 Welcome everyone to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for July 6, 2021. My name is Don Filibert. I'm the chair of the board. And with me tonight are other board members. Mark Bear, Alyssa Eyring, Jim Langan. Stephanie Wyman, Dan Albrecht and our new member whom we welcome Frank Cokman. Welcome Frank. In addition from the city of Burlington, we have with us Marla keen development review planner and Delilah hall, our zoning administrator. So let's just jump right into the agenda. Actually, the, we had an agenda meeting earlier when we did a site visit. But the rest of the agenda items. Are listed. We have two projects to review tonight. And before we do that, I'd like to, first of all, Marla, are there any folks in person who need to have emergency evacuation reminders? There are not if there are people who show up during the meeting. I will let you know just so that we can pause for public comment from people here if necessary. Okay, good. Thank you. So a number of announcements. First of all, let me ask, are there any additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items that anyone would like to propose hearing none. For those of you in attendance and those on the phone and those watching online. Thank you for joining us. This meeting is being recorded. And if you would like to participate in the hearing, or be recognized as a participant for future reasons, please sign in on the chat board. It's called the chat board and indicate that your address, your contact information and your name, and if you plan to provide comments tonight. Also, we ask that if you're not a current applicant, we'd like you to turn your camera off please. You can turn it on if you need to speak and also please mute your microphone. You can minimize the background noise. Anyone on the phone who can sign in to the chat box can send an email. Pardon me to sign in to Marla keen her email is M keen at as borough.com. And we asked that you members of the public refrain from having conversations back and forth in the chat box. It can be very distracting for those of us on the board. And just as if we were in a meeting you wouldn't be talking in the back of the room. If you need to chat please do it elsewhere. Okay, next item is any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda. Hearing none. Just note that there was a request from Donna we've been in the chat box to make a comment on the old farm road past. I just wanted to clarify that we will not be discussing that item in person tonight that was just on the agenda for the field visit. That item has been continued to July 20 for discussion. So if you are unable to attend, feel free to send me an email with your comment and I will absolutely make sure it gets the board. Otherwise you're welcome to make your comment verbally at that time. Okay, Marla, do you have any, any other announcements or anything else you'd like to add. I would announce that the city hall is being relocated to 180 market street. We are quasi homeless at the moment. Basically we're back to a work from home posture. The city network website phone everything will be down next Wednesday and Thursday so if you go on our website you'll get a 404 error. All of our online repository will be down. We will be posting the packet in a different location and I will make that very clear on our website and I will email all of the board members on Tuesday. And then it will be back up on Friday so the packet will be launched day early and then you'll still have three days, like usual to read it after everything comes back up again. Great, this is exciting. Yeah, and then we'll be in person in the new space will be officially open July 2025 July 26 will be open to the public. Great. So our next meeting will continue to be virtual. Yes, because of the move. Thank you I appreciate your patience with this. Okay, our first project to review tonight is the preliminary and final plat application SD 2118 of Snyder Braverman Development Company LLC to subdivide an existing 11.9 acre lot into four lots of one acre lot ma 1.2 acres lot m5. And 9.4 acres lot L for the purpose of constructing a project on lots m4 m5 and m6, which will be reviewed under separate site and application. And this is at 311 Market Street. So, who is here for the applicant please. This is Ken Braverman from Snyder Braverman Development. I'm being joined by Tim McKenzie who represents South Burlington Realty. And Andy row from limo row and Dickinson is also on the line with us. He's our civil engineer. Thank you, Ken. And preliminary front final plat is when the two different steps in the board's review of an application. This applicant has chosen to combine those two and have them reviewed as one step. We have heard about this project before. But let me just ask, have you all been sworn in previously. Yeah, but this is a new application they need to be sworn in for. Oh, it's a new application. I thought we've already reviewed this. We reviewed it sketch very recently so it's a question. But there were no clearing in. All right, we didn't swear you in it. So, could I ask you please. And Andy to raise your right hand. You swear under penalty of law to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. So why don't you give us a little overview, a short overview of the project. I know we heard about it at sketch, but it would be helpful to have a, another reminder of what you're planning to do. Please. Can I just interrupt really quick. This is Stephanie. I'm recused from this item. So I'm going to log off. Thank you, Stephanie. I forgot to ask if there were any recuses. Are there any other recuses or potentially conflicts in interest? Anyone would like to disclose. Okay. Go ahead. Great. Good evening chair and board members. Thanks for taking your time on a beautiful summer night. I think Marla did a great job with the staff notes. So we should be able to move through this pretty quickly. As you guys recall. This is a four lot subdivision. Three of the lots will be developable lots, which are called M four and five and M six. And collectively they equal about 2.6 acres. And the fourth lot is referred to as a lot L. Which is a conservation lot, which is predominantly comprised of a tributary three wetland. And as you guys know, this is located in city center. It's within the T for transect of city center. So that's kind of a, the middle layer of kind of density within city center. And the property or the subdivision, as you could see is predominantly located. On the southwest corner of the intersection of garden and market streets. We're excited to discuss the subdivision with you guys tonight and answer any questions. As I was pointing out, I think Marla did a good comprehensive job of kind of consolidating some of the issues that she has brought to our attention, most of which as you'll see when we go through the staff notes, they're in agreement and concur. And I think we could kind of move through them relatively quickly. I don't know, chair, how you'd like to proceed from here, whether you want me to just go through the staff notes or if you'd like Marla to do that. Usually what we do is walk through them. And sometimes we can resolve them very quickly. You've already seen the staff reports. So sometimes you can just say, yeah, we're, we're, we're on board with this. I'm just trying to having trouble calling up my copy. It didn't translate well on my iPad. So if, if the Lila, if you can have it on the screen, that would be great. So the first, the first comment is just a, a comment from Marla about the alteration of the description from the worn description. And her comments as staff considers the change in that area does not require a rewarning, but recommends the Burke conform, confirm agreement. I certainly have no problem with that. Does anyone else on the board have an opinion about this? So we're good. Okay. All right. Comment number two. Could you scroll up a little please, Julyla? Oops. I still can't see it. Unfortunately, I don't have it in front of me. So number, I can't see number two on the screen. Okay. Thank you. Perfect. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate that there will be shared access easements for all involved lots prior to closing the hearing. Applicant. No problem. Yeah. I think we're all. Yeah. You know, ourselves as a developer. South Burlington realty as the land seller. As well as the city all recognize the need for there to be reciprocal easements for access. What we'd like to propose for. Items two, three and four, which are kind of somewhat each related. Is that. I think it's important to engage that as we're building at this type of density, there's going to be shared design elements, whether they're shared. Driveway entries or shared parking aisles or shared ramps into garages as we start moving through city center, there's going to be more and more shared design elements. And what we'd like to propose. Is that rather than physically describing everyone on the platform, it's important to make sure that we're not necessarily busy on the actual plat itself. That we actually make a note on the plat. That basically recognizes. That there are these reciprocal easements, particularly for access and. Andy was Andy and I talked about this earlier. And kind of at the last minute, we thought it would be useful to maybe develop some language. And we shared it with Marla. I think that's probably about an hour and a half ago, but we thought it would be useful to just kind of craft some language that. You know, it was basically address items to three and four. I could read out what you proposed and then tell you my initial reaction. So they had sent me is a condition that says, this is a proposed suggested condition. I think it's a great start. I think it's a great start. M4 M5 and M6 will be subject to proposed easements for shared access over the constructed parking lot aisles and drives. Connecting to both garden street and market street. My impression is that is probably fine, but I would love to. Have something in the decision say. That the city attorney shall approve. The language prior to reporting in my life. And so the city attorney will just look at it. And if it needs to be slightly tweaked and say something like. You know, I don't know. Shared vehicular access or instead of shared access or whatever, we make those minor changes. I think it makes sense to have the city attorney. Review the language. What, what do other board members think? Is that acceptable? Yeah, I think that's fine. Yeah. I didn't quite follow it when you, you know, you're talking about sort of generalized language about shared. What exactly what I'm getting at is this. Are we talking about shared parking? Or shared passageway to get to one's own parking or one's own lot. What is the intention? The intention is shared access. So to know that if we're developing say. Lot M five that. We're not the man locking lot M four. So we're all kind of mutually aligned to make sure that we don't kind of box ourselves in. And I think I, it was our understanding that that was the general intention is that. You know, that moving forward, we make sure that all future lots are developable. So we obviously want to make sure we're maintaining access. To each and every lot. I guess. And I do appreciate that. I'm a little concerned about the generality of the language. I think the recommendation for city attorney review was good. But one of the explicit purposes of attorney of the city attorney review should be to make sure that the actual right to park. Remains discreet and restricted to the. To the parcel. That's associated with the particular parking. And I think if that's not the intent, either other developer or the board, we ought to thrash that out now. Okay. Thank you, Frank. Ford buddy. This was out there on the realty. I just also add. That as the landowner, we most definitely are interested in protecting. You're breaking up a little Tim. It's hard to hear you. I'm sorry. I'll see if I can get a better internet connection. Okay. Let me turn off my video. And now, now it seems to be better. Okay. I just wanted to say that as the landowner, we also want to make sure that we protect the value of future lots. So we would want to make sure that access is not restricted in any way. That's, that's not my point. So. To limit parking on M five to. Owners and I don't know what's going to go on there, but. Yeah, but. But owners and and visitors to M five. So that parking from them four doesn't bleed over. And I'm not saying that's the only possible way to do things. I'm just saying, we need to be really clear. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Am I being clear with you, Tim? Yeah, Frank. I was speaking to the broader point of Marla's point of making sure all lots remain developable. I think the parking issue is more relative to the development. And that's something that can. And Andy can speak. Yeah, I'd be happy to speak to that a little bit. But. You know, it's, it's, it's our understanding that the city center form based code. District has no minimum parking requirements. So the goal is to minimize. Surface parking. And to, you know, that the code really only looks at maximum spaces, not minimum spaces. So you guys want to make sure that we don't build too much parking. And that's really the main limiter. Which we think we have a balanced kind of a blend of parking for what we've proposed. That both, you know, meets kind of density as well as market requirements. You know, you know, do, do we want to come up with a plan that says, you know, this spot is only available to a person living in this building. That's not our intention at this point. So now we're getting to the heart of the matter, which is that somebody from them for can park on M5. We don't know. I mean, this is a zoning. This is kind of a zoning. Deliberation. I see that as a little bit of a property management exercise. Our goal is to provide an adequate amount of parking. While meeting the zoning. Which I understand has. No minimum parking. So, you know, these buildings will also have parking. Under the building footprints. Underground parking. And, you know, those spaces will likely also. You know, be available to residents and, you know, we're not, we're not unpacking. I don't think who's going to be able to park under the buildings. I don't see the, the, the, the. Apparently hard line between, you know, property management issue. And zoning conditions that you do. At least in this regard. It's common for us to require. Property owner A to grant an easement over property owner B. And it is given the new regime. And you, you, you folks have been working a little longer than I have. And we all know that it happened for my protest. Yeah. Are. Is it, is it free for all parking or not? And that is a proper concern of ours. Independent of whether there's a minimum parking requirement. I think I'd like to. Kind of reframe it as kind of high density. Development, which may embrace a shared parking strategy. Rather than a free for all. I would hope that it's not a free for all. I would hope that we're. Able to develop an adequate amount of parking to meet the needs of the residents. As well as their guests. And we're going to manage it through a combination of. Parking under the building footprint surface parking. You know, and there's also a public parking on the street. That will be available to the general public at certain times. So it's, it's, it's kind of a blended approach. I understand your point. I don't think I have a particular answer like every spot is assigned to a unit. Or a building. I think what we're trying to do as it relates to a subdivision. Is to create a lot and a lot plan. And we're trying to make sure that. We're trying to make sure that. We're trying to make sure that. Project that not only meets code, but is financeable and meets the market. Demand other than, you know, the concept of having, you know, no parking. Well, we don't really like that either. So we're, we're, you know, we're not. Strictly following the zoning. We're also applying what we think is going to, you know, work from a marketability standpoint. So we can see what's happening even if there's no parking. We don't want to allow that kind of granted. You can hear what you're saying and, you know, G I, you know, the concept of a free for all doesn't sound particularly appealing to us as well. So then how will you, how will you. You may not like the terminology. Let's call it what, we, whatever we want. Do you do you or do you not want to prevent people in M four from parking on lot M. Five. in M1 and 2 will likely be granted certain parking rights and given stickers and told general locations where they're allowed to park. And on the property management side, there'll be some enforcement mechanisms and it'll be a tiered approach because there's also gonna be parking under the building footprints. And not everyone, that's gonna be limited. So it's gonna be kind of a tiered approach. So yeah, generally speaking, if you live in M5, you're gonna be given an area in which you're able to park. Which may or may not be on M5. I don't, at this point, I