requiring the proposed grading to be smoother between the rear yards to create less of a tall appearance when homes are viewed from their recreation pass running internal to the development. And we touched on that and master plan also. Number 10. Proposed electric and telecom lines are not shown on the provided plans. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to submit drawings showing the proposed layout of site utilities, including electric cabinets prior to final plan approval. Staff further recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate coordination with the electric service provider regarding general utility cabinet number and location. And we're fine with that too. Number 11. Staff recommends the board incorporate the unit design guidelines as a condition of approval and recommends whether the board consider whether to require the applicant to add a condition that limits the number of adjacent homes of the same type. And that came up in master plan. We'll make the adjustment to the design. So the part about limit the number of adjacent homes of the same type. That's something that the board has done in other projects. I don't know if you want to do that or not. They had a limit of some number 18 or 10 or who knows what it was. But if all those people want to live together, maybe one includes something that says you can't have more than two of the same homes next to each other. Yeah, two adjacent, I think, is where we wound up last summer. Two is what we, yeah. Yeah, two's fine with us. Yeah, sounds great. Number 12. Staff considers this criterion met but recommends the board require the applicant to update their PLAT plan to reflect the pedestrian trail easement. If you want to go to the overall plan, I can point it out quick. That doesn't show it. That was a problem. Yeah, there you go. There is a proposed easement that's on a different plan sheet. I think it's on the actual PLAT, not this overall plan sheet. That shows an easement coming along the, through the NRP district, along the tree line, and then turns up north towards the direction of Underwood Park. So we were asked to provide an easement, and we've done so. I'll just show it on the sheet. 13, staff recommends the board require the applicant to add a solid waste handling area for these homes as well and recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for complete enclosure of the solid waste area. And if you want to go back to that overall, plan one more time. This is, in reference to, we show a dumpster location in these multis up here. We do not, however, show, so that's right here. And the landscaping plans show it in a much more detailed orientation with plantings around it, but we don't have a specific detail showing the requirements of the dumpster enclosure in South Burlington, if it's a green-slided fence or whatever the requirements are. So we'll be sure to include a detail of the screening for the dumpster. And then we failed to show locations within the new multi-sections to the south there. So we'll be sure to include dumpster locations for those units as well. If we do, actually, one of the thoughts were that we might be able to just have individual cans in that area that a truck could pick up from the rear, but that's something that we need to discuss. Yep. The digital cans for each unit? Yep. You know, a lot of trash cans. Yeah, we probably would not actually do that. I think we'd be, we're thinking of dumpsters shared by all the units. So would you have one dumpster for that entire month? Yeah, per. Number 14, staff recommends the board require the applicant to submit an open space management plan prior to final plaid approval. With wetland buffers clearly delineated, management plan should indicate the open spaces, should be maintained as designed, including language allowing for appropriate maintenance of the recreation trail easement located within the natural resource protection zone. And we'll provide a open space management plan. Yep. Staff considers that it appears based on a review of the layout and grading plans that at least some of the existing mature trees can be preserved within the proposed open spaces and recommends the board require the applicant to prepare a tree preservation plan showing trees to be preserved. And we will provide a tree preservation plan. Yeah, you mentioned that it's really the trees on the edge, basically, that can be preserved. I have a question for staff on that point because it came up in the context of another development the other day. When you say showing trees to be preserved, do you mean identify the trees? They've already provided a tree inventory plan. So they've already provided a tree inventory plan. They do have an inventory. They do, yes. So many pines, so many there, so many. Okay. And there aren't any identified. So it would just be a matter of saying, and these are the ones of those that have been identified that will remain after the development. Correct. Number 16, staff recommends the board require the applicant to obtain preliminary wastewater allocation prior to final plat. We have no problem with that. Number 17, staff recommends the board require the applicant submit a draft of the homeowner's association agreement describing the management of open spaces as part of the final plat application and that they require the applicant to clarify, if any of the proposed open spaces are