 All right You know I still haven't seen that guy at Johnson for the Red Sox. I have no idea what that guy looks like. Well Brian, can I have a picture? Yeah. Very average looking. I mean I don't see many games in the beginning but I still haven't seen them. They were something else last night I'll tell you. Put that one in the seats, that looks nice. I saw that. That looks cool. I knew it was coming. I absolutely knew it was coming. Oh we've moved people around? Mark is going to be here? It kind of looks that way. Holy Macron. I thought he looked in that box. The audience. Even nicer. Might be a calm night. Well as long as Frank's here. Frank is definitely different than any other GRB member you've ever seen. So I think it's good to have him on the board. Well... He's definitely different. I'm not sure of that. He's not one of my favorite people. Quite hypocritical. He's definitely a stickler for doing things by the book. Well, his version of the book. You hear the Nazis? I got him. I've got a complaint about some of that. Not a complaint but he said, I've got the essence of this book. You left out the eloquence. And then you can sit down. I get AX with the eloquence. I don't care. That was one of my favorite moments. It's like four. Four? I don't know. They're like completed. Continuous. But sometimes they are whether somebody gets it. Two of them look. Boiler plate. Don't kill yourself. Two of them think they won't take any time at all. One of them? If there's nobody here, that's a good sign. Because there's only one that might have around some interest. I can't remember which one. A suspicious one. One looks a bit icky. It's that one. But if there's nobody here, it's really not. Yes. They'll be okay. I don't know who's to blame. I know we've heard it before. So you have an extra chair? I guess that Brian's not here. Brian's home. He walked from my car into Trader Joe's and back again without a coat on today. America. A great hyacinth on my lawn are in bloom and the lilac looks like it's going to bloom. It's got two weeks in which there's well, two weeks in a day to bloom for my birthday. Which is what its orders are. It's freezing. Well, it'll be in summer tomorrow. It's pretty grassy on Sunday. Yeah. But on top of that? Yeah. We're friends who live in Cransbury. Yeah. But we had a spring. The nature irises were in full bloom. That's how we made it back home. Okay, you order flowers like that. It comes with all the energy or something. It's not meant for the squirrels. It's for the squirrels and more squirrels. There's a squirrel digging happy in our lawns. What are you planting here? What are you planting here? And the funny one. You want to go from the lawn to the back of the house. You can go up the lawn to the desert because up the steps jumps off the steps from the house. Here's the music. How are you? We've done 10 minutes. Yeah. See you. I don't think you've been to Japan. No. So for a tiny, have more fun. I was calling me that. They came for aversing journey. We're all set up today. This will be for supplementary. Yeah, where there it is. Very nice, thank you, look at that. Thank you. You go on a walk, I'll get you some water. Look at that. Did you print out the agenda? You're over there. Since when? They like to play this. They like to move. They move things around. I got vanished to the end. Yeah. View board for Tuesday, May 1st, 2018. First item on the agenda is directions on emergency evacuation procedures. If there is an emergency, we should all exit either through the doors that you came in or through these doors and we should meet in the south parking lot which is just behind us and we should all make sure to sign the sign-up sheet which is a record of making sure that people who are here are safely outside and it's also as a record, the sign-up sheet is a record of your being here so that if one of these applications is continued, then you have the right to participate in it. If you weren't here for the start of it, you don't get to participate in the future. So that's why it's a good thing to sign the sign-up sheet. Second item on the agenda is additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. Do we have any? Hearing none, comments and questions from the public? Not related to the agenda. Anybody having to comment your questions? Thank you. Announcements. Do we have announcements? I hope you don't. Item number five. Item number five. Ms. Lenny's primitive application MS-1801 of the City of South Burlington Department of Public Works for stormwater upgrades of the Pinnacle at Superior Neighborhood. The upgrades consist of replacing four stormwater detention basins with two gravel wetlands, one sand filter, and one detention pond, as well as associated pre-treatment structures at Pinnacle Drive and Nolan Farm Road. Who is here for the applicant? My name is David Wheeler, Howard County City of South Burlington Public Works. I'm the project manager for this project. And if you would please raise your hand. Yes. And do you promise the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. And is there a conflict of interest? This is the city? There better not be. No, no. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, so we've been working with the homeowners association Pinnacle at Spear. We got a grant over a year ago to do the design work to upgrade their stormwater treatment systems. They're located in both the Bartlett Brook and Monroe Brook watersheds. So during the flow restoration plans that we developed, we've identified. During what plans? So the cities put together flow restoration plans. Both the Bartlett Brook and Monroe Brook are impaired streams. So we had to put together a large project that identified many individual projects that would reduce the flows to those streams during the one year storm event, which is like two inches of rain. For context on Sunday, we got about a half into rain. So when these were designed back in 1995, the state hadn't implemented their stormwater standards yet. The first standards were set in 2002 and most recently updated in 2017. So they have stormwater infrastructure in the neighborhood, but you know, it's not really up to modern standards. So it's not doing much to reduce phosphorus loading to the lake and it's not doing too much to reduce the peak flow events during the one year storm. So we identified the four ponds for retrofit. We're proposing to retrofit two to gravel wetlands and that both reduces the peak flow and the phosphorus loading to the lake. And then on the two other ones that we couldn't really retrofit to gravel wetlands, we're doing a sand filter on one and then just pond improvements on the remaining fourth pond. So we're adding pre-treatment and we're adding flow reduction to that pond. So flow reduction means you're expanding the pond? We're not expanding, we're actually just modifying the outlet structure. Basically right now it has a large pipe as the outlet, so it acts like a large orifice and allows anything up to the capacity of that pipe to basically just flow through, including the two inch rainfall event. If you reduce that orifice down to a smaller size, then it restricts the water from flowing out during the lower rainfall events and then the water starts filling up at the pond. It provides detention and it slowly releases through the smaller orifice once the storm has passed. So that's the goal. And that is desire. It's the same total volume eventually gets released. Correct. So just for information, why is it desirable to slow it down? Yeah, so when you have a whole watershed and all the runoff comes off at once, you get this peak event and if you look at the graph, it really peaks up and comes back down. So if you're getting 120 cubic feet per second from the whole watershed in the stream, that causes erosion and there's a bunch of phosphorus and sediment in the stream banks that gets eroded out and pushed into the lake. So the goal is to reduce that peak event and spread it out over time. So it's the same volume, but opposed to being a straight-up peak you're trying to... So it's essentially an erosion control measure or a phosphorus abatement measure, is that it? Correct. Yep. And then on top of that, as far as the stream banks go, you're getting phosphorus reduction in the subsurface gravel wetland. So you have two feet of stone media and on the void space in the stone. It allows a biofilm to grow on the stone and then that interfaces with the watering. As a further matter of information, at the time this project was built, were there already federal standards in place? I don't recall. I was about eight years old, so I'm very familiar with the standards. Your memory should be fine, right? My memory is the worst. The 2002 standards. And then there's another big jump in 2017. But back then, again, it was a relatively large pipe outlet, so you'd only be getting really severe storm events being controlled. So is this development... There's a homeowners association, is that right? Correct. A homeowners association under a legal mandate to make this correction as far as you're concerned? So right now, you know, we've identified, like I was mentioning, a bunch of projects in our full restoration plans. And, you know, we had a schedule that we set out. We have to complete our full restoration plans by 2032. And we identified different projects each year to be constructed. That wasn't my question. I'm asking you a different question, which is, is there a legal compulsion that this homeowners association would be under to make this correction? Let's assume that the city hadn't stepped in and isn't providing this service. Would it be the obligation of the homeowners association? It would. So they have an expired storm water permit right now? So if they wanted to... So this is part of a citywide plan to substitute the public FISC for these corrections for what is actually a private obligation? Is that correct? So the way that we're doing a cost share on this project, so there's a percentage of impervious owned by the city and a percent owned by the homeowners association. So even if they were to go and do the project on their own, they're only responsible for the impervious portion that they own and the city's responsible for the remaining portion. And so we are going to be cost sharing. So are they in fact paying for part of it? They are. And are they paying for their true pro-rated share? They are. Excellent. And then on top of that, we're getting grants. So by having, you know, storm water utility staff were able to go to the state and get grants. We've received three different grants for this project. One from the Lake Champlain Basin Program, one from the ERP Ecosystem