 This is the one that Jeff's got to give up on this. Highlander? Highlander? Is it weird that we don't know what you're saying? Camry's the small one, right? This is on Larry. Everything's weird down there. So Peter Ewing's the best before they had names? It's all a bunch of old summer camps that have been turned into a permanent house. Have you been down there? What's the road? Hello, hello. I can't hear it. No, it doesn't work. Hello, hello. Good. It's been a few days down in Central Mass. Lenox. Berkshires. No, just fun. That's when I found the new place to walk. In Northampton. That's just like a real trail. Something goes wrong. There's been a slug like that. Even if they disagree, they're like totally civil because they live so close. Retro motel there. It was like half bed and breakfast, half motel style. And it was run by a European couple. European eyes, everything. Including the showers, which had like a half wall. You're so close together. And no curtain. And I couldn't help but get the entire bathroom. Like how did they do this? I know. But it was fun. Of course, does that bring in the middle of the floor? That's where we're like, yeah. Yeah. But I mean, you know. The whole room is a shower. The whole room is a shower. I guess it's just a different philosophy. And they don't get one. It's the first item on the. All we can talk about. Right. But it's set up as a decision. As a draft. As a draft. I can hear you fine. We can just shout so the audience can hear us. If I shout, then I can lean back. Charlie. Oh, did that do something? Did that change? Hello. Sounds like it works. Okay. Welcome to the development review board for South Burlington. Today's Tuesday, June 19th, 2018. First item on the agenda is directions on emergency evacuation procedures. If there is an emergency, we can exit the building either from the way you're doing it. Or there are two doors here. And we'll meet in the parking lot right behind me, which is the South parking lot. And please sign the sign in sheet so that we know you're here and we can check your names and make sure that everyone is safely out of the building. In case of an emergency. Item number two, additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. Does anyone have a question? No. Item number two, additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. Does anyone have any additions, changes, deletions? Hearing none. Comments and questions from the public, not related to the agenda. Any comments or questions not related to the agenda? Hearing none. Number four, announcements. Do we have any announcements? Okay. Number five, conditional use application CU 1808 of Larry Michaels to install a covered entry and ports to the front of an existing two-story house at 106 Central Avenue. Ooh, it's here for the apricot. Can we come up? Please. Conditional use application. So if you will please raise your right hand. Oh, identify yourself first. Larry Michaels. Raise your right hand. You promised all the truth and all the truth. Nothing but the truth that we're telling you. Thank you so much. Please describe the project. Conflicts. Sorry, conflicts of interest. Conflicts, thank you, John. Conflicts of interest. I simply bring it up because Larry and I go way back and are close friends. I don't perceive myself to have a conflict, but if anybody in the public has a concern, I'll step away. Thank you, John. Are there conflicts? Are there potential conflicts? Hearing none, please proceed. Great. So you have the draft decision in front of you. Just to kind of describe the project and the issues. So no real issues. There's a pergola currently in this location that was built previous to us owning the house. And what we want to do is take that away and actually install this or have built this deck. If you want to stop right there, that'd be great. So there's the view from the north. If you go back one slide, you can see, there you go. So there's elevation from the front. So we're basically going to build out this porch with a deck, with a little wall, a knee wall, and then extend that, set it back about five feet and have a little cover over the front door, just snow protection. So it's really so we can enjoy the front a little more with the pergola. It's not covered, so we get hammered by the sun and obviously rain and so on and so forth. So it just makes it more friendly to the street, we think, and more neighborly. And then the walkway will either be stone, some kind of stone. And then we're going to do a little expansion to the left. As you can see to the north, just as a place to put the barbecue grill primarily, that may be stone, it may be crushed gravel. We're not sure yet, but that's the plan. And this is the one where the seven foot proposed setback in the front, which staff considers eminently acceptable. Everyone sees that commenting the first paragraph just before Queen City Park District on page two of the application. It might be worth knowing too that the pergola extends further closer to the street than what our deck will be set back about another two feet from where the pergola ends. And Justin and his crew have no trouble right now. It's no removal. So we're good. I have no questions, comments, comments, other questions from the board? Any motion to close? Oh, excuse me. Comments from the public? Hearing none. Any motion to close? I move that we close conditional use application CU-180 of Larry Michaels. Second. We move in second to close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thanks very much. Thank you. Good to see you. Take care. Next on the agenda, site plan application SP-18-22 of Corey Gottfried to amend a previously approved plan by construction of a 20 by 23 foot addition to an existing 1500 square foot standard restaurant at 1696 Williston Road. Who was here for the applicant? Hi. Howdy. Your name? Morning. Sorry. That's all right. And please raise your hand. The truth, the whole truth and nothing about the truth. I'm a penalty of poetry. I do. Thank you very much. Please describe the project. You've been in it before and so we've commented. So basically long story short, we're just trying to build an addition in the back so that we can update the ventilation systems that are already in the diner itself. We're doing the addition more so so that we don't have to cut into the diner to install anything extra into it. We're trying to preserve it historically and everything like that. Back in 2007, they installed the new ventilation system into the restaurant instead of the fans that were in it before and basically it's just sucking everything out and there's nothing coming back in to compensate for it. So it actually makes it really uncomfortable for customers, staff, everything like that. Also the other thing, the other idea about it is to get the grills and the cooks equipment into the back so that way we can get the gas lines out of the restaurant, you know, get the appropriate safety systems in place, get away from the customers, although some of my customers aren't big fans of that idea because they enjoy watching us, but more or less it's mostly for safety and efficiency. Long story short, it's time. The heating systems aren't working properly because of it. AC is not working properly. It's just a real pain. So this is what we're proposing to do so that we don't have to cut into the restaurant itself. So you have both the draft decision and the staff comments, right? I actually was not able to pull those up for some reason. I apologize. That's all right. That's all right. So if we can just... Oh, thanks, John. So the changes from what was previously proved or was that six months ago or so? So it was a sketch plan review before. At the time it was going to have to be a PUD because the proposed addition was going to be in the front setback waiver. Okay, right. The project's now in the Urban Design Overlay District which has a reduced setback. So now the project is no longer in the front setback and does not require a setback waiver. Okay. So, Owen, before we go on further, a little late, any conflicts of interest? I am a frequent diner at Parkway Diner. I don't know, Matt. I don't know if you're going to be objective, man. I don't see any problems with it. In fact, the more the better. I do like the cooking out front. Okay. So if you'll just step us through the staff comments. You see the first one there? All right. So utilities is where we're starting? Yeah. Number one. Okay. Requires utility lines to be located underground. The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing overhead utilities from the wall to become interior, I'm sorry, to