proposed to be public in which are proposed to be maintained by the homeowner's association. And we'll put together the homeowner's documents detailing those specifics. Number 18, staff considers that to require additional parking where no homes are proposed would detract from the provided open spaces and park lands and recommends the board approve the parking layout as proposed. And this is in response to, I believe, Belfour Court, it's an 18 foot wide road. This is so the LDR says that sufficient space for one lane of on-street parking shall be provided on all streets except for arterials. So you've not done that, where there's no homes. So I guess yes, Belfour is part of it. But yeah, there's a couple other places. It's more that the board has to explicitly grant you a waiver rather than passively set. Okay, yep, yep. So those are like the pedestrian crossings in the... Yep, it's PUD standard. To Frank's point, it's waivable, right? Yes, yep. In the way that the PUDs allow waiver of certain standards. Number 19, staff recommends the board confirm with the applicant whether they wish to seek any variation from this standard and notes that any variation will require DRB approval. At this time, we're not gonna seek a variation, but we're gonna look at a little bit more on our side and come back to you at the next hearing with more specifics regarding this. Number 20, the applicant has provided floor plans demonstrating compliance with this criterion for all home types except the single family corner type, which does not appear to meet this criteria. Staff recommends the board require the applicant revise the single family corner type. And the garage is accessed from one corner and the front of the homes on another corner. So it doesn't show the eight foot setback that's required by the LDR. So we'll revise that elevation to make sure it meets the regulation. Number 21, staff considers the required stream alteration permit will result in compliance with this criterion and recommends that the board require the applicant demonstrate that they have obtained that permit prior to the issuance of the first zoning permit. And we're fine with that. That's in regards to the wetland crossing being proposed. Number 22, staff recommends the board consider whether to require the applicant submit their state wetland permit as part of their final application prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the project. Right, so the option is up to us whether we required as part of the final application or prior to issuance of the first zoning permit the state wetland permit. What do you guys care? What do you think makes sense? What's your recommendation? All right. Don't have a question in that game. Exactly, right. Is there a practical problem getting the wetlands permit before the construction begins? Before construction begins, no. Before final plot, sometimes it can be, and maybe you guys can speak to that a little bit. Yeah, it's more of a time constraint. I mean, we can't build without it. You know, so it... It has to happen. Right, we'd rather see it at first zoning permit issuance rather than final plot, but it's not a deal breaker. So nothing will be built before you have it? No, absolutely not. I don't care. First permit's fine. As you specified, the wetland crossing will not be possible. You don't mean an occupancy permit. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, so as stated, there'll be prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the project. Right, right. That's it. So more questions from the board. So the reconfiguring of the road to Dorset Street, that conclusion was, can you tell me a little bit about concerns it sketched? Is that... There was two... Is Edgerton Exit on no garbed road and not on Dorset? Sure. This change, you know, how does it affect your development or why did you go ahead and do that, make that change to the Dorset Street entrance? I think we made that based on, you know, encouragement from the board, staff. It was not the first time that issue was brought up, but we knew that we were going to be limited to a single wetland crossing. And it seemed, I don't think it negatively affected the project. It changed some of the areas where land was more useful and not useful, but... There was a U-shaped and the same curb cut as we're showing now at Dorset Street. There's sort of a U-shaped dead end road there. You might not remember, or you might remember. And that just didn't look right. I mean, this just sort of made sense. So we kept the same curb cut and brought it through and it solved a lot of issues, including that funny road. We were able to shift the entrance road, was pretty close to Schoolhouse, getting closer to the intersection. We were able to slide that down, provide plenty of clearance from the intersection now coming off Dorset Street. So it made sense for traffic also. Now, because you have included high-density housing, can you give us a sense of the price range of the housing units that you're going to be offering because affordability is goal number one in our comprehensive plan? So I'd say, boy, we'd love to stay in the high twos maybe on those. It's really hard to commit to give this ongoing permit process, for example. But so high twos, low threes is where we'd be thinking right now on those. And then fours, fives, and maybe sixes once we get into some of the more premium lots. So nice