Restoration Program, which is basically the state DEC, and then one from the CCRPC, Chittin County Regional Planning Commission. But those grants are ultimately all public funds of one sort or another, right? Correct. Yep. What's the total amount of those grants, David? So the Lake Champlain Basin Program is funding 80% of the pond that they're funding. The other three ponds are being funded 50%. So the total grant money we've received is in between $200,000 and $300,000. So Mike, are you done with your money question? So my question is a little simpler. This is a one-year event that you're talking about. It's a two-inch event that might likely occur annually, correct? That's the target design storm. So I have been, I own and manage a lot of property, and we have had many 100-year events that occur every two or three years in some of our properties, where the design flow was exactly what you're talking about. They downsized the pipe to make sure that there wasn't flow through on that one-year event. But they downsized it so much that the pond then overflows in a 100-year event. Correct. What are you doing to make sure that doesn't happen? That's how it's designed to work. Okay. You got it all figured out. There's an emergency spillway where it overtops during the 100-year event. Okay. So there's a spillway and that goes to where? Downstream. So it would then go into a, it would allow it to actually flow to the lake somehow? Correct. Yeah. Without flowing through the neighbor's backyards? Yeah, via the stream, you know, whatever, wherever the discharge point is. Okay. I just happened to have a Hannaford site that has it flow right through their store. So. Do these ponds have any purpose other than flow reduction? Are they supposed to act as a filtration system of some sort? They are. But in the circumstance that John and you just described, if you have the overflow, you're not getting the filtration balance. That's correct. Is that right? You're getting the. And during the 100-year storm event, that's not really what you're going for anyways. You know, you've got a lot of water at that point. You know, there's this concept of. And that's the priority and filtration takes a backseat. Well, you have this concept of the first flush where the majority of the pollutants are in that first bit of water. So once you've essentially cleaned the streets with that first two inches of water, anything subsequent after that is going to be relatively cleaner. And if you were to actually size these things out to provide water quality treatment to the 100-year event, you'd have to demolish the whole neighborhood and it'd just be one storm under treatment practice. I understand. Oh, that's a good point. I hadn't ever thought of that. Okay. Other questions from the board? I have none. Comments, questions from the public. Sure. Yeah. Please identify yourself. Ray Gonda. I live on the. Swear on it, right? Sure. Yes. I live on the. Should I? Swear me in? Swear you. Please. If you can raise your right hand. You promised all the truth. The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Sure do. Thank you very much. My name is Ray Gonda. I live, oh, before I speak, let me give you some pictures. These are the properties that David has been talking about. So my name is Ray Gonda, I live at 27 Pinnacle Drive, South Burlington, and that place is just off of Spear Street, about a half mile south of where Swith Street crosses it. As you drive down Spear Street south, you encounter my house, which is the first property in the development. And as you're driving by, if you look to the left, you will see these big, huge, weeping willow trees. There are a total of about eight of them. I've been told by association people that our property in particular is important in terms of the value of the whole development for this reason. It's the first thing that people see when they drive into Pinnacle Drive is our property. Because if you turn left and go into Pinnacle Drive and turn the left onto Pinnacle Drive, there's two Pinnacle Drives. You're basically doing a half circle around my property. So it's fairly well- Is there a corner there? I don't know what I'm looking at. It's right here. Do you even figure out what we're looking at? Oh, yeah. That's the property there. Yeah. And the wetland is just above it. Can you figure out what this is? We call it a wetland. It's basically a tension pond. But right now it's grown in with huge gattails and giant reeds. So it's an enormous wildlife habitat. But that will change with time and I'm sure back again. What I have to say, I think, is positive. My concern was with these weeping willow trees, which are mature trees and they surround the south and the west end of the pond. And one of the trees is slated for demolition because it is in the way of something. And that's fine. It's the tree on the easternmost end on the southeast corner. The tree's half dead anyhow, so that's not a problem. There are four more there that are important and they're not slated for demolition. I, what I, my concern was those trees. I didn't want to become a fly in the ointment. So I didn't, I talked to the district commission coordinator and she said I could get party status and call for her hearing, but I said I really don't want to do that. I said I would rather work with the people who are doing the