become interior space to the wall of the proposed addition. Staff considers that requiring the applicant to relocate the utilities underground would be disproportionate to the scope of the project and recommends the board allow the utilities to remain overhead. So that makes sense. Yeah. Perfect. Yep. That's perfect. So that's okay. Right. Yeah. GMP about it. They, you know, obviously in respect to whatever you guys decide you want to have happen. They don't feel that it's a safety issue or anything. So, and they actually like the idea because even if we keep it on top, it's actually shortening the line. So they're big bands of that. And there's not a lot of work that they'll have to do. It's going to be mostly the electrician that I bring in to do the rest of it actually going into the diner. Great. So, and they changed out the lights for Ray out in the front there. So if you just read the red number two there on landscaping. Staff considers the value of the proposed planters and bench provide sufficient credit to make up the $50 deficiency in landscaping budget and recommends the board approve the proposed landscape and hard scaping. So that sounds like it's okay and not a big deal. Right. Number three. Number three. Staff considers standard 5.08 C allows the board some flexibility, I apologize to allow these parking spaces and recommends the board allow this configuration. So we agree with your parking configuration. Number four. Staff recommends the board. Unless the board disagrees with me and says that we should. You go ahead. Number four. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to revise the site plan to show all parking spaces as striped and recommends the board require the applicant designate the three parking spaces as an employee only using signs installed on the adjacent dumpster enclosure. We wish I brought water. I didn't know I was going to be reading anything. So I'm showing all parking spaces and just putting signs basically just in front for the employee parking. All parking spaces are going to be striped. Yup. And then the three parking spaces that are going to be employee spaces have signs on the parking. So basically just like I have my handicap spots just just like the signs. Number five. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the plan to reflect a 22 foot long parking space. The plan. The parallel parking space is 18. Our standard for parallel parking is 22, but it looks like it'd be easy to extend it sort of the bottom of the page there to be 22. Don't write on the iPad. No, no, no, no, no. Stylish. Just kidding. I'm just taking notes from myself that way I can pull it up and put it on my pocket. Okay. So number six. Space next to the parallel parking spot? Or not. Black space. What's the white space? That's a walk-in cooler existing. Is what? The walk-in cooler. The refrigerator. Okay. Which is existing. So you were just and just completes the square more or less. Basically. Okay. Okay. Number six. Thank you very much for that. Okay. So the shared driveway configuration staff considers the proposal to place landscaping and raised beds along the eastern perimeter of the parking, only to be accessible and recommends the board consider this as a meeting. The perimeter plant requirements and curb curbing requirements. So staff considers that to be acceptable. And recommends that we, the board, consider this as meeting the perimeter planting requirements and curbing requirements. Does the board have any problem with that? No. Number seven. Go ahead. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant a way to provide the required shade trees or a suitable alternative for a minimum, the additional 11 spaces proposed as part of this application. Staff considers removing the pavement in the two triangular snow storage areas on the parking lot to the north and planting deciduous shade trees may meet this requirement. Trees must be protected by permanently installed curbing. I'm sorry. Where are we talking at the top of the parking lot? So the issue here is that there's a requirement in the landscaping that there be one shade tree per five parking spaces. This is a bit of a weird situation because the applicant wants to, you know, make improvements to his building without expanding the number of seats. Our parking requirements are based on gross leasable areas. So though he is not planning on expanding the number of people in theory, he does have to add parking. Because he has to add parking, he then has to add shade trees. The applicant's not actually expanding impervious services. The site's already landscaped. Total impervious is actually going down. So staff's attempting to find a creative way to meet the shade tree requirements without making it really burdensome for the applicant. This was one idea. Maybe the board has others. Maybe the applicant has others. So where would they go? Top to the right. Right there. So during sketch the board had discussed that the project had really high percentage coverage. It's on in the 90s. It's staying in the 90s. And the board had requested that impervious coverage go down. This is no longer at PUD. I don't know if that changes the board's perspective on that at all. But I did want it to be something for discussion rather than just there's only one solution. And these are not street trees. These can be any deciduous tree as long as you... The standard is shade trees. It's in the specific languages in the decision which you don't have because you let your iPad out. It's hard to understand where those trees would go to. They serve any real purpose at all. Given they're tucked up there in the corner. What would they do? Shade the parking lot. Shade the parking lot. They're a little close together though. Right. The standard is 30 feet apart. So let me read the standard. The deciduous shade tree shall be provided within or near the perimeter of each parking area for every five parking spaces. The tree shall be placed evenly throughout the parking lot to provide shade and reduce glare. The tree shall be placed a minimum of 30 feet apart. So the problem with placing them up north there is they're going to shade the street basically. You know? It sure are. The shade's going to swing around like that. It's going to shade the street. The parking. The street parking. But it's not going to do much good for the... So you'd have to rip up some other parking lot area, right? To put shade trees in that would actually shade the parked cars. Right. And keeping in mind we want this to be proportionate to the amount of work and the fact that he has to add parking because we're saying he has to add parking not because he wants to. Right. So I'm okay with adding a couple of trees to the north as long as... I mean it'll be more scenic. Do you have them placed or did you propose a place that was 30 feet apart, obviously? Why would you do that? Because you know what you're doing. Would they be 30 feet apart? I doubt it. I'll put you on that one, Bill. Parking space is about 20. So they're going to be about 20 feet, 20 feet apart. Okay. But it's going to be close and it's going to be a gesture. So if no one has a problem with it, I'll say let's go with it. Are there overhead wires? Oh, good point. Are there overhead wires? Not really. I was kind of trying to get out of not tearing up parking lot. But I mean obviously it's not up to me. No, but if you... I'm trying with how much space I actually have. Any little bit for snow. Because yes, I do have a relationship with my neighbors and stuff like that when it comes to the parking lot. But to fend for myself I'm losing places to put snow to put a tree. And I don't feel that the tree really serves a purpose in this parking lot anywhere. And the only... I mean I don't know. I'm trying not to do anything extra out of the ordinary to it, I guess. I was just doing the addition for safety and all the other stuff. I mean I obviously want to be legal and everything like that. But I was wondering if there was variance somewhere in there where maybe everybody can just be like hey, maybe... Could I ask a couple questions? One, what is the... If there were no improvement, if there were no addition, where would he stand as far under, without any waivers or any grandfathering in his parking to... in the parking requirement? Is he under over right on the button? Right now. I think we came out under, right? Does that sound right? Under by a little right now. So he's gotten less than he should have anyway. Yes. And when he adds he doesn't actually add a seat to the place. Right. So the requested... The applicants requesting 25% waiver of the