range. Right. Yeah. Other comments, questions? So let's see. We are going into public comment. Two minutes per public comment. Matt is going to be watching for 9.30. We're now at 9.10. So we'll have time for just about 10 comments if we get them all at two minutes. So we're happy to start the process. And just to be clear, it doesn't mean that there's no opportunities to comment after 9.30. It's quite likely we're going to continue this hearing. And there'll be other opportunities. And of course, there's always an opportunity to submit written comments, which are obviously not limited in words or time. But we ask you to identify yourself. And I'm playing bad cop and trying to limit you to two minutes so we get as many voices as possible that wish to speak tonight. OK. Good evening. Daniel Seff, MSK Attorneys, here on behalf of 14 interested persons. Did my handout, did the handout make it around before I got here? OK. So they're all identified by name and address. I don't need to read their names and addresses now. That's who I'm here on behalf of. And I have at least 10 people who've seated their two minutes to me. So I'm happy to, if it makes your job easier, Matt, I'm happy to talk for the next 20 minutes. No, what would help is if they identified themselves during the process. No, there'll be time. There'll be time so that they are giving party status, which they would be. So. I think we have that with the memo. But the board looked at and considered my letter of yesterday where I asked that this hearing be postponed in light of the fact that we're imminently about to file a Vermont environmental court appeal on whether this board even has jurisdiction to consider these applications. I gather that was considered and was decided to move forward. OK. So just for the record, we are here under protest. We don't think this board has any authority to consider a preliminary plan or master plan because the matter never made it out of sketch. But we'll take that up with the court. I think, Frank, at the last hearing suggested maybe the board could benefit from some court guidance on that, so we will pursue that. So I was surprised when I walked in and the applicant was talking about dumpster screens. We've got much bigger fish to fry here tonight. I submit respectfully. The LDRs require that a plan unit development be consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. And one of those goals and objectives is conservation of an identified and important natural area. And the comprehensive plan mandates that development is prohibited in primary conservation areas. And if you look at the handout on page 2, you can see that a large portion of Dorset Meadows sits in a riparian connectivity area, which on Plan Map 7 is a primary conservation area that is off limits to development. So Dorset Meadows is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan. In fact, it is affirmatively and glaringly and frighteningly inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the plan. The developer is proposing and attempting to build in a riparian connectivity district or area which is prohibited. If you look at page 3, the handout, section 9.06b3 of the LDRs talks about the plan that the developer has to come up with to protect existing natural resources on each site. And that includes conservation areas shown on the comprehensive plan. They're supposed to protect this area, not destroy it. Look at that portion, please, of 9.06b3. Existing natural resources shall be protected, not should, not may, shall be protected through the development plan, including dot, dot, dot, conservation area shown in the comprehensive plan. Conservation area shown in the comprehensive plan, and we've got dozens of houses sitting right in the conservation area. I don't know how this happens, but it shouldn't, it shouldn't be allowed to go forward. Comprehensive plan is very clear at page 2-103. Primary conservation areas depicted on map 7 include environmentally sensitive and hazardous areas that are quote, off limits to development. Off limits means off limits. Okay, before the handout, comprehensive plan identifies the following goal. This is the first page. Promote conservation of identified, important natural areas, open spaces, aquatic resources, et cetera. Mr. Sturs. So we, we did talk about this earlier. Frank brought this point up and Paul Connor is going to be looking at it. So we are going, and he explained that there have been changes in the maps. And so we are going to be analyzing which maps are exactly appropriate to this. So we appreciate you bringing this up and staff is looking at it. In case. You are at five minutes, which is fine. Okay. I just want to make sure, you know, that other people get a chance to speak. I know people are, I've asked you to speak on their behalf and that's, that's great, but I don't want to deny the opportunity for someone who's come here because you know, in 20 minutes I'm going to say we're going to wrap up. I, I, I totally understand. I totally agree. And I appreciate that the board has taken the handout is going to look into it that we're not going to close the hearing tonight. Is that correct? There'll be other opportunities for myself and my clients to speak at future meetings. So with that in mind, you've got the handout. I think it speaks for itself. I don't guess I don't need to read it to you. And I'd be happy to yield the floor if there