project to figure out if we could satisfy my concerns. So to make it short, they have satisfied my concerns. I thank Dave Wheeler here. I talked to him and within a day's time he had some wording in the documentation cautioning the subcontractors who did the work, will do the work, to be as protective of those trees as they possibly can. And then that's the bottom line. So I want to compliment Dave for that assistance. You'll probably see something coming. If you look at documentation again on this, you'll probably see something coming from the architects, the civil engineers on this also, because I talked to them also. Thank you very much. Dave, how are you protecting the root structures for the willows? Are you just staying away from them or? Yeah, largely. We're working on the footprint of the existing pond. So we do have to replace the inlet pipe. So there's a tree that's essentially right over that pipe that's called out to be removed. And then on the outlet side, we'll be trenching through to replace the outlet pipe as well. There's a couple of willows in that area. We'll kind of have to assess it as we go during construction, but the goal is to minimize the trench width. So your assumption is you will lose no more than this one willow. That's the hope, yep. When you, no offense, I've done a bunch of these projects. When you do, what will be the, how will you deal with the? Yeah, so we'll replant. How big are these willows? They're large. I think 36 inch diameter. You understand that a 36 inch diameter willow gets replaced by? 36 one inch gallon per tree. A whole lot of trees. I understand. I'd like Dave's answer first. I do understand how that. The major part of the discussion was at the outlet where that little round circle is on the left of the side. There are two trees there. There's a structure there that's a concrete round tank type thing. And the drain from that tank leads right out between two big mature willow trees. Now from looking at the maps of 2004 versus 2018, you can see that 2004 those trees were not very large. Maybe they were 10 years old. I don't know how long, whenever the development was made. But there's an 18 inch pipe that goes from that concrete structure out. And my guess is that the roots of those trees, since they were planted either about the same time or shortly after, that some of those roots have grown over that pipe. So when they trench to unearth that pipe, they're probably going to cut through roots. Part of the agreement here was that they would try their best to save those trees. And my comment was that those trees could be removed now. The city could budget the money to do that. But I don't see the necessity of that. Because we don't know if it's going to kill them or not. Maybe in five years they'll be dead. Maybe they won't be dead. So let's just wait and see how that goes. I actually am talking about a different issue altogether. When you remove a tree, say a 36 inch tree, you must replace it with the same amount of caliper in the city. This is one of my pet peeves. And I've had to do it several times. So a 36 inch tree, if you replace it with 2 inch caliper trees, requires 18 trees. It's not insignificant, it's hard to do. I want to make sure that Mr. Wheeler understands that he kills off a 36 inch tree or perhaps 2. Because of imposing on those roots, he may be replacing with 18 to 36 more trees. So there's a significant issue here. It's not your issue. They won't fit. I have had this problem. You have to fit them. You have to find a place for them. That's the way the city works. This point is actually aimed at Ray, who's three seats away from me, to make sure that he understands that if it happens to the private sector, it also happens to the city. Are the trees out of the common area or his lawn? I believe they're out of the common area. Do you have the option of replacing it with 6 inch trees? That's right. Other comments from the public? Thank you very much. Take care. We need to close this, don't we? Has he reviewed the draft? You've reviewed the draft decision. Can I turn the motion to close? Remove that we close. Ms. Lenny's permanent application, MS-1801, of the city is up going to the Department of Public Works. Second. It's been moved and seconded. We'll close this application. I'll tell you what to say. Hi. Hi. Hello. Thank you. Thank you. Take care. Next on the agenda, let's see. Item number six, design with application DR-1804 of VASTA to amend the previously approved MS-1801 permit. The amendment consists of changing the allowable sign colors to red, white, green, blue at 358 Borson Street. Who will be here for the update? Check. Obviously. Okay. This is news, so it's a news show. Raise your right hand, please. I'm depending on the approach. I do. Thank you very much. You've seen me before. Jeff Albertson. Thanks to you. And a reminder for everyone to sign the sign-up sheet to make sure that you can participate in future deliberations on these items. Please describe what's happening. The risk of confusing the issue, the request has evolved a couple of times. We originally made a request to modify the permit so that we could take an existing kiosk and paint it white and addend the allowable colors so that we could put our sign on and the neighboring business behind us could put their sign on. Turns out half of that request isn't