think we could say it's gonna be on M5, but I don't think we would wanna limit ourselves to only people who live in M5 being able to park on M5. Well, our different owners gonna own the distinct lots, is there a potential for that? Is there a... That's possible. I mean, that's not our plan, but it's possible. Well, don't you think if that's the case that you want to either, you may not wanna limit yourself, but at what point are you gonna limit yourself? In other words, either it's gonna be, you can cross property lines to park or you can't park. And when exactly in this process will that be determined? I think just for clarifications, we're fully supportive of easements providing access through the properties that are reciprocal. So if you live in M4, you're gonna be able to drive through M5 or M3 to get to and from the property. I get that, that's not what I'm talking about. Does anybody else, I mean, I'm dragging this on. I think it's an issue whether you can park on cross park on the property and if you can, that's a legitimate concern of ours. And if you cannot, that is also a legitimate concern of ours. And I think you guys have been, frankly, talking around the point. Well, what does the zoning require? I guess that's what, for us, we like following the code and if there's a recipe, we're inclined to go follow it. And we think we've done that. I think if there's something that we're proposing that's not allowable under the zoning, we're certainly happy to work through that with you guys. Frank, I have a question for you. Are you concerned about cross lot parking? Like you live in M4, but you're parking M5 or are you concerned that other people in the city might park here? People who are coming to city hall or going to the park or whatever? Well, I suppose both, but mostly I was focusing on cross lot parking. Okay. In other words, nevermind city minimum zoning. I mean, when you were confusing a bunch of issues here to put it simply, either you're not gonna want it in which case it's trespassing, right? And landowners are gonna be fighting with each other or it's gonna be part of the deal that everybody gets to park everywhere. And if that's so, that should be known for the sake of coherence. I don't, I'm not sure why I'm having a struggle getting the point across, but maybe there's something I'm not saying. Marla, help me out here if you can. Yeah, I think one thing that is commonly overlooked that Frank is well aware of is that the process of subdividing land, whether for ownership or lease is subject to subdivision review. So that means in the most strict interpretation, easements are a subdivision. And I think what Ken is saying is that at this time, the exact ownership structure and plan for the parking spaces, presumably because the interior layout of the buildings is not yet determined, is unknown. They don't know if they are going to want to use, have the people on law M5 be able to park only on law M5 because law M4 needs all of the parking on law M4 or maybe there's fewer units in M5 and there's more in M4 and they're going to want to share some of it. So what Ken is saying, I think is that some of those details are not yet hammered out. And what Frank is honing in on is the fact that easements are subject to the subdivision process. The way we have, so that's the point kind of framework. The way we have done this in the past is when it's simply a subdivision for the purpose of easement, we have interpreted our land development regulations to allow that as a boundary line adjustment and that is an administrative approval. So if we are finding that we're an impasse, Frank's saying it has to be a subdivision and Ken's saying we don't know if it's going to be a subdivision or not, there is a mechanism for us to address that later when there's enough information known. But I don't know if Frank that addresses if you would be satisfied waiting until that time or if you would rather know that now. Well, honestly, I'm not certain. It strikes me as an issue that has to be resolved at some point and it does seem appropriate to resolve it in the zoning process and the permit process. But let me get used to the new regime. I don't think I need to take more time on it now and we can perhaps talk about it in the deliberator stage. Thank you, Frank. Any other board members have any comments or questions? Okay. Let's go back to the staff report. So that discussion really covered two, three and four, I believe. So four has sort of a second and a half and maybe it should have been two comments. Okay. So four is about lot M six. M six is the smaller lot that doesn't have any parking on it, which is fine. There's no requirement to have parking in the rear lot. And they're talking about having shared access, which is addresses the access for delivery vehicles and dumpster pickup. What in the second half of four is, how will lot M six be provided with adequate parking, you know, either through shared parking or an agreement with a nearby property, either M four or M five or across the street or somewhere. Happy to speak to that. If you could pull up the lot plan, I think it would be helpful to look at that. It's interesting because we thought of M, part of this exercise is demonstrating that each lot is developable under the zoning. And we looked at the dimensions of lot M six and they're like really quite advantageous for a residential building. I believe like the frontage is like 94 feet, which would essentially at a 70% frontage buildout would give us like a 66 foot wide building, which is a great residential floor plate. So we could develop multiple different, multiple kinds of housing on that lot, whether it's stacked townhouses or townhouses or a nine unit building or a 12 unit building or a four unit building. There's so many different things we could do with that lot. And I think we're, you know, there's another comment deeper in the staff comments. I'll be jumping around a little bit, but it was always our intention for that lot to really have frontage both along market and along the city open space park. So it was never our intention for us to turn our back on the park. It was actually the opposite. It was for that to really kind of be the front of the building and to kind of be very visible, you know, as you're heading in that direction along market street. To answer your question on parking, we think that the parking will largely be provided on the lot itself. And since there's no minimum parking requirement, we're perfectly comfortable with that. You know, it really gets down to, you know, we look at that little lot. And so long as you're not trying to put 40 units housing in there, we think it's a great residential development lot that's perfectly developable under the code. Is the placeholder building you've shown representative of one of the types of floor plates that you... Theoretically could be, you know, three townhouses as it's shown or it could be six back to back townhouses. It, you know, it's a footprint and a floor plate that is super flexible and allows you to do a lot of different things. We've never really intended to put a big high density building on that site. And we look at it as, you know, the T4, you know, really envisions a mix of building types and density. And we saw that as kind of an opportunity to have maybe a bit of a lower density building. Okay. Any other comments or questions from the board? So does the board feel that Ken has provided sufficient testimony that there will be sufficient parking for M6 so that it's a developable functional lot in terms of parking. Excuse me. And again, I'm sorry folks to be tedious. I'm getting, trying to get grounded in a new reality. Does it matter? And I'm not trying to be facetious. Does it matter whether we think the parking is adequate at all? You know, is that any of our business anymore? So one of the subdivision standards specifically refers to, and it's on the bottom of page two, the project incorporates access, circulation and traffic management strategies sufficient to prevent unreasonable congestion in making, oh, I'm sorry, that's the wrong one. Where did I come up with the parking? There's a condition that says adequate parking. So all you have to rely on, Frank, is the board's adequacy of parking. And so adequacy is a fairly loose standard. And if they can provide adequate parking, then they've met their minimum threshold. And if we're gonna have three units and we're gonna have three parking spaces, I would argue that they've met it. Well, do we have any standard that is open to us for determining what adequate