required parking spaces. So he has just the bare minimum. I don't see... In that case, well of course I'm also waiting for an answer to Jennifer's question about overhead wires. That's an issue. Are they there? So the overhead wires are at the front of the site? So they don't... They're located at an initial point. Sir? We're above the sidewalk. They're on that road. On airport? Not on the road. Please identify yourself. Allen from North End Mechanical is one of his contractors. Can I ask a question? If we were to consider not requiring those trees would that be done as a waiver or would that require a variance? There really isn't a waiver provision in the landscaping. There is a provision to allow credit for required landscaping for either existing vegetation or other site features that act like landscaping like the board has allowed somebody to get credit for a fence that they put up instead of putting up by a green hedge because it did the same thing as landscaping did. Some hardscape some properties got some credit for hardscape benches and fountains and things that are kind of aesthetic that maybe some stone walls. Can those apply to the shade trees or only to the required value? I don't think that there's any discussion in the section that talks about the shade trees about substitutions or waivers or modifications. I don't believe there are. So the screening section screening and buffering section is where the shade trees come from. Let's talk about 11 trees. Two trees. Three trees. So that shade trees are in section B and the landscaping value is in section G so the value waiver is not applicable to the shade trees. Is there minimum caliber and there's a specification for what shade trees are? Two and a half inch caliber. If those areas are going to stay as snow storage those will get destroyed. Yeah. So the recommendation was that it would be allowed to be snow storage and it would be curbed. Shade trees are required to be protected by curbing. Are we talking about two trees to meet the requirement or waving the requirement down to two trees? Two trees to meet the requirement. Oh. What are the two trees? Well I get that. Just to me it seems like the two trees are kind of a futile gesture because they're not really accomplishing anything. They're going to shade the parking lot. Sounds like there might be a conflict with the overhead wires and this could reduce the space for snow storage. I was trying to find a way to not require the two trees. Yeah. So our recommendation to put them in that location was based on that seems like the least impactful location in terms of disrupting the site. If the board doesn't feel like that's meeting the standard of other locations. Frankly I was hoping that one of our really creative board members would have a better idea. That's the garbage storage where there's one tree that's an existing and that's on the other property. Is there already an enclosure on the garbage storage? No there's not. That's a new enclosure. Could you get credit for beautifully enclosing the garbage storage? Also the waiver provision to allow other things to address the landscaping does not by my readings seem to apply to the shade trees. We don't have to deliberate on this tonight. We could go home and read it, think about it and deliberate on it before the next hearing. Well the next meeting is for four weeks. How quickly do you want to start on your project? It's kind of open like October. So you can hold four weeks to the fate of two trees? Well I'm trying to commit to everybody that I've been kind of putting together since October trying to get everybody on board with it and let them know that we're actually moving forward. I mean if that's what it is then obviously I'm on it already. Now the two trees it's the last thing but there's one more thing, right? No. And it has to be trees and it has to tear up parking lot. I mean around that. There's pretty much no spot that isn't parking lot. Right. I mean I understand trying to have more vegetation than the parking lot but like it's really, there's not a lot you can do. I'm afraid to have the trees there and they're, I don't know can I put a bunch of potted plants all over the place and call them trees? You know this may not be practical but you've got a Costco and you're 100 feet away from where you've got to take the basket back in. So you plant your basket right at Colorado and New Mexico right at the cross point of four parking spaces and everybody can sort a park without disturbing them. So the question is could you, is it conceivable I don't know if it's a practical thing to do but to dig up the corners of a couple, you know the meeting point of a couple of parking spaces and plants and trees right in the middle. Do you understand the question? I think you need a certain amount, in order for that tree to live you need a certain amount of area and could interfere with the parking space. If they've had four feet by four feet. I don't know, I'm just picking a number but some it's considerable size to have soil and water to water the trees, you have to have enough of an open area and no pavement. So you're saying you don't know? I don't know, we can certainly contact the city arborist and say how small what's the smallest area needed. So as an example I know the city arborist has had the trees and the island out front here taken down because they were dying because they were in a strip two feet wide and replaced. So two feet isn't enough. Right, we know that. I know that for Market Street we have specified these things called Silva cells they're four foot boxes that are actually under pavement which allows the footprint to be much smaller but they're like several grand a pop. And that gets you to tearing up less pavement. Formuable pavers could potentially be under the drip zone. I've seen those in downtown areas. So we don't have the discretion to waive this. I don't see anywhere that it specifically says the board does have that ability to change that requirement. Can I ask the applicant again if we were to continue this so that we took some more time to think about alternatives and then we'll bless you doing closing of the hearing and deliberation on July 17. Would that give you enough time to do what you need to do in October? I would think so. On the other hand, what are the costs for these things? A couple of grand each? Well, by the time you dig it up and you curb it and I mean it's, you know, you're getting into some real money. No, I'm asking what is preference. It has four weeks on the one hand at a maybe or spending $5,000. Oh, it'll be less than that. Well, that therein lies the problem. I don't, the financing, I would probably not be able to do anything for a while because I wouldn't be able to come up with the money to do anything much past what we have looking right in front of me. It'll be kind of be the deal breaker for me. Just ask. So I appreciate it. It sounds like we need to continue this. Yep. We're not done. We'll be thinking about ways you think you could accomplish this and we'll be thinking as well and it would be really worthwhile to come back and you have an answer to how to fix it and we try to accomplish it because it's the only thing. It's the only thing that's it's holding you up. So I will, we continue. Wait, do we want to hear from the public? Yeah, commission public. You're adding sage tree there already. It's a monster over by the dumpsters. Okay. If that space is neutral space between the property and the property next door why couldn't he add two trees there one on the, you know, almost to the corner and one down towards the diner a little bit. That way it's a win-win. There's not in the parking lot that you're adding sage trees that'll actually help the parking lot. See the big round tree? Put 130 feet away from it on both directions. So that's outside of the property line. It's not in the property. That's where I was going with. At the top of the wedge, right? Yeah, go to the proposed conditions planche too. So the top of that wedge, maybe that's an option that's proposed to not be paved under proposed conditions and then I don't know if that only gets you on but you're ready. So maybe that's one. And then coming back so right next to the building to the right Yeah, right there or so that dark line is the property line? Yes. Would it be too close with the roots? Like hurt the foundation of the building? There's drainage right there. There's drainage there? There's a man hole right, if you move your cursor down right about there. So if you go up towards the existing tree right next to the cooler walking cooler somewhere around