are other people who would like to speak. Unless anybody has any questions for me about this point. I, I have several, but not before other people who you don't represent get a chance to speak. Absolutely. So there are people who are not trying to, Mr. Seth, we want to speak. They should raise their hand. And in fact, Marla raised the point that we should be sure to hear from the committees. So if there are committees like David Crawford from natural resources, if there are committee people who would like to share their committee findings, we've already heard from David. So you're going to meet this coming Wednesday. So if there are other committee members, chairs who would like to talk, we'd like to hear from them as well. Thank you. Thank you. Happy holidays. Same to you. Thank you. Okay, hearing none. Then, yes, go ahead, Matt, go ahead and call. Yeah. So go ahead and you come on up and sit in the seat. Yep, go ahead and just identify yourself for the record. And I'll start the clock. I'm Sarah Dopp, president of the South Burlington Land Trust. I may have heard wrong, but I thought I heard that staff, you know, village residential section sort of flipped them with the neighborhood residential section because of the natural features on the land. I hope I didn't hear that right. And then I thought I also heard something about a boundary line on the west side down adjacent to the NRP, that the boundary line of the development and ergo of the NRP land had been moved 50 feet. Well, I don't think you just move lines around arbitrarily. And certainly I don't think the staff does that. I think we have bodies that consider those kinds of changes. It would help if we responded to that and not give the impression that we did something wrong. Yeah, sure. The applicant has requested, as is allowed in the LDRs, that the board interpret, it's not move. It's, is it a master plan comment, Lene? Can we read the exact language? I don't want to say it wrong. Yeah, the boundary line was in the master one. NRP boundary line, master plan comment number 11. 11 and 12. So if you go back up just a little bit to that paragraph above. Yeah, we just scroll back down actually. And I'm bar your LDRs. So the board has the authority to interpret boundary line within 50 feet on either side of where it is shown on the map. In conjunction with the PUD or subdivision application involving land in two or more zoning districts, the DRB may, at its discretion, approve a request to relocate the boundary of the zoning district up to 50 feet in either direction within the area affected by the area. There is some precedent for the board doing this on other projects where the boundary line didn't seem to make sense. It was maybe at the toe of slope and it should have been at the top of slope. It was on one side of the wetland and it didn't make sense. It should have been on the other side of the wetland. The applicant has looked at this and said, well, our interpretation is that it makes sense to put it at the top of the slope break. In compensation staff has discussed this with them and said, well, if you're gonna do that, we'd like to see you compensate for it elsewhere. So what they've provided are some areas that aren't, I admittedly, totally clear on this map, but the wedges that Delilah's pointing to right now as proposed conservation areas in compensation for the 50 foot adjustment that they're requesting. And that's in the staff comments. This is all stuff that happened a little bit last minute, so it's not, your question is understood. It's a little not clear, but that is what the request was. Yep. Any other comments from the public at this time? Come on. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Ray Ganda. I'm not one of the 10. I've lived in South Burlington for about 35 years. I live in the pinnacle development right now, so I'm familiar with this area. So that's who I am. And I work with the Riparian Strip and I'll explain why I'm focusing on that. A little bit about myself. I've been a hunter, fisherman, trapper through significant portions of my life, as well as just being a general outdoor person, skiing, hiking, mushroom picking. But the trapping is the most relevant experience. When you become a trapper, if you're going to be successful, you have to learn the habits, the signs, the food sources, where they live, how they travel in order to target that animal to catch it. So I went through that for about five years in high school and late elementary school. And so today, when I go out to someplace like this or even out in the forest anywhere, I look at everything with different eyes than most people do. I see things they don't see. I understand things they don't understand. So I come here not as a credentialed expert but as a practical expert on wildlife. And in particular, when you're trapping, you tend to follow the streams and brooks. I have personally photographed mink right at the brook crossing on Nolan Farm Road. Mink use that area, muskrat use it. I haven't seen any otters or any signs of otters but I would fully expect that otters use it too because that brook connects Shelburne Pond, which has class one wetlands if not actually classified that way, they certainly deserve it. And it's class two wetlands up around the golf course area around the lake there, the same thing. I don't know if they've classified it as that but it certainly deserves it. So if I were