parking is and now that there are no minimum parking standards? I mean, what principle way do we have to approach the issue of adequate parking in any case whatsoever? It's the testimony of the applicant. And I agree with you that it is a thin enforcement mechanism. So we as a body thought, you know, one parking unit was adequate for three units, that would be fine, right? There's nothing in, you know, it's just, well, my point is, all right, now I am polemicizing. I hear you more. We're all gonna decide whether it's adequate and we're gonna decide it without any objective standard. So long as we're clear about that, I guess we can proceed. Isn't the standard enumerated in the form-based code, Article 8, that the standard is a minimum of zero and a maximum of two? So that's the site plan standard. Yeah, so that's the site plan standard. There's a subdivision standard, which is the type of application we're reviewing right now, which is limited to adequacy of parking. So when I review it administratively as a site plan, I will be checking against you are within those exact limits. But in this case, we don't have separate zoning and subdivision standards. We have land development regulations. So is an Article 8 available as a standard in this case is to judge adequacy of parking? That's an interesting question. Dan, what's your opinion on that? I guess I just offer that to the board, not to dwell on it, but to me, it seems like there is a standard. The standard is a minimum of zero, a maximum of two, and with it being incorporated into the land development regulations, it's a standard that's available to the board to consider. So are you saying that if someone's building a three unit, a three unit, three residential unit building, the maximum parking they can have is two? Sorry, two spaces per dwelling unit. And I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm just saying that is the standard that's established by Article 8. The minimum is zero parking spaces per dwelling unit with a maximum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Dan, have you come across this question before? If it's not a specific standard that's applicable to the type of application, is it still available to the board? Sorry, Evan. Okay. Well, that's a great question. So how shall we proceed? Well, does the board feel like they have, I hate to put words into anyone's mouth, but I feel like this is somewhat of a exploration of the board's authority and not necessarily relevant to the application at hand. No one has waved their arms wildly and said I object to what they're proposing. This is more a philosophical discussion of how we will approach this in a general way. So if everyone feels like we have enough testimony, we can move on and put a pin in this as something that we need to think about more. So we're prepared for the next project. So Marla, am I correct in thinking that when the applicant wants to or someone wants to purchase and build on either of these lots, they have to come back to us anyways, don't they? It's in the form-based code, so we'll be coming back to me. Okay. All right. Okay. Well, are we... I will take your guidance under advisement when it comes to me. Okay. I guess I have one more annoying question along the same lines. How do we, if we're approving a subdivision for adequacy of parking, how do we do that without knowing what's gonna be built on the lots that they're being subject to? Not exactly for what? Okay. The way we have done that in the past is show us a concept that works. And if you diverge from that concept, we at least know that there is a concept that works. So for example, on lot six, this is Ken Braverman. If we were to say at a minimum, there'll be one parking space per unit provided on site for M6, would that satisfy this concern? Well, is that what you're saying? And then we can deliberate on it. Honestly, we haven't really designed the building. You know, we know residential development and you know, this is subdivision. So I know at a minimum, we wouldn't really develop something at a lower parking ratio than that. So I think we would feel perfectly comfortable agreeing to that, knowing that anything less than that wouldn't be marketable and we wouldn't develop it. So looking to not provide adequate parking, I think we're mutually aligned to make sure that we're providing adequate parking. I just think that when we're building at this type of density, it requires a little more unpacking it like we are now is probably useful exercise. And I think it's probably different than some of the other projects that the board often reviews just given its density. But I think our goal is to provide adequate parking to make sure that we have marketable buildings. That sounds like enough of a hypothetical to me. Frank, can you live with that? I'll think about it some more. I'm dragging it out too long. What I'm satisfied with is that the language of the ordinance is inadequate for the circumstance. That's what I've demonstrated to myself. Okay, all right. Okay, let's move on to comment number five, which is about the proposed alignment of the easement matches the constructed location of the shared use path at the north side of city center park property. Applicant, how do you respond to that? I think we're in concurrence that point A needs to meet point B and we selected the location that we did in that it was the area that we received permits from the Army Corps of Engineers and from the Agency of Natural Resources in Vermont to have wetland impacts. So the points that we proposed directly correlate to the Army Corps and ANR permits. And that's how we selected those points. And I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Andy, that within those easements there is some language that gives flexibility for, you know, what is it, Andy, like 10 or 20 feet in either direction for making connections. The language of the proposed easement states that the final location of the permanent easement should be centered upon the path location as designed and constructed by the grantee. And upon further mutual agreement of the grantor and grantee, the location of the easement may be adjusted in response to topographic features and permitting requirements. So I think there's flexibility in the easement language to adjust it based upon the final design. However, I would note that as Ken said, the location of that proposed easement aligns with the proposed, as far as we know, looking at the record drawings, the constructed location of the path within the city stormwater park. You know, I will note that the path through their curves, it's not like there's a stub that was constructed in order for this to line up with exactly. But certainly, as Ken said, the intent is to have point A line up with point B. Hey, Andy, I appreciate everything you said and I think it makes perfect sense to me. I think that my comment was slightly unclear, but I appreciate, again, I think what you said is also useful. Our question was about, is this lining up down at the bottom of the page? Do you see the little yellow highlight? Is that lining up with the constructed path? If it was in the design location, it would be, but again, there's also the flexibility to adjust that easement to match either what was constructed or what the city might like to modify it to be when it is constructed. Okay. I'm satisfied with that board. I understand that comment was confusing. So just for your own understanding, that makes sense to me. Thank you, Marla. Okay, next comment. And this is a comment asking the applicant on the, now let me put my glasses on so I can read it. The board require the applicant to modify their plat to include these easements. I assume you're prepared to do that, applicant. Yes, that's no problem. And I'll let Tim McKenzie speak to that if he wants to comment on that. He's on board. I don't know. He was having trouble with his cell service, but yes, that's not a problem. Okay. Tim, do you have anything to add to that? Okay. I guess not. Number seven. You can just go back to that one just for a second. Number six, I don't want to speak for Tim, but in his absence, I will say that we took the city's concept plan for the path connection to say in Remo Drive, overlaid it on our plan. And it's our understanding that what would be required is two fairly short segments in order to make the path connection between Lot L and the healthy living parking lot. And then much of that path runs on someone else's property other than the South Burlington City Center LLC's property with the exception of another small