there There's a parking space right here. So maybe it's here. We can't go dark one parking space? It's already at the 25%. All right. Number eight, staff recommends the board approve this configuration of existing lot configuration shared driver and so on. So other comments, let's continue this. Let's think about it, let's go visit the site have a good meal and let's come up with something creative. I mean, the other thing too, we could do one up where we talked about, you know, toward that wedge and then if there was some creative rooftop solution if he if he had permission from the neighbor like an easement easement to plant two trees two lawyers. Who is that? Yeah, if the spalains gave him an easement to has to be on the property. Yeah, it stinks. I'm on the curves. Yeah, sorry. We're looking. Yeah, I appreciate it. I understand. All right, so we're continuing to June 17th. Let's public. Thanks. We'll continue SD 20 to July 17th. Second. Second. We continue this to July 17th. Opposed. Thanks very much. Thanks for not taking that with you. No. I can always use another one. Change of tree. Thank you. Thank you. SDSD 1818 of Catabout Middlebury LLC to resubdivide two lots of 2.9 acres and 12.2 acres at 1795 Shelburne Road and 68 Nesty Drive. Who is here for the applicant? So the applicant for SDSD 1818 has requested to be continued until July 17th. If we continue them to July 17th we will have eight items on the agenda. It's up to the board. It's not any additional work for me in advance of the meeting so you guys can decide. I can give you a brief picture of what that hearing looks like. We've got one, two, three sketch plans. One is a big project. We've got two preliminary final both I would say medium-sized and one medium-sized site plan in addition to the Parkway Diner. We just continue. So next meeting after that is in August, two meetings in August. How about August? Continue August. August 7th. What's your timing for? This is not, I don't know why they're sitting there. So they requested July 17th. We are unfortunately cannot have July 17th because we're packed but they'll accept August 7th. They haven't said they couldn't attend August 7th. Correct. Right. So I move that we continue SDSD 1816 to August 7th. Sorry. SDSD 1818 of Catamount Middlebury LLC. Second. It's been moved in second. We continue this application to August 7th. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Can I just note for the record that my law firm represents Catamount Middlebury. So I'm recused from this matter so I guess it would be an abstention on that motion. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda preliminary flat application SDSD 18-17 of Peter Ewing to subdivide an existing 9.7 acre undeveloped parcel into two lots of 2.1 acres and 7.6 acres, 133 cheese factory lane. Who is here for the applicant? Hi. Pete Ewing, Westford, Massachusetts. Yeah. And it's my sister Allison. Allison Ewing, Charlottesville, Virginia. Great. And this is a preliminary application. So please raise your right hand. You promised the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the penalty of perjury. I do. Okay. And conflicts of interest. Okay. Please describe the project. You've been in here for a sketch before. So we kind of have an idea. Okay. I thought Marla was going to give the description, but I can take a shot at it. Well, do you want to do it? Feel free. Okay. The Ewing Farm, I guess I'll call it the Ewing Farm plan or conservation plan involves the conveyance of 48 acres along Muddy Brook. And I don't know if, oh, you can see a good deal of it here. 48 acres along Muddy Brook to the Nature Conservancy. And part of that is in South Burlington. And then of lesser importance is possibly to South Burlington is a 45 acre conveyance to the Vermont land trust in Shelburne. But a total amount of conservation is 93 acres. And the family is retaining about while we have two parcels there, we have an eight acre parcel that's we call a lot one that's closest to the road, the beginning of the road and in South Burlington. And then the rest of the what we call the excluded acres is about 20 acres. And there's that wedge, the wedge in South Burlington, and then three lots in Shelburne. But I know you're only concerned with South Burlington. So in South Burlington, I think this is where I'll hand it off to Marla, but I guess we would be subdividing lot one is already subdivided. So then there, we're asking to subdivide about three acres from about 11 acres along Muddy Brook, which will be conveyed to the Nature Conservancy. But I want to let Marla. The application is for a two lot subdivision of 2.1 acres and 7.6 acres on the first page of the staff comments, Ray. Those lots are shown. There's one subtlety, which doesn't have to be a big deal tonight. Since the time of the application, the applicant has come to realize that the site plan provided misrepresented the town line. The town has reviewed the corrected town line. Both South Burlington and Shelburne has reviewed the corrected town line. They agree with the corrected town line, but the applicant hasn't had a chance to fully update their plans. So they've included a plan on page two that shows approximately where the corrected town line is. In the staff notes, all of the numbers are based on the incorrect town line. But staff has no concerns about the numbers working out with the corrected town line. It's just something that's going to have to be updated for final plot. I could fill in a little bit there. In order to move forward with the Nature Conservancy and Vermont Land Trust land sales, a couple of things. We signed a purchase and sale agreements on May 25th with both organizations. That's more or less set in stone. That's our conservation plan. We hired civil engineering associates to do a survey of the entire Ewing farm. That's when some issues arose about the exact location of the town line. I guess that's not too much of a surprise to me because it had always been unclear exactly where it was. At any rate, that's moving around a little bit, but we don't see that as a big issue. Other than the town line, we're asking to subdivide on the town line. So wherever that lands, it becomes the westernmost point triangular lot in South Burlington that would be subdivided from the nature. There it is, lot 2a, subdivided from lot 2b. So just to repeat, the southern boundary line will be on the town line. Great. So we have a bunch of staff comments in red. Have you seen those? Yes, I've looked on through everything. Could I ask a preliminary question? Just a little tangential. How much of the conserved land is in South Burlington? I would guesstimate, Marla, it was nine acres, but now with the town line moving, I'd say it might go up to about 12 acres. The conserved land. I would just a rough guess. The title holder will be the nature conservancy. That's right. That's right. So if we could just step through the staff notes that are highlighted in red, we've taken care of number one, so if we could dive into number two. Staff recommends the board included condition requiring the applicant to provide a proposed height for the structure as part of their final title application measured as prescribed or proscribed, prescribed in section 3.07. You okay with that? Absolutely. What I'm requesting to build in South Burlington is really just a seasonal camp. I live in Massachusetts. I want to come up in the spring and in the summer and I don't, sorry, I don't like Vermont in the winter. It's a sheet of ice, unless you've got good snow at the skier. So at any rate, the second floor would have a pretty low roof, probably not a steep pitch to create some head room. I can't see the structure being exceeding 20 feet and I think it'll be less than 20 feet. So the condition will read that the applicant must provide a height as part of the final application. If you are uncertain what height you want, I would recommend you provide a greater height than you think you want, just sort of the worst case scenario, but the condition will require you to provide a number, not a description. And it has to be less than 25. And it has to be less than 28. 