to go someplace and want to find these animals and trap, I would go to that brook right in that open field and I would catch muskrat and I would catch mink. Now I'm not suggesting that people should do that but I just simply point that out because it's relevant. I know about how animals use that corridor. So you have the two wetlands at either end of that brook and this brook connects those. That's a vital, a critical wildlife corridor. So for that reason I am opposed to this project. If one, just one more statement. If the project were to go through, what would I do to make it better to protect that corridor? I would remove all of those buildings on the right side, the east side of Aldebury Lane and I would plant a strip about 100 feet wide or so no less than 100 feet all the way along the property edge of Alders and Willows on either side of the brook. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Anyone else that would like to speak tonight? Come on up. Sorry, I think we'll have time for both of you. I'm Tracy Parapato. I'm not part of the 14 but I live on South Force Sisters Road and I believe the wildlife is extremely important and the stream is extremely important. Some of the things that we didn't talk about tonight was pollution with having all these homes and yards and grass and you're gonna use pesticides probably for lawns and for planting. We're gonna add significantly to the pollution of the creek and the pollution of the lake by adding 154 homes to this area and I think that's vital consideration considering we're just talking about the wetland mitigation issues on Kennedy and on Nolan Farms. The other was the traffic issue. The summer when they were doing the traffic thing they were pushing a button in their pickup truck on Dorset as I walked by in the morning. That's how they were doing their traffic count. They didn't have a strip. The guy was sitting in his truck pushing a button on a summer morning when school wasn't in session. Doesn't take into effect the increased homes that are being built at Spear on Spear at South Village or the increased homes that are being built in Cytermill that are all gonna funnel into Dorset and Spear and there's gonna be a huge traffic backlog which might need lights or whatever around about on Spear and Dorset if you're adding that many homes to already South Village and to Cytermill. So those are just some of the considerations I would add to the present. Thank you. Come on up. And I am party so is there anybody else that's not party? Let me go first. Thank you. Yes my name is Art Shields and I live at 1350 Dorset Street which is right across the street from where the now proposed exit onto Dorset Street will be. Originally that was going to be a private street now it's a major road coming onto Dorset Street. That street is approximately I would say 600 feet between there and Nolan Farm Road which I think is gonna be an awful lot of traffic coming out of two different roadways very close together. Also Lime Hill or Lynx Road is almost across the street from where that proposed entrance is and perhaps they could have somehow tried to get those two to line up so that they had a straight intersection as opposed to two roads so close together. Another issue that I had is on the lot size and the dimension standards. Basically they're asking to decrease the size of each lot from 1200 square feet down to 4,600 square feet. That's a pretty small 12,000 down to 4,600 which is a 38% reduction on what you normally can do. You do not have to grant waivers these are requests by the developers and it seems to me that from what I'm learning and staff comments that a lot of these requests are preconceived that they're going to be approved. I'm not saying whether that's true or not. The other thing is on I guess it's on Dorset Street where it entrance on Dorset Street. I'm not sure what the setback of those four units on Dorset Street is if they're looking for 15 feet. If that's 20 feet what the front yard setback is from Dorset Street. I've lived out there for 40 years and when I moved out there was 10 acre zoning. Then we went to where we had 400 foot setback from Dorset Street. And now we're talking of what might be 15 feet from Dorset Street. Right now they're no multi-family units. They're duplexes but they're no multi-family units between Old Cross Road and Swift Street say. So this is definitely a change in the character of the neighborhood of what we're doing going to. And you've also got the same thing planned for Nolan Farm Road where you're having multi-family buildings where now it's mostly just duplexes and single-family homes. Another question I had, their concern is if you look at what the numbers that they gave for their landscaping. I don't know what size units they plan to be but if you take their figures and say the average house is going to be 1,000 square feet or 1,200 square feet, excuse me. That works out to their building cost where they gave you $14 million or $72,000, sorry $72.08 a square foot. There's no way that number is even close to accurate. So I think you ought to get their numbers for your landscaping budget a lot higher. I don't know if that, I don't know what's included in that number if that includes their infrastructure cost or if it's just a building cost. If it includes their infrastructure cost and then it's an awful lot higher than that. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. John, you want to come up? I could you identify yourself if I'm unbulking? I live at 1437 Dorset Street in a house that was built in 1864 and you can see it because it's completely surrounded up there on the top right corner. I now will have neighbors that are about 15 feet off the edge of my property and apparently, how many, 15 of them, 16 of them? 20 or whatever. It's, this is a dramatic shift. I understand the Planning Department, Planning Commission called my neighborhood village residential, but it isn't. This is a vast change in the style and substance of the neighborhood. I think that's fine, it is what it is, but have a little understanding of what, of buffering, of scale. And that seems to be my biggest problem. Backing up real quick, the change of the 50 foot line, we have done that, we only, but it took like three nights of discussion in order to add units because of it. 50 feet on those lots is a big deal and what you're getting for it is nothing. Very little green spaces in backyards. That's just not acceptable. We wouldn't have been acceptable on the O'Brien farm when we did it and it shouldn't be acceptable here. That's right, perfect. Come on up. Go ahead. No one else? And I'll be very quick. Good evening, my name is Roseanne Greco. I'm a resident of South Burlington. I live about a eighth of a mile away from this. I understand what your role is. You're a digital board. You have to follow the rules. You don't make the rules. You don't make the policies. I know you have some latitude, you know, to make some sort of subjective termination, but you got to stick by the rules. I totally understand that I respect you. I want to throw something big at you to consider and that is some of the things we talked about here are maps, they're in language, but on the ground, things have changed because of climate change. Although that is a repairing connectivity area, by the way, there are some wetlands, there's lots of wetlands there. There's also an uncommon species there and I want to speak to the animals because right now it's not identified as a wildlife carter, but in reality it is because we blocked off the other wildlife carters and built over their homes. Anybody that lives in that area can tell you. We see bobcats, we see coyotes. I mean, Ray talked about the main guy was with Ray when he saw that and we got raccoons and opossums. That's where they go because they can't go where they used to because there are houses there. I just want, you know, in your head, remember climate change. Remember the balance of nature. As we destroy their homes, we destroy them. We had a big influx of rabbits this year because their predators are gone. We're killing them and we're eventually gonna, you know, believe science, we're gonna kill ourselves. You know, we want to get off of fossil fuels, we want to reduce our energy input, doing that massive amounts of fossil fuels being used, massive amount of impervious services that will go into the wetlands. The wetlands are there to purify our water. The fact that maybe, I don't know what it's classified as, but wetlands are valuable no matter what class they are. The more we pave over them, the more polluted our water becomes, the more polluted our lake becomes. We're all connected so please keep that in mind as you make your subjective determinations where you are able. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're at 9.30. I move that we continue this hearing. And I move that we continue it to, I had a cheat sheet here. Tell him it'll be. The booth was full? Yeah, absolutely. January 15th was full. I'd like to say one thing. Yes, I'm sorry, yeah. I've made a motion. I was gonna get to this through a series of questions from Mr. Saff, but I don't want to take the time. It's late enough. The objection, I hadn't plowed all the way through the memo when I spoke last time. The objection I raised before is the weaker of the two. It's not bad, but it's the weaker of the two points raised by Mr. Saff. I suggest you look even. I suggest you look very carefully at that handout and definitely talk to a lawyer and come up with a legal argument that counters the points made to Mr. Saff's memo. Come up with it for us. Right now, I will vote against you on the grounds, almost the grounds set forth in Saff's memo. But I'm open to hearing a contrary argument on the points that he raises. And I hope you'll take the opportunity. All right, we're looking at dates January 29th or February 5th for continuance. I don't have a preference for whatever we do. We are probably going to do O'Brien Home Farm on the other one. Okay. So do you guys have a preference January 29th, February 5th? They're a week apart? 29th, yeah. 29th? Okay, I move that we continue. Move that we continue. MP 1801 and SD 1829. And I'm sorry, what did you say? MP 1801 to January 29th. Second. We move in second. We continue these to January 29th. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Thank you very much. January 29th. All right, thank you. Take care. Happy holidays. What a business. Bill. What a business. Really, I'm stunned and sad to hear that you leave it. Can't take the cash in. Who else could pull up with this? Jennifer had a good idea. Hopefully Matt will pull up with it. Official meeting closing then? Yes, official meeting closing. I'm putting stuff off. I'll be next. That's you, Frank. Frank stands alone. No, not me.