easement that's at the Southwestern portion of the property as you approach saying Remo Drive. So Tim had no problem conveying those two small easement pieces in addition to what you were talking about. Yeah, that's exactly correct description of what we're looking at. Delilah, if you go to page 11, there's an inset in the bottom right corner. There's just a couple of little bumpouts into the property. Yeah, that is correct. I am here. So the bottom right of the page. So it's these little bumpouts. I think it's this guy. And this guy. Is that right, Andy? The northerly section that you highlighted, I think we've already got that easement shown on the plan. It would be a little dog leg to head into the healthy living parking lot that would need to be adjusted, need to be added. That guy. Okay. All right. Number seven also is a request that the applicant include on the plat easements for the features above. I assume that's no problem. No, I can't accept that. We are not willing to accept the liability of a tree house that would be used by the public on our property. And I know the easement agreement would indemnify us, but we would still, you know, there's a potential who knows what kids would be doing up there and we couldn't accept a park amenity. This is not a connection. This is a park amenity. We could not accept that on our property. We do not want the liability. Okay. Where do we go from here then, Marla? Well, I guess I have more questions because in their application and at Sketch, they said their intention is to build, to provide the easements to accommodate exhibit B of the city council resolution. Exhibit B is page 12 packet and page 12 of the packet shows path to a tree house. Marla, my memory is that the discussion was around what is a connection and what is a park amenity. And we agreed to provide park connections. There are actually four easements at different points within a thousand linear feet. So we're willing to provide all of the connections. We're not willing to provide a tree fort or a tree house. That's just, that's too much liability. We're not willing to accept that. We're more than happy to give the city the land if they want to own the land, but we will not accept the liability of a tree house. And I don't believe there's anything in the zoning regulations that would require that. So would you subdivide as part of this application, a wedge that matches the shape of that easement and that path and tree house? Is that what you're proposing? No, I'm not proposing anything. I'm proposing that. I hate to have this conversation go back to where we were the previous two meetings, but the city is welcome to take the entirety of the wetlands quarter, which was proposed to me a number of years ago. And the whole predicate for the design of the park was based upon the city owning that land. So we can solve the connection issue with the easements, but not the park amenity issue. So where does that leave us, Marla? Well, I mean, the board was at sketch, obviously, and you all had the conversation about what, you'll recall Tim saying, we are matching our layout to exhibit B and we are unwilling to do anything more than that. So these staff comments are based on what is shown in exhibit B. It's up to the board to determine whether they are going to require South Brilinkan City Center, LLC to do what they said they were going to do at sketch and provide all of the lands that are in exhibit B. Marla, I'm gonna object to the characterization of that. As I said, we agreed to provide connections through easements, not amenities. Well, we're not asking you to build anything. I know, but you're asking for an easement for a treehouse that could present liability if some high school kids were up there partying, horsing around, someone falls out and gets hurt. Lawyers are gonna sue everyone that's connected to it. So, board, what do you guys think? I'd like to come up a couple weeks ago. Wait, wait, is that you, Mark? Yeah. How come this didn't come up a couple weeks ago when we were discussing the fact that initially, we were asking staff pushed a little on additional design. We countered and sort of supported the applicants saying, look, they've done what they've been asked to provide a conceptual design. I think that that's adequate if we build it where it's shown. And there was never any discussion of certain parts of this plan being unaccepted. So, to get to this point, I'm not sure how we got to this point. We're settling now this is an unacceptable piece. Mark, that's not my memory. My memory is we had quite an in detailed conversation regarding what is the connection and what is the park. And we had agreed to providing the connections through easements but not providing an easement for a tree house. I mean, or a tree for whatever the terminology is, a tree house that the issue surrounded the zoning that requires connections to adjoining properties. Yeah, but Tim, how does a tree house an accessible tree house, which is similar to, I'm sure it's going to be similar to one that's done at Oakledge Park. How is building something like that and worrying about the liability different than the walkway across water where someone can fall over there and drown? I agree with you. I wanted the city, I would have never agreed to the park design, had the discussion from the beginning not been about the city. I was approached and asked if we would donate the land to the city, I agreed. And therefore they went ahead with the park design. Had I known that we were going to be here, I would have not agreed to it. Yeah, okay, I got it. In reference to the Oakledge Park, I believe that's owned by the city. So, all right, maybe I missed some points over the time, but so Marla, the intention is the city is planning on building these amenities, but South Burlington Realty will still own the land and just provide easement for access for all city residents. That's correct. Okay, what has there been discussion of taking ownership of the land at any point in time in the future or is it to remain South Burlington Realty land with the city maintaining it and providing the infrastructure? That is a question which I can try to answer, but the true answer is that there is a city council and city manager decision. My understanding is that there have been, and so whether the city takes ownership of this land and whether South Burlington Realty LLC or South Burlington City Center LLC deeds it to us as a donation or being compensated for it. I understand those have been conversations and my understanding is that the city's most recent position and this has been a fairly firm position for some time is that we will not accept ownership of those lands. But again, this is mostly a political conversation and I'm giving it to you like third or fourth hand. Yep, I got it. Okay. Okay. Somebody else started to ask a question. Was that you, Dan? Yeah, I mean, I guess for one to fourth, I mean, I've only been on the board a few months but this is the first I've kind of heard about the treehouse issue. So I think from a policy standpoint, I'm sure, I know this is not really for the DRB to decide from a policy standpoint, certainly would be a lot cleaner. Medities, attractions, things like that are on city-owned land. Yeah. I mean, I would have to say that if I on that land, I would be myself would be hesitant to have a treehouse on it and accept that liability so I can understand the concern. So where do we go from here then? Mark, did you, were you gonna add something? Oh, nothing just that I think that that, that is a political discussion, you're totally right. And we as a board don't can't really wade into that water. I think we just need to make our position clear on what we sort of, how we can go forward. And I think at least the way I look at it is, there is sort of like this conflict of, I guess conflict of interest or conflict that's happening between soft feelings and reality wanting the city to take the land and provide or providing just the easements and access across the land, but also accepting the park design as part of it with access and part of the park design has the treehouse in it. So it's kind of like, I don't wanna say we're stuck between a rock and a hard place, but I think we as a board are sort of would say we're tasked with approving and requiring the easements to approve the plan as presented. I think that's okay, go on. Yes, please Frank. Yeah, I don't, given that the city is unwilling to assume the responsibility for the amenity that it wants, I don't see how it can be imposed. I guess I'm with Tim. My gut