28. I'm totally okay with that. Right. So must provide height as part of final plan. Right, so the decision will have a list of conditions and that will be one of them. Okay. Yeah, that's no problem at all. Number three, staff recommends the board include a condition requiring the applicant to comply with the erosion control statements of article standards of article 16. That's no problem, right? We're not in issues with that. And number four, staff recommends the board include a condition requiring the applicant to seek DRB approval for construction of additional homes accessed solely via the private proposed road, regardless of whether additional home is to be located in South Brunswick or in Shelburne. Is that in reference to lot one? Yes. Yeah. So a little bit of background. Lot one, we've dropped from the plan a residence on lot one reluctantly as probably the best word I can describe it. Marla offered us a way forward. So, you know, we wanted to just keep things moving. Yep. Well, also refers to whether the additional home, if it's accessed by the proposed private drive, if it's if the proposed home is in the Shelburne in the southern part also, then it is affected by this. So it's all belongs. So, right. If I could just clarify, is does this, if we agree to this now, we are agreeing to pass any future development in Shelburne by South Brunlington as a requirement. As long as it's accessed by this private road. Yes. Right. I think Shelburne is pretty set in stone. So it would preclude you from future development. It would just mean that the board would get a chance to review it. Yeah. That's not problem. Number five wet, the wetland permit is for a 12 foot wide driveway, but the minimum standard for private roadways is 20 feet. Roadway recommendations are discussed elsewhere on this document. If the board requires the applicant to adjust the roadway width, the applicant must provide a state wetland permit reflecting the proposed impacts as part of the final application. Okay. Yeah. So we have a 12 foot wide permit to cross a wetlands, about 150 foot wetlands or so give or take. It looks like will your highway department and other various town fire and safety are asking us to have the crossing at the wetland be 18 feet. Is that right, Marla? That's what I recall. That's what I recall. Yeah. So I've already spoken to, so of course we'll have to amend our permit for state wetlands permit. I'm just writing this down. And I've already spoken with the, I'm going to say the state ecologist who is in our region, our regional state ecologist. And she's told me that you know, these are the steps you need to go through. I explained the whole the background of the project. She said, you know, it's pretty standard thing, you know, nothing too surprising there. We have to, and we did hire a private or a wetlands consultant. She's, she will do the, she's already done the delineation. She'll fill out our application. And so she'll take care of it. So we've got all the people in place to solve that. And we've done it before. Good, good. Thank you. Number six, table 15-1, specifies road width for 20 feet for private roads without parking. Figure 15-1B, and this is in the LDR. It's right. Yes. Specifies that roads must be paved. Department of Public Works and Acting Fire Chief have reviewed the applicant's proposal to construct with a 15 inch gravel base course and a three inch crusher run gravel top course. And they're okay with post materials. Staff recommends the board grant the applicant a waiver to allow construction of a gravel road with a proposed cross section. Board, any comments? Sounds good. On to number seven. Staff, can I, I'm actually would like to ask for a waiver on the 20 foot width. So that's, that's in comment number seven, if you want to, Do you want to just hold that? So on to number seven. Number seven, staff recommends the board and we can come back to this if the five, if I'm going too fast. Staff recommends the board require the road to be 20 feet wide, except the wetland crossing where it's 18 feet and proposed home in South Burlington, be equipped with a residential sprinkler system. Staff has requested Acting Fire Chief input on this recommendation and will provide an update at the hearing. So update. Spoke to the Acting Fire Chief, who is okay with the wetland and wetland buffer crossing being 18 feet, but holds firm on the 20 foot requirement for outside of the wetland and wetland buffer. And the residential sprinkler system. And the residential sprinkler system. Okay. Thank you very much. I would like to ask for a waiver to have the road be 16 feet. And cheese factory lane, I've measured it and it's about 15 feet. So a 20 foot, it's pretty much very much out of character with the neighborhood to have the main access point for you know, a couple hundred yards, be 15 feet wide, then you get into the, you know, the interior, you know, it's going to be a dead end road. And it's suddenly winds out to, you know, like a major arterial town road. 20 feet is not a major arterial town road in any way, shape or form. Okay. So you're, you're barking up the wrong tree. And frankly, I would suggest that you improve the other road. So I think you're going the wrong direction here. I agree with John. And I'll bet the right away for cheese factory road is more than 15 feet, regardless of what payment they do. And just to be clear, Marlon, this 20 foot requirement came from the fire chief, which I assume is necessary for ingress and egress of the emergency vehicles. Yes. 20 feet comes from the LDRs. So the fire chief also specifically referenced the NFPA standard that requires 20 feet, just as additional supporting documentation. Based on comments from the board, I'll withdraw my request for waiver. Unless you're an expert in support of the applicant, we'll hold comments from the public until the end. It's okay, Sarah. Of course it's okay. This is a question directly relevant to what you're speaking about. We'll come back to you. So that was number seven. Does that change our opinion of number six? Oh, no. Okay. Great. Moving on to number eight. I sketch plan the board discuss the applicant, a draft agreement for conservation. Okay. No such agreement has been provided. Oh, what was required to be submitted with preliminary application? No such agreement has been provided. Staff recommends the board discuss whether to continue the hearing until such times the draft agreement is provided to allow the board to review and provide feedback on the agreement prior to final plan. So I have received it, but I haven't been able to review it. So you just got it. So I just got it. Okay. So we got to continue. I can address that. It is my oversight that it wasn't provided on time. The purchase and sale agreements are set in stone. My brother and I are the executors of the estate and we were in Montpelier on May 25th. We signed the purchase and sale agreement for 48 acres to the Nature Conservancy and 45 acres to the Vermont Land Trust. And so those are, you know, irrevocable agreements. And, you know, so the conservation plan for the property is set in stone. Good. And we've had the land survey done. So, you know, we definitely, I sent that to, you know, as a miscommunication. I didn't, you know, this is some of this is new to me. I realize I should have sent it sooner at any rate. Those agreements are right here and the very standard agreements. And if you go through them, you can see that they're signed by my brother and I and by, so we don't want to continue this hearing for, you know, a technicality when all the agreements are signed. We'll consider that. Number nine, staff recommends board discuss whether to require additional landscaping offence to protect the wetland buffer. Can we back up for a minute? Sure. I can ask Marla. So if they're conveying to the Nature Conservancy and the Land Trust, play the conservation plan you want to see. An agreement that they are conveying the land. That's right there. Well, that was to, that was to the Land Trust. Do you have one for the Nature Conservancy? It's right yet. So that was there too? Yep. Is it like, are they attached to each other? Yeah, yeah. If you go back to that, I mean, it's not complex. It's very, okay. So that one's a Vermont Land Trust. It's not that long. Just go to the bottom. Okay. There's our signatures and the Vermont Land Trust, you know, this is what they gave us. But it's not signed by the Land Trust. Right. So the, Let me go on. This is the Nature Conservancy one. Let's see if the second one is signed. So they're not fully executed. Staff considers that they don't need to be fully executed prior to final plat, or prior to preliminary plat approval. It's sort of explained in the very beginning of the staff comments. Shelburne needs there to be access in order to approve the plan. South Burlington needs there to be a conservation plan in order to approve development. So there was this sort of like chicken and egg thing where the scheme we came up with was get the draft agreement, get preliminary approval, South Burlington, get preliminary