even needed because they're not even allowed to put their sign on that kiosk. Once apparently the back building was sold and because of the way it was subdivided, they no longer have access to that, so that portion of the request doesn't really matter because they can't put a sign there anyway. So are you only after red and white at this point? We are after red and white, which is currently allowable, and we are also after painting the kiosk white. Right now the kiosk is painted black. And the only other issue that's come up since then is we were under the assumption, falsely, I have come to learn, that we were allowed to also put red and white signs on the building above the doors. The building itself has a cut out for a sign and had a sign previously and has lighting for the sign and everything, but apparently that was not allowed and the previous owners had it there even though it wasn't allowed in the current master sign permit. So we have signs that do comply with the color limitation, but we have learned from Ray that we have to also ask to have panel signs above the door because that's not currently in the permit. But that they're not lit, right? They can be lit. But they can be lit. Sure. And you've read the draft decision, you've read the staff comments. There's an entire existing sign, yes. Yes. Okay. Questions or comments from the board? I have none. Questions or comments from the public? You're in none. I have to say the motion to close. Move that we close. Design review application DR-1804 of VASTA. Second. You can move in second. We'll close this application. I'll favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Let's take it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this process. Do we await confirmation that the application has been modified? How long does that take? So the board will deliberate on the decision and sign it and then we'll send you a copy. Ping me if you want an e-mail copy. Otherwise I have to send it to you right now. Oh, I have to send to you by mail anyway. But ping me if you also want a copy. You can just throw it to me. Okay. Yes. I will fold it into a paper airplane and send it over to you. And then we can go ahead and process your permit for the actual sign. So this is to amend your master signage permit, which gives you permission for the parameters of your signs. Then you need to get a sign permit for your actual signs. Thanks very much. And we have 45 days, but it'll be sooner than that. Okay. Thank you. Well, thank you. Promising stuff. Yeah. Right. How dare. Item number seven on the agenda, final application SD 1812 of Rivers Edge Building Development, LLC for re-approval of an amendment to a previously approved plan unit development consisting of revising the footprint lots of eight units at 1840 Spear Street. Who is here for the applicant? Dan Heil of Leary-Berks Civil Associates. Final plan application. So this is a swearing or has it already been done? Swearing. Please wait. Raise your right hand. Do you promise all the truth? All truth, nothing but through some under penalty of perjury. I did. Thank you very much. So if I can just represent to the board, I somehow put the wrong plans into the packet. So the plans that Ray has on the board now are the right plans. These plans are the same as the plans which were approved when we first saw this application. We're seeing this application again because the, the mylar was not recorded. Correct. So nothing has changed. It's just a timing technicality. Was it my fault that I not signed? No. No, we were never provided the mylar. You understand Robin gets better service here. She sees us all the time. Yep. Dan. I'll, Larry Burke civil associates here tonight on behalf of river's edge development. We're here seeking approval for revisions to four duplexes or eight units. The footprint lots associated with each duplex. We're revising footprint lots. Footprint lots 22 and 23 and 28 and 29. And then up this way. We scroll up a little bit on the media. Yeah. We're revising 59 and 58 and 59 and 62 and 63. And due to geometric changes of the duplex units, we revised the lot line in between each unit to follow the shared wall. In addition, we're revising the depths of the footprint lots for units 28, 29 and 58, 59 and 62 and 63 and as Marla mentioned, we previously received approval for this on September 5th of last year. However, we failed to follow up the CEA on filing the plat. So the approval is null and void. And looking through the conditions, we're okay with the, all the conditions. Once again, board, have any questions, comments? I have a question really for staff just a technical question. What is the, these so-called footprint lots are being laid out as lots for sales, is that correct? Correct. And what's the proximity, either of you could answer, of the buildings to the closest boundary of the footprint lot? I use the word boundary in the common sense sense. It would be 10 feet. And that was between 58, 59 and 60 and 61. Now you're talking about between, you're not talking about between the units. So between 62 and 63 and how far would the boundary be? Oh, it would be a shared wall. It's a duplex unit. So it would be right next to each other. A tiny wall. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I thought. Everybody knows my views. Yeah. Perhaps you don't. It's illegal, but other than that, you know. We think it's all good. Other comments, questions from the board. From the public comments, questions. Yes, please. Please identify yourself. I am Stuart. Yeah, you've heard me before. I live in phase two of South Village. Would you mind showing us the, the plan that you plan to build please? That's how it is just now, but I would like to see the revised plan if you don't mind. Maybe you can't, maybe Malika chose the revised plan. So that plan that we were showing was the revised plan. And not as I understood it. I understood you are now building the houses at right angles to each other. Okay. Yep. There is access. This is, See, this is, this is the new plan. That's, Yep. That's the new plan right there. So the house is, you've got one house on each of two different streets now. Correct. Whereas what you had shown previously, both houses were facing the same street. I believe so. So I want you to see what the actual proposal was. And I think this is now the actual proposal. Side-loaded. I think the original plan was to do plants with a, on the corner to have a side-loaded garage. Possibly. I think they've changed the architecture. So the change in the architecture of the building resulted in a change in the knee to the footprint to coincide with the change in the architecture of the building. But I do remember when this was originally approved that they, or they didn't want the, each of the homes to have a driveway off from each street. So they didn't have both on one street and none on the other. So it's similar, but a little different. I don't really have a plan showing what it was original, but we'd like these better. Okay. And in fairness, I like it better too. But what was shown wasn't what was proposed. And I wanted to know what was actually proposed, because as I'm sure you're, I'm sorry, I need to speak louder. Sorry. As I'm sure you're all aware, my primary concern is what is going behind these houses in North Jefferson. That's my primary concern. And the plans that were on the webpage, which I don't have with me, show five houses there. And I wanted to confirm that that is still the existing one. And I apologize for this. I included the wrong plan in the packet. So that plan was erroneously included. And I'm going to have the, what's on late to the final minutes, updated to what's shown on the screen now. So what I showed had a lot, had homes shown behind the homes on North Jefferson right now. It's just currently as approved as a lot for future development. So there is no approval for that lot. That lot is one of the subjects of the Phase 3 condition that requires them to come back and see the DRB before they get approval for anything on that lot. Thank you. And I apologize again. That's all right. I mean, that is my primary concern. It has been for a year. And will continue to be. The plans you've drawn up, you look much nicer than what was there before. So thank you for that. Thank you very much. I knew the comments, questions from the public. Hearing none. Okay. Motion to close. I move that we close final plan application SD-1812 of Rivers Edge Building Development LLC. Second. Moving second. We'll close this application. We'll say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next kind of money agenda. Site plan application. SP-18-15 and conditional use application. CU-1806 of Steve Gregory to amend a previously approved site plan for a 60,000 foot, 60,000 square foot multi-tenant industrial building, unit seven of which is currently approved for use as a funeral home and mortuary or crematorium. The amendment is to add one additional retort to the existing funeral home and mortuary. 472 Middle Land Drive. Who is here for the applicant? Steve Gregory, honored. And raise your right hand. Do you probably tell the truth? The whole truth is nothing but the truth on a penalty of perjury. Here. Thank you very much. Please describe the project. Yeah. Basically, I'm simply looking to add a retort to my existing crematory. Retort is just a basic cremation oven. Been there for six years. I had any complaints or problems. I provide a service to the community. My father-in-law. Oh, really? Yeah. I didn't know that. Yeah. And I added my air permit to the application to answer any air quality issues. Basically, there are no air quality issues. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have about the project. Have you seen the staff comment? Yes. The draft decision? Yes. Steve, if my memory serves, there was times of day that you're allowed to operate. Is that? Not anymore. That was changed in 2014. And still no issues? Still no issues. What would the issues be other than air? Is there noise associated with air? There's nothing. Even my adjacent neighbors on the next wall don't even know if I'm operating. And where is the exhaust, so to speak? There's this four-foot stack above on the roof. There's nothing visible. There's nothing that you can smell or see here. I can, as a customer, I can verify that it's entirely pleasant. That's what you're going for. Other comments, questions from the board? Comments, questions from the public? Hearing none, any motion to close? I move that we close site plan application SB 1815, conditional use application CU 1806 of Steve Gregory. Second. I move that we close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. Take