sense is that if we impose this as a condition, it's illegal. That's my bottom line, I think on this. I'm wondering if Jim Langen has a view. I always like a little help from my... A fellow lawyer. I'm sorry? Are you there, Jim? Yeah, Frank, I'm unclear as to your question. I think imposing on the developer the obligation to provide a treehouse as a condition of developing this land or subdividing this land is probably beyond the power of the board, legally. Well, yeah, and it's atypical. Yeah, I mean, I think unless it's... Yeah, I mean, I'd have to look at the... I mean, as far as from a zoning and sort of a condition to a sort of zoning approval by the DRV, I would agree with you, Frank. So we're not just... Just to be clear, we're not talking about a treehouse. We're talking about an easement for the city to build their own treehouse. No, I got that. And I don't think there's a material difference from the standpoint for the reasons that Tim raises. If the city wants to build a treehouse, then it should be willing to accept the session of the land, which I gather it is not. In other words, I think there's a general principle that any condition imposed by us has to be, quote, reasonable. And after listening for a while, at least my conclusion is that this one is unreasonable. I guess... And then, well, more than that, I think a court would hold that it's unreasonable. My only follow-up question, and I'm okay with that, is would the answer be different if they were proposing to subdivide out a parcel that was small in the shape of the easement for the treehouse? I'm swaggering. I can't say whether the city, because I don't work on the political side of things, but it's possible that city council would accept a smaller piece of land that is the size and shape of the treehouse easement. And that's great, but that doesn't involve us. He can always say, and I don't think we can impose, unless he wants to offer it to the city, and the city says yes, but I don't think we can impose it. What I'm boring in on is this, that under general principles of the limits of our authority, we cannot impose unreasonable conditions. If we don't have the express authority in the ordinance to make somebody give us an easement for a treehouse, and I haven't been through it carefully, but I doubt that that's in there, then just inventing that condition strikes me as the kind of thing that a court would hold to be unreasonable, and therefore outside the limit of our authority. How do we move this forward, Marla, given this situation? I mean, it's, we can't resolve it. If everyone feels like they have the answer that they're happy with, we can deliberate on it and move forward. We don't have to tell the applicant our final answer, because it's either there's an easement or there's not an easement. It's a binary decision, right? So we can move forward and deliberate. Yeah, I think that we just deliberate and we'll come up with a decision as a board, and then the applicant can then review our decision. Okay, all right, good. Okay, and one other, number eight, sidewalk access to require entrances on the east side of the building. Staff considers it will be difficult to achieve a higher front, frontage build out on Market Street and recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate that frontage build out can be met while providing access to required entrances prior to closing the hearing. Applicant, what are your thoughts about this? I think I touched on this earlier. That's helpful to pull that up. If you look at the width of that lot, I believe it's 94 feet or just over 94 feet with a 70 foot frontage build out requirement that would make a 66 foot building in terms of its width. Basically that is right in the sweet spot for a residential floor plate. So we feel perfectly comfortable with that dimension. It's always been our intention to not turn our back on the park. And so we concur that providing access and sidewalks to that side of the building and for that to be a regulated facade, along with this facade of Market Street is absolutely no problem. Okay, thank you. I have a question, may I? You certainly may. I'm just curious. You don't wanna turn your back on the park. So what's the facade on Market Street gonna look like and what are the other facades gonna look like? I mean, is it all gonna be? It'll meet the form-based code. So it regulates materials, it regulates building breaks. Basically it's a formula that we follow that tells us how often we need to change the plane of the building, how often we need to change materials, what materials are precluded from us to use. So it becomes somewhat formulaic. And we're perfectly comfortable with the formula. Okay, thank you. That. Any other questions for the applicant, board members? Okay, I think we are at a point where we would entertain a motion to close the hearing. Oh, nope, nope. I'm gonna ask for public comment. I always forget that. Let's ask for some public comment. And did you say something, Mark? No, I was just gonna say, do we have enough information? Is the narrative language that we're looking to add to the plot plans for the easements sufficient, Marla? Yeah, it's typical that they provide draft language and the condition will say subject to review and approval by the city attorney. Okay. Okay, good. Is there anyone from the public who would like to make comments? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the hearing. So we'll make it. Oh, okay. Thank you, Frank. Frank, would anyone like to second that? I'll second it. Okay, Mark, thanks. Any comments or discussion? All in favor of closing the hearing for preliminary and final plat for SD 2118, say aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Any opposed? Okay, the hearing is closed. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Board. Have a good evening. You too. Hi, Andy. See you, Tim. Thank you. Thank you. Next up on the agenda of preliminary plat application, SD 2117 of Brendan Connolly to amend a previously approved planned unit development of three lots by subdividing an existing eight acre lot developed with a single family home into three lots of 0.5 acres, lot four, 0.5 acres, lot five, and nine acres, lot one for the purpose of developing a single family home on each of lots four, five, four and five at one Johnson way. First of all, Board, are there any recusals or disclosures to announce? Is Stephanie... Yeah, I was gonna send a message to Stephanie. See if she can hear me. Thanks. Who is here for the applicant? I just have a quick question, Dawn. Mark, go ahead. The agenda warning says preliminary, but the application says preliminary and final. Is it preliminary or preliminary and final? It's just preliminary. I apologize. It's just that one instance where it says preliminary and final. Yeah, I just wanna clarify that in terms of the review. Okay, thanks, Mark, for the clarification. Who is here for the applicant, please? Ryan Currier, O'Leary Burke, civil associates. Hi, good evening, and this is Brendan Connolly, the owner. And just one other correction there on what you just read there from the agenda. The final will be seven acres with the two half acre lots for a total of eight acres. So just that one minor correction. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Have you both been sworn in? No, not during, did we do sketch? We did sketch, so you haven't been sworn in. So would you both please raise your right hand and do you swear to tell the whole truth? Nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. I do. Thank you. Why don't you give us another overview of your proposal? We heard it at sketch not too long ago, but just give us a little, a little brief introduction to what you're wanting to do. Yep. Thank you, Don. Yeah, like you said, we had a pretty quick turnaround from sketch into preliminary. We made a stop at the city council and got approved through interim zoning. So the project's located on the southern corner of Sadie Lane in Dorset Street in the southeast quadrant in the village residential district. The lot being subdivided, the parent parcels approximately eight acres and we're subdividing two new lots with one remaining lot for a total of three. Lot four is about half acre. Lot five is about a half acre as well. Both of them are accessed off a shared drive on Sadie Lane. The reason that there are lot four and lot five is the previous landowner subdivided off the two lots you see north of the existing house along Dorset Street just a few years ago. So the proposal is municipal utilities. There's a pretty extensive wetland