approval, Shelburne. Preliminary plat approval. Yes. Then get final agreement, then final South Burlington, then final Shelburne. So all we were looking for was the draft to demonstrate that there was a conservation plan in place. Okay. And before we do final then it would need to be signed. And that's accompanied by our land survey. So we, which was kind of what it was holding things up. We just have an accurate survey of the land and we had that done by CEA and this is it right here. And I did some, oh, there it is. It's right on the screen. And so that's, I could point it out if you want me to stand up to the screen, but at the property boundaries are very clearly shown. So I guess the risk is that we haven't had a chance to review it to make sure it actually says what the applicant is going to say, but it's preliminary plat. So we agreed to put preliminary subject to review. Exactly. Exactly. Final zone's way. So it sounds like we're in good shape. Yeah. I mean, this is, this was a big hurdle for us to get over. You know, we were, you know, we had the Vermont Land Trust Nature Conservancy, my brother and I at the table, we all signed documents. And so, you know, oh, and the other thing I want to say is that, so the Nature Conservancy closes January 31, 2019. So that's only seven months away. And the Vermont Land Trust closes July 31, 2019. So that's 13 months away. And the other party to this with the bread and butter farm. And so we're, you know, the funding is a big issue. And so it's, it's coming together. It's coming slowly. But, you know, when signing these agreements, it's, you know, they're, they're basically you're evocable. There's just no way we're going back on this it's been four years in the works. And, you know, we want to move forward. We don't want to, we don't want to move back on anything or, you know, And what's the deadline? Is there a 12 month after preliminary before, before final? Yes. That 12 months to submit final after preliminary approval. So, so you're going to have final, you're not going to have final with the Nature Conservancy for 13 months. VLT July 31st. Vermont Land Trust 13 months. There's a, there's a deadline or something. 12 months from this. So if we would actually extend that. So if we take all of our 45 days, if we were to close this tonight, take all of our 45 days, that would take us too late. But it's not there. It's from preliminary. It's from final, right? Yeah. Oh, is it 12 months from final? Yeah, the applicant has 12 months. There's no deadline from now to final. 12 months. He has to submit for final approval within 12 months of preliminary approval. That's just for final approval. That's, But he doesn't have to, he can't be approved. He just has to apply for it. Right. He has to apply within 12 months. Submit a complete application within 12 months. He's got a little bit of a dance to make sure that you're going to hit all the deadlines. Right. And the sequence that Marla outlined. Yep. Great. Right. So we can sort of put around till the next hearing with the signature on the preliminary plat, which gets you to mid July. Okay. And then, then you only have 15, a 15 day window that you have to sort of dance with rather than a 45 day window that you have to dance with. I just can't figure that out. Okay. I'll talk with Marla about, what do you call it? Dancing. Let's sing around. What do you call the time coming? So next time I bring it up, I'll know when I'm talking about it. It's the, which time limit are we talking about? It's around preliminary to final. That's 12 months. So you get 12 months to apply for your final after you get preliminary decisions. So the, the preliminary takes a little longer than that'll give you longer before you have to submit for, for final. I don't know if you can submit for final. Well, we can't, it has to be a complete application. So it has to be signed. The documents have to be signed. So 15 months away from the most, the one that's furthest out is 15 months. So we want to delay, I think tomorrow is the point where we want to delay a few months and give us some more time to get to closing. Yeah. I would delay your, your final, preliminary decision until, until three, could be three months from now in order to stretch this out. Well, if we close the hearing tonight, then we can use our full 45 days. Yes. And then that gives him a month and a half more. A month and a half more, which puts us at the end of July. So he's got like, sign it and submit it basically. What about the other one that takes 15 months? Well, it's seven months and 13 months. Oh, seven and a third. Okay. I thought if we delayed between preliminary and final, but then I have 12 months to close. So why don't we delay between? No, it's not related to the, it's between, you have 12 months between preliminary decision to submit your final application. Okay. And we have to close with VLT to do. Okay. So let me write that down. Must close. Sorry. I'm getting up to speed on this, but am I correct that the nature conservancy is the land that's in South Maryland? Yes. They won't have to close it. Oh yeah. So could, so we will have closed with the nature conservancy within the timeframe. And that's the South Maryland property. Okay. Great. They don't have to actually close in order to file for a final product. I should do that. They need to have a signed agreement. They have to have a conflict. The LDR say there has to be a conservation plan. Right. So if they have a signed contract, that would do it. Which is, you know, let's say you sign your contract, you have one signed contract and one unsigned contract. Are there, is there real concern about getting the second one signed anytime soon? It is signed. I don't, they just didn't give me a copy. I don't, you know, I can't explain that. I'm very confused about that myself. I think it applies for the final application anytime after they get their preliminary because they have two signed contracts that, if they constitute the plan. Yeah. I'll throw them to the board as to what evidence they need to provide you to convince you that they have a plan. Right. Marla, can it, it makes sense. I think that I get that, I go back to the VLT and say, why didn't you, why didn't, where's your signature on this? And then I send it straight to you. I can get that within days. I do have a question. Although that's in Shelburne. The VLT contract only applies to Shelburne. And the TNC one is signed. And that's in South Charleston. I do have a question as it pertains to these contracts. You said they're locked in stone, but they only involve your family on the one hand and the two not-profits on the other hand, right? They're the only parties to the contracts. Right. So what does a bread and butter farm have to do with it? They will. Same other parties. Who would, what, why is there another problem? The bread and butter farm will be the buyer of the Shelburne farmland. That's how the VLT operates. It's very complex. Is that made clear in the contract? Yes, absolutely. Does it describe what the bread and butter farm can do with the land? Yep. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. Well, I have to take a look at that. Any other any other parties? No. So the VLT and the bread and butter farm are basically the joint buyers of the Shelburne farm parcel, we call it. But bread and butter farm is not a signatory to the contract? Yes, they will be. But they're not yet? No, they have not yet signed. Is there a line for them to sign? They weren't even identified in the contract. Yes, they are identified on the contract. I'll see you. But again, that's Shelburne, right? Okay, yeah, keep going, you'll get there. Go to the front. It's about it, okay, yeah. Wait a minute, no. Oh, okay. There's a Vermont, yeah, okay, it was the earlier agreement. Okay, yep. Go up. So there's no signature to the agreement? Right. Are they even named as a party? We'll get up to the beginning. Okay, you go down slowly? Well, we need to review this. So I think the short answer is we've got an agreement in front of us that needs to be reviewed prior to final. And in our final, we'll be subject to that review. Yep, yep. Okay. Um, can I ask you a question? Is, what is purchase and sales agreement, legally? They've got contingency. It's a contract to buy and sell real estate. Is it? But typically there are contingencies to closing. So that it creates, it creates rights that could be enforced. But if the contingencies aren't met, it could be that there's never close. Yeah. So, so when you say it's locked in stone, that's, that's one of those things that you've got. Okay, here we go. There you