care. Next item on the agenda, a presentation of summary of LDR amendments effective April 23, 2018 by Paul Conner, director of planning and zoning. Famous Paul Conner. Famous, the wonderful. Recently on TV, I think you should pay a fine or something. If it was Rotary, he'd owe us money, it was Rotary. Paul Conner, director of planning and zoning, was actually sort of funny that literally just as the TV camera was setting up in the front parking lot there, the rec department decided that was their moment to take their spring photos, so they walked out with a set of chairs and set themselves up as a bleacher section. And they were politely asked to move slightly to this side. Anyway, thank you for having me here this evening. I'm here to give you a quick overview and answer any questions that you might have around the most recent round of amendments to the land development regulations that the city council passed last month and took effect about a week and a half ago or so. So you'll, I don't know if you've seen any applications that come under these yet, but you will be in the pretty near future. So I just want to give you a little tour. I'm going to take them a little bit out of order from what's in this memo to sort of speak most relevant to you so that we maximize your time. So the first one that I want to chat about is heights in the C1R12 and the C1R15 district. So that is the district that is basically from the Burlington line where the little strip mall is down to about IDX. So from right next to the Hickok and Boardman building? Yep. So from there south, basically down to include Hannaford and Lowe's, Kmart, the other side of the street, that whole area, as well as two sections on Williston Road, one sort of right around where the wood-fired pizza places over towards the two Kennedy drives. So that's the C1R12 district. And technically also the property literally immediately behind the now double tree hotel that belongs to UVM where their parking is. So those are the C1R12 districts. The new double tree? The new double tree. Meaning the old Sheridan. Correct. Okay. So in those areas, after seeing a number of applications that have come in who've often sought height waivers and the Board has reviewed these on multiple occasions, the new regulations replace the 35 and 40 foot maximum height standard that then had the waiver opportunity with a five story standard without waivers on top of that. There are in addition to that adjustments for proximity to neighborhoods that are in the R4 district. So the Orchard's neighborhood, the Eastwood's neighborhood where it says that the building in the commercial district, the C1R15 and C1R12 district cannot be more than one story taller than the shortest adjacent building. And that increases by one story for every 75 feet of horizontal separation. So as to be cognizant of largely single family homes nearby. So that's one change that's taken place. It's something that certainly we've gotten a lot of feedback from the development community at times the Board, certainly the Planning Commission. A sort of related change that actually applies citywide is on the subject of rooftop equipment. So for years there's been this question of if there's an HVAC unit on the roof of a building, does that count as part of a building's height or not? It has counted as the height. The Board has often said, well, it's only eight square feet so we're not going to count that. We're going to give the height waiver. To simplify all that, the new standard is that most rooftop equipment is just not considered part of a building height. There are a few exceptions to that where it's really an actual architectural feature like a spire would be a still height, but the normal things like an elevator shaft or HVAC equipment or satellite dish, those kinds of things do not count as height of your building in districts where heights are relevant. How about a very large antenna? A large antenna would be counted as height, but a little personal satellite dish would not. So I just recently put in a new pooling, but to me that would be a huge imposition. Well, an elevator shaft is going to be eight by eight feet high. That's it? Yeah, because it's just equipment. Well, listen, in South Burlington, the majority of our buildings are no higher than five stories, which means they're piston oriented. And so the shaft is really to get rid of air or more than anything else. They tend to be fairly small. If they actually had lift equipment in them, they'd be a little bit bigger. But it is what it is. Yeah. Well, so the definition there is minor rooftop apparatus. The board can look at the definitions as applications come up and if you deem that there's minor and then there's non-minor. Exactly. A standard rooftop unit sits about four feet off the ground and it's not a really big deal. It gives them a little bit of room for interpretation to you, but the intent is to say the small things that people can't see shouldn't be countered as high. Are they defined? Are there definitions from mine? There are definitions and there's examples. It says things like such as, and I don't know if you want to pull that up, Marla, but for whatever reason, my version is not coming up. That's all right. Well, we'll get to the truth. I don't know. Get the idea. Where are you? What are you? Be under