on the property. The buffer is proposed to be demarcated with a split rail fence and I'm sure we'll get into that as we go to the staff comments. So if you want to jump into those Don or if you have any questions I'll be right up to bat. Thank you. First of all, out of the starting gate any questions from the board? Okay, let's jump through the comments. Comment number one, some misunderstanding about front and side lot lines. It clarifies, so I just lost my clarification of what front and back sides are. The board should require the applicant to modify the building envelope to meet the required setbacks or the applicant should request a waiver. What is your pleasure applicant? We'll correct the setbacks to conform to the zoning standards. We got to mix up as one of the lots doesn't have frontage. There's a mistake between the side and the front yard setback, but we can definitely make those changes at final. No problem. Thank you. And a second comment, applicant has not provided height measured from average pre-construction grade. We would like to see or we need to see the grad the heights at final plat. Is that acceptable to you? Yes it is. Okay, thank you. Board, any questions moving on? At sketch the board directed the applicant to provide a written management plan for the resource area of this stage of review. The applicant has not provided any such plan since the wetland and wetland buffers are proposed to be part of private yard space. Staff recommends the board require such a management plan prior to closing the preliminary plat hearing. A management plan should include physical as well as operational restrictions to wetland encroachment. So I would say we are showing a split rail fence that is around the buffer limit. So that's our physical demarcation of the boundary. We don't have a specific plan that's strictly for the vegetative management. I'm sure you folks have seen them in the past. Typically there's a bunch of hatching and how the lawns are gonna be maintained, what's allowed within the buffer, those sort of items. It's a pretty simple plan. I don't feel that it would require another meeting at preliminary just to strictly go through that plan. It's something we can easily provide at final. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them, but it's a fairly simple plan to put together that we'll provide at final if you allow us to. A board members, is that acceptable to you? It sounds okay to me. No, it's not, hang on a minute. Let me say it with my face shown. It's not acceptable to me. If the regulation says we need it to get out of preliminary, then we need it to get out of preliminary. And on principle, I would require. That would be my question. If it's something that Marla needs to review as a check on the preliminary, or would the split rail spend with a statement that it's gonna be your typical management plan that we've seen dozens of times, if that's acceptable. If you need to actually physically see it to review it, I'm frank, if it's something where the split rail and that it's gonna be your pretty prototypical wetland buffer management plan, and that's acceptable to find putting it out to final. Yep, so the standard is not specific as to when. The reason the staff comment says do it at this stage is because that's what the board asked for a sketch. But if the board is okay with deferring it, staff's okay with deferring it too. If it's not in a rag, I don't care. Yeah, I'm okay with deferring it. Okay. My question. Okay, all right. So you're good with that, Frank. If it's not in a rag and I don't know, that's what you're telling me, right, Marla? Yep. Okay, good. All right. I have a quick question. So what's the offset that you plan to use for the split rail fence from the edge of the wetland buffer? Probably a foot or two. We liked, we probably won't follow the buffer where it takes every single jig and jog. Typically when we do these, we try and highlight the furthest extents and connect the dots. I mean, the guy putting in the split rail fence doesn't like it if we stake out a hundred foot section with 10 foot stationing. So we tend to try and do a best fit line using the high points of the... And is there any concern with mowing behind the split rail fence so there's no overgrowth encouragement? No, I think once it's demarcated with the fence permanently and we have a vegetative management plan that restricts it, the landowners should know when they're purchasing the property that whatever is within the wetland buffer is off limits. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thanks, Stephanie. Okay, number four, recommends the board direct the applicant to provide residential fire suppression systems for both houses in lieu of designing the driveway to support a fire apparatus. Oh, for this? Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Okay, so my response for this one is constructing the driveway to a standard that would support a fire truck is fairly simple. It's not a terribly long driveway. Same with the width, that's not a big deal either. It's not like he's asking for a hammerhead turnaround or anything crazy like that. So we feel that we can definitely meet the fire chief's expectations to allow a fire truck in there. There's a hydrant right on the corner of Sadie Lane where it's making that sweeping turn. There is a policy the fire department has if you're within 150 feet, I got to get clarification whether it's the right-of-way or the roadway. I think on the plan we're showing from the right-of-way but if it is in fact the roadway we'll have to amend our plan. But there's a specific policy that if you're within 150 feet of the road you are not required to put in a sprinkler system. So we would like the board to enforce the existing policy that's been the case for a long time as far as I'm aware of. Brian, what is the width? Because Terry in his infinite time didn't have time to send me, tell me exactly what that width is. What if he told you that the width of the driveway would have to be? He didn't mention what the width would have to be but I made a fire truck, you know, would drive on a typical roadway with a 10 foot lane or something. I mean, we would have no problem being 14, 15 feet or something like that. Yeah, so when he talks to me normally he says 20 minimum. And that's why the comment was don't put in a 20 foot driveway, that's ridiculous. Yeah, yeah, sprinkler systems are expensive too. So I'm more than happy to talk with Terry and... Yeah, so a residential forestry system is different than a commercial and it's only gonna be a couple of grand compared to, you know, that much additional pavement. If you're showing a 12 foot wide driveway, widening it to 20 is a significant additional and pervious significant additional thickness. But if Terry is okay with a 12 and you know, extra six inches of gravel then that sounds fine. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm happy to condition anything that we want on the part of part. So we'll see you back at Final Platt with your resolution of this. Yep, yeah, I'll talk directly to Terry and we'll figure something out. Okay, any other input from board members? Okay, number five. This is about the wetlands. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to fully remove their wetland and wetland buff what your point was, please. Yeah, I apologize. So let me get to it. The thought here was the way the lots are set up, the wetlands are part of the lots, but they don't have to be. The wetlands can be on lot one and then the wetland isn't the responsibility of lots four and five. It's just the responsibility of lot one. So could the lots be reconfigured to not contain any wetland at all? Thank you. And could they? So the, yeah, there's a little bit of history around this. So the rear of the lots originally, we had them going all the way back to the eastern extent of the property. Essentially they were acre and a half ish size lots. So we knew we had to go through interim zoning and the draft planning commission regulations at the time when we were applying for sketch had a section in there about subdividing within a wetland. Didn't say anything about the buffer, just said no subdividing within the wetland. So in the spirit of interim zoning, we truncated the lots and we lost about an acre per lot in order to try and meet those draft regulations. So we feel we've done quite a bit more than what would be expected under these regulations. Obviously the two lots on Dorset Street were subdivided only a few years ago. The rear of those properties are all the way back through