go. So that's a contingency. Yeah. All right. And that, and that purchase and sale agreement doesn't exist yet. Is that right? That's, that's true. Okay. So you have a pretty big contingency. Yeah. Well, I mean, it's just the nature of the beast. I mean, it's like. The nature of this beast. Yes. It's not a nature of a beast that's locked in stone. Well, I can just say that the Ewing family is not backing out of this agreement. But the Vermont land trust could back out. Okay. That's certainly. So obviously we need to, we need to finish the agreement without contingencies. Prior to final. Yeah. To go to final pot, we're, you know, perfectly happy to, you know, to make certain that the, that, you know, that we've come to closing on the two agreements. Our father has gifted quite a bit of money towards the sale of this land. So it seems like the Vermont land trust would take up this opportunity given the discount sale price that is being given to them from what it was appraised or the assessment that was part of. The 90, the 90, yeah, that's a good point. The 93 acres was appraised at 975,000 and we've accepted 600,000. So our family's making a gift of 375,000, which we put our signature to. It's very generous, but it doesn't make the contract any more secure. So I think, I think we can put this aside for tonight and say there's an agreement. We are uncertain as to its contingencies at the moment, and that you'll need to come to final with a contingency free agreement. Okay. Or, or a completed sale, I suppose, but I don't know how you do that. Within 12 months of one. So the question of my line is do we care about the Vermont land trust transaction with Brent Butterfarm? And it's only in Shelburne. To me, we only care about the nature concerns. Have I missed this again? Have I missed this? But it's all wrapped up together, right? It's all locked. It's inseparable? I don't know if it's inseparable, but we can't go without us and we can't go without them. But the nature conservancy can go without the VLT if they choose. Right. Would you go with just, with just the nature conservancy? I wouldn't back out of either agreement if I certainly would like to see the nature conservancy close. Absolutely. Regardless of what the land trust is. Yeah. But, you know, that it's, you know, we don't consider ourselves, you know, maybe technically we could find a way to back out of the agreement, but we don't consider that even within the realm of possibilities. I mean, it's been so much work to get here. We're not, we're not going back on anything. From the technical standpoint of people reviewing a, quote, plan or the definitions of a plan, and without going through the whole contract here, just bring, we'll look at it later. But from the best year recollection, are there contingencies in the land trust contract that make it, excuse me, in the conservancy contract that make it dependent on the fulfillment of the land trust contract? Yes, they have. So they're cross contingent, so to speak. Yes. And, but that's a, that's their option. Exactly. Yeah. We're bound to close. Understood. But it sounds like they could decide not to go forward with that contingency, wasn't that, is that what you were saying? Well, yeah, we would not be able to back out on one or the other. They're asking if the nature conservancy would back out if the deal with the Vermont land trust fell through. They have that option. Thank you. So they all hold that option. So then how can you have, I'm sorry, but how can you have a closing with the conservancy in January and a closing with a land, with a hypothetical closing with a land trust the following July if they are mutually dependent on each other? They both read each other's agreements. They were at the same table. Originally, the Vermont land trust closing date was also on January 31, 2019, and then they put for funding reasons, they pushed it back. I think maybe where we'll leave it is we'll read the agreements very closely. How about that? And we need a contingency, we need a clearer contingency free. It's not going to be contingency free, but you know, bread and butter farm, things like that, the big contingencies need to disappear before final. So it feels to me as though it would help your cause from a timing standpoint, if we continue this, gave you a longer time into August of 2019, because you're going to have to really hit your timing marks exactly. If we close tonight, give ourselves 40 days, you're up until late July, you've got to close everything by July of 2019 to be ready for us to say okay. Okay, I see the problem. So I think we would give you, you know, a couple of months' breathing room if we continued this for a while. Yes, we were hoping to move forward with the Shelburne piece. Is it possible for this board to move forward and in deliberating on the road, or is that what this discussion also about the road? Yeah, we want to just wrap the road up tonight. We want to just make sure that's done. So with the board's okay, this is a public hearing. I have a conference call with the Shelburne planning staff tomorrow morning to discuss the results of this hearing. If the board's okay with it, I can convey what the board said about the road. In the sense of the board was no waiver. Yes, that's correct. Yes, right. Yes, and I accept that to the Shelburne. I would through my request for a waiver. Okay, thank you. I don't know if they're going to say good enough, let's proceed, or if they're going to say we need that in writing, but I mean, it's filmed. It's going to be broadcast on Sunday. Give them my notes in the morning. Hopefully that gets them where they need to be. So I guess, so am I understanding that the road preliminary approval for the road based on 20 feet and 18 inches is there's preliminary approval to move forward on the road? No, you don't have, you have preliminary approval for nothing. What you have is a strong sense from the board that when you get your preliminary approval, it's going to be for a 20 foot road. 18 feet where it's crossing the right. Enough of that, comments from the board? Go ahead. Are we still at number nine? We're just approaching number nine. Yes. Staff recommends the board. We have public comment. We're not at the very end of the meeting. No, no, we're not at the end of the staff comments. Let me get it done with the staff comments. Oh, sorry. That's all right. I'm here, I'm hanging it up. Additional landscaping or fencing to protect the wetland buffer. We usually do that. We usually have like rail fence or. Stone. Hedge or something. You know, I would. Given assuming it all works out and the grantees are the grantees. I think it's kind of a surprise. They're going to take care of it. It's in a hayfield. The wetland is actually a hay, so it dries out in July and then, you know, they got the hay. Is there any? Some years, the right now in recent years, they're grazing cattle there. Is there any requirement from the state that there be additional landscaping or fencing to protect the buffer? No. I have not. I'm happy to do that. Other comments from the board? Okay. Number 10. Staff recommends the board require the applicant provide location of utility lines on the plans. Sorry. I'm not sure that I've read the wetland permit in enough detail to know if there's any requirements from the state requiring buffer protection. Can we just make that condition say some, is the board okay with one eyedraff condition that say no additional landscaping or fencing is required if consistent with the state wetland? That's fine. Good. And Marley, you have a copy of my 12 foot state wetlands permit. Great. So number 10 is okay with you? You will provide the location to be told in the lines of the plans final application. Our plan was to, well, actually once again, the wetlands drive that. I do, Marley will have to confirm, but I have, my memory serves me correctly. We're expected in the wetlands to run the utilities under the road. But I'm not sure. Otherwise I would say that we would probably run them, obviously within the 60 foot easement which accesses all the lots. We're just asking that you just put them on the plan. We'll put them, yeah. Put them on the plan. Go ahead and engineer yourself and identify where you need to go. Exactly. Great. Number 11 draft agreement. So this is one of the things we just talked about. So I think number 11 is done. So anyone have any comments question number 11? Number 12, draft recommends board require the applicant to have an executable plan for the conservation of proposed lot 2D, which is what we just talked about also, right? So that's that. And that is that. Other comments or questions from the board? From the public. I think he's wanting to make a comment. No, no. I want you to make sure you didn't get skimped. Yes. Thank you. Just two questions, I guess. One is. Oh, you should identify yourself. Sorry. Sarah Dobb, president of the South Railway Land Trust. So the preliminary plan that you're considering tonight as the 1817 speaks to the subdivision of this 9.7 acre parcel into two. I guess I don't understand how the whole agreements with the nature conservancy and the BLT come into this discussion. I mean, he could be doing that on the side and say that at the same time that, you know, he would be at someone's project. I must be missing something. Back to the first page of the stuff on this. Sarah, I think the issue is that we're allowing them to take a road through South Burlington to Shelburne and access. So we have the ability to ask for just about anything. And one of the things we want to know is, you know, if these pieces of land are being conserved, we want to know that they're actually going to be done. So it one ties to the other because we choose to. I see. Okay. Well, that was in the last- I think that's fair. Didn't really understand because it seemed to be focused on just the roof parcels that he wants to. My other question, though, was about the width of the road in business. It was our full-long discussion about this at a previous meeting over at the police station. And I was thinking that the width of 20 feet or whatever was contingent on the number of houses that would be served by that road. Maybe I'm misremembering that, but, for instance, the Chiefs Factory lane already has three or four dwellings on it. And it is 15 feet wide or whatever. Yeah, I've measured it. It's 15 feet. It's about 20 feet. So it's the current standard. Doesn't when that road becomes gravel back in the back there and then it would carry into what Peter's talking about, doesn't it have something to do with the number of houses that would be served by that road back in there? Yes and no. It could be just dramatically larger if there were more houses. And it's the size it is because it's I think it's the minimum standard, isn't it? Yeah. I mean the minimum standard doesn't pertain right now. It does pertain right now. With Chiefs Factory lane. That was permitted. That was older and pre-existing. This is not pre-existing. So this is a new development. It has to be the minimum standard. There is a road there, isn't it, Peter? He wants to put housing onto a road and we require that it come to the minimum standard, which is the city's prerogative. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments? Just please identify yourself. Jean, you will do. I'm just curious as to how many houses this whole thing is he creating? Four. One in South Brunton is proposed in a lot two way and then there's three in Shelburne. So four total? Four total and then it would include the bed. And bread, that's correct. Which is on that same road? No. A four new. Four new with that. But when you're talking the road there will be five houses on the road. Because the bread and butter is in the road. I mean, it's a dense breakfast. So there are five houses. It would, the road would serve five houses. Yes, please identify yourself. Mark Saunders, Niebuhr. So just to clarify what Allison raised, she said any more houses would require them to approach the DRB for additional acceptance. The condition that we are on. And but that may also involve a public road and a paved road. Because one of the things that, you know, on the original application was six houses total. Now it's dropped to five. Lost the paved Macadam Road requirement. But if they were to come back to you and asked for, say, a house on lot one, which is now currently vacant, you would require a paved road. That's what the current standards are. If something change in something of the universe of land development changed between now and then, that might change. Okay. But that's why they would have to come back in front of the board. Right. Okay. Is lot one effectively conserved then? Or is that still a potential building lot that will, they could come back and decide to build, but then have to come before you and require a paved road. Maybe asking the Ewing's as well. I can answer that. So you're correct. It's not conserved. It's that if they were to develop it under the current standards, it would require a paved road. Under some future universe, there are any other requirements as well. And just to clarify the discussion about cheese factories. So they could do this 20 foot gravel road and there would be no requirements to update cheese factory late, which is now, I guess, was grandfathered into a preexisting. I suppose we've applied the standard that developers can be required to do offsite improvements for projects, but it just doesn't seem commensurate. And I don't believe staff would support that requirement. I mean, when Peter mentioned something about the 20 feet being like a thoroughfare and you said, well, it's not. And then you said, but cheese factory road is only 15 feet and I think you believed, you said, well, that would be up to you. Maybe I'm going to spread that. What I'm saying is, I didn't know if that was going to be up to them. First of all, that's not on the parcels. So we can go back and from a traffic standpoint, if we wanted to, and say, you've got to upgrade those roads, but this is not enough traffic, in my opinion, to engage in having to upgrade something on somebody else's land. If wherever cheese factory lane lands and they came in for additional housing, they would undoubtedly be facing a 20 foot road. And would that be on the developer or on the town property? Or is that far? I mean, it's almost always on the developer. There was a comment by the staff that there will be no additional traffic and I pretty well understand that, but the intersection of cheese factory lane and road is not the best. And I guess my question would be, would the board ever deem it necessary to have a traffic study, a line of sight, because of the nasty dip in the road that creates issues there? Which intersection? Where cheese factory lane hits cheese factory road, it's a T. It's a nasty spot. And to the west of the intersection is a dip right in front of Frontier with Duke's house. And unless you know about it, the cars will hide in there and we've had guests pull out and there has been a few accidents. It sounds like more of an issue to take up with the city council than with us. Okay, the town, I have a vivid recollection that back in the, I want to say the 70s, the town came in and blasted the knoll down a few feet. And so they reworked it to try to fix the, the knoll created kind of a blind spot. So they brought it down quite a bit and now you know it's much better than it was. But that would be beyond the, obviously that would be, You have the comments, questions from the public? Hearing none, let's continue. So do you have a sense of like, we could continue to August? That would give you a couple of months. Sure, yeah. What do you think, 21st? 21st, August, 21st? That's the second August hearing. Second August hearing. And that will give you like 12 months after that to you know get your final application in and so on. Would the Board like me to come in with a draft decision if the conservation agreement seems okay at that point? I would like that, yeah. And move that we continue preliminary plot application, SD 1817 of Peter Ewing for August 21st. We move the second to the, we continue this to August 21st. 21st, all in favor, say that. Aye. Opposed, abstention. Thank you very much. Thank you. Take care. Appreciate it. Thanks, Marlon. Next on the agenda, minutes from June 5th. Everyone has had a chance to review the minutes. They were very complex. Thank you very much, Susan. Good job. I had one comment. It says that I stayed somewhere. Oh, yeah. At the top of page three, it says that I had been involved in selling property to RL Valley. It was actually to skip Hockner. There's two skips that night. And I'm a skip Hockner, H-O-E-C-H-N-E-R, not Skip Valley. Any other amendments to the minutes? I heard none. I have 10 emotions to approve as amended. We approve the minutes of June 5th, 2018 as amended. Second. Moved and seconded. That we approve these minutes as amended. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Next day. Thank you very much. Let's see. Nothing else? More? Other business? Did you have a draft? Once we close the hearing. Yep. Yes. Let's close the meeting at 8.34. Thank you very much. Take care. And we will look at the draft.