the wetland, the lots to the north of us on city lane are all the way back through the wetland. So we would like to keep it as is half acre lot each. Sounds pretty good to us. So another piece I haven't touched on yet is I got in touch with the state wetlands program regarding the project. And they are fully supportive of the plan you have in front of you today with the subdivision where it is with the split rail fence. And they've essentially signed off on the project and have stated that the wetlands are adequately protected given this layout. So I think, given where we started the current regulations and the wetlands program signing off on a layout, we would like to keep it the way it is. So I'm confused. You referenced the draft regulations but the existing regulations are the regulations your proposal must meet? Correct. When we consider going through interim zoning, some of the pitches we make to city council are as we're trying to meet the current regulations that are in draft form. Obviously, it's a development proposal that's going through under interim zoning. So we try and meet the most current regulations that are being worked on by the planning commission when we go in front of the city council. So at the time, six months ago, one of the regulations that was being worked on was no subdivisions within wetlands, specifically wetlands, not buffers. So that's why they look the way they do right now. But yes, we're being reviewed under the current regulations because we gained interim zoning approval a few months ago. Any questions from board members? And Marla, do you have anything to add to this? No. Okay. Alrighty, moving right along. Six, sketch the board directed the applicant to orient the house. Oh, this is about the orientation of the homes. While it appears the proposed site configuration can accommodate such a layout, the applicant's elevations indicate the home on lot five will face Sadie Lane. Staff recommends the board determine whether they will require the applicant to modify their elevations to face west as directed at sketch. Staff notes that such a requirement represents a de facto waiver of this requirement. This is, oh, sorry. Sorry. Go ahead. Okay. So the reason staff is saying that lot five looks like it's facing Sadie Lane is because the building elevations we provided show garages on the front of the buildings. Now the buildings are rectangular slightly. So our intent was to side load that garage on lot five, but it just doesn't match the building elevations that are provided. So the long side of the rectangle typical with a single family house is facing west. Our building design timelines state that the buildings must face west. It's just a mistake in the elevations that's causing this comment. Okay. So if I could draw on this, right now in the elevation, you're showing the garage here and this would be west, but you're gonna move, you're gonna rotate the door of this garage and have it be over here. Right. We call it a side loaded. It'd be a side loaded garage. Okay. Board, any questions, concerns? Okay. Number seven, the home on lot four is not proposed to have a relationship to the street because of the board's direction to have it face west. Staff recommends the board reconsider their direction and consider requiring this home to have the appearance of a front on both the west and north besides. Staff further recommends the board require the home to be set back no more than 25 feet from the rec path and encourage the applicant to include a porch projecting onto the front setback. Applicant, what are your thoughts about this? So we're in favor of the board's previous direction to have the buildings face west. You know, the other piece of this having a build two zone of 25 feet from the northern line of lot four is a little concerning just the future homeowner, you know, rather than create a street presence, they may want to have a little bit of a buffer area from that, you know, fairly regularly used rec path there. If you, if you scroll up a little bit, Marlo, if you're running it there, you can see when we were here at sketch, so the ortho photo on this plan is, I believe, 2018. City lane is a fairly newly constructed road, pretty, pretty new subdivision. So the ortho photo doesn't show it, but we outlined the building that is on the lot adjacent to lot four. You can see if you turn that building 90 degrees, it's essentially facing that building, not necessarily roadway. Just the way city lane is on that sweeping turn and the amount of frontage we have to connect, the driveway, you know, has to go on that, on that western side. So we're supportive of, I believe it was Mark's comment, creating a, you know, contiguous western facing line of homes, but we're looking for a direction from you folks. Ward? So the question is to redirect here. The question is whether the home on lot four should face both west as you directed and have a street facing appearance to the north as well. So basically a home with the parents of two friends. As if it were on a corner or something. Because it is on the corner. Yeah, I guess it's a corner, yeah. Brian? Yeah, I would just say, I don't feel it's on a corner. I feel it's on an adjacent lot next to the northern butter. I don't, you know, city lane continued on the cider mill. I would 100% agree. In this case, it's kind of no man's land over there. We're also proposing another thing, another comment we took from the board was screening along that northern property line. You can see we got a little row of cedar hedges that are proposed there, right where it says 187. So that's kind of a, I guess, counter of the discussion we're having. So. So board members, what are your thoughts about whether or not this is a corner and should have two front facing appearances? I don't honestly think it needs it. I think that just having that bike path coming down, you are gonna wanna screen it. And it'd be one thing if you had, if you had multiple homes in a row, we were sort of presenting a sort of a blind face to it, then you're, you'd wanna create a better sort of neighborhood field kind of thing in connection. But I think a single house, you know, you're gonna wanna kind of have a little bit more of a protected side guards to there. And I think just having a West facing street frontage presence, you know, I think, I don't think you're gonna create sort of like a neighborhood feel by making it have a two front house for that one location. Thanks, Mark. Any other thoughts? I'm in agreement as well. I think the West facing facade makes more sense than trying to do Northern as well. Just given how other things should be done. Thanks, Alyssa. Other comments? This is Dan, I agree with my colleague. Thanks, Dan. Any other comments before we move on? Okay, scrolling through. Actually, I think we've come to the end of those comments, of the staff comments. Before we move on to public input, board, do you have any final questions or concerns? All right, are there any members of the public that would like to provide, who would like to provide testimony on this project? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the hearing. This is Dan, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. Thanks, Dan. Application before us. Thank you. Second, do I hear a second? Second, second. Thank you. Okay, any discussion? All right, all those in favor of closing preliminary plat application SD2117, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Sure, both aye. Opposed? So the hearing is closed and we will see you back for final plat. Yes, thank you for your time, have a good night. Thank you. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Okay, board members. I totally missed them. I ran out of time, there are no minutes available. Oh, okay, that's why you didn't run them. The draft minutes are on the website, but I haven't scrubbed them. So they're, they'll be in your next budget. So let's do a time check. Other business. Pardon? Other business. Oh, other business. Is there any other business? Nope, hearing none. Do we have, you folks, are you up for a deliberative session on the two remaining projects that Marla sent out for deliberations? I am. Yep. Okay, go ahead. We have nice to finish the other one. Close the meeting and reopen the deliberative meeting from before. I will actually just lock this one. Can I stop recording, Marla? I'm going to stop recording. I'm recording, yep. This conference is no longer being recorded. So meeting ended at 8.38. I will lock the meeting. Good night, Michael from town meeting TV. I'm going to kick you off.