heights. After this, I included the full set of amendments. Page 11. Jen said, so go to page 11. You don't happen to have handouts for the amendments, do you? I certainly can provide them to anybody who'd like. I don't have them on me, but I can get them to you in either paper or digital format. We've got a full red line version of exactly what's changed. That'd be helpful. I mean, we've got it. I guess we can print it, right? You got printed versions of that? If you'd like, happy to print them for you. I don't have them on me, but I'm happy to print them and either print them to you next week. This is the same thing, right? Yeah. I don't have one here. Yeah. Was it part of the mailing? Part of the application. Part of the application. Height calculation of a building shall not include minor rooftop apparatus such as solar collectors, chimneys, elevator, mechanical penthouses, air conditioning equipment, satellite dishes, and similar apparatus to project from the roof. For other rooftop apparatus such as spires, towers, water tanks, radio and TV antennas, C-section 3.07. So that may not fully address your question, John. Yeah, I know that actually, I mean, I guess I would suggest that you might send back at them. There are two dramatically different styles to solar. There's the fixed mount that tends to sit maybe three to four feet off the, just like, you know, minor three to four feet off the roof and sometimes they're flatter than that. And then David Blitterstorf has these moving units. If you mounted one of those on your roof, it would stand 14, 15 feet high and sit there and move like this. It'd be bigger than any antenna you can imagine. In your experience, John, are those connected to the grid or are those sometimes? Well, they're individual. Okay. Yeah. I don't see them on roofs very often. They're exempt from local regulation entirely, but if they're not, if they're just battery powered to the building, then they certainly would be unarmored. And they're usually battery powered. They're powered by, they're solar powered. Right. I guess what I'm suggesting is there should be a maximum limit to this. Okay. And that might be the average height or the normal height of an elevator shaft tower, which is about eight feet. That's good feedback. Maybe it's nine feet. The intent here was to try to simplify, but there are times you're right that we'll bring that back. Yeah, you just don't want somebody nudging in and trying to put a 14 foot tower on top of a roof. But these are adopted, right? Well, but regulations are always work in progress. So these are adopted, but certainly we, I'll bring that feedback back to the city. So the city council has acted? They have, yes. Yes. What's the story? What's the story? I was in five stories. What's the story? The story is, I'm telling you a story. Let me tell you a story. There was a 50 foot high story. There is a definition in that. So in the specific circumstance that I described of the C1R12 and C1R15 district, moment. First story. Floor to floor height shall not exceed 20 feet. Upper stories shall not exceed 14 feet. Floor to floor height. Just what Bill read. So that's big. So 116 feet is fine without question. Five stories. Five stories. 20 plus 40. What did you say? 14 times four. I'm sorry. That's seven, right? So it's 24, 28, 40, 56 plus 20. 76. 76 feet. 76 feet. So essentially we're more than doubling the permissible height. 35 to 76. 35 or 40. So, you know, developers don't tend to make a story higher than they need to because it costs a lot of money. But it's possible. I don't even know why we have regulations because developers always do the sensible thing. Good point. Good point. Let's change this. Go ahead. All right. So that's the height standard. Second thing I want to speak to was a new area along most of some similarities, but specific to the Shelburne Road corridor itself, frontage on Shelburne Road and frontage on Williston Road, a new district called the Urban Design Overlay District. The intent here is to provide a little more flexibility in terms of setbacks for the development community and also put in some very basic building form standards. So the setback along Shelburne Road and along these sections of Williston Road is reduced from 50 feet down to 20 feet, which has been something that you've seen a lot of requests for in virtually all applications. So that is coupled with the heights thing that I just talked about. On the form side, there's a few basic elements that are now put into place. The buildings must have a 40% of the linear portion of a building on its face along Shelburne Road or Williston Road must be glazing, so windows and doors. That's less than the standards in the form-based code district and appeared to be pretty achievable. So for example, the Harbor Freight Building that you approved last year meets that 40% standard. It's setting a basic number so that you don't get a blank wall on that side. There must be a prominent doorway. Can that be spandrel? 75% of it has to be transparent. So 25% could be blackened out spandrel glass. I think doorways count as transparent, whether they're transparent or not. Yeah, got it. There needs to be a prominent doorway facing towards the street with a direct sidewalk to the street. It doesn't need to be the only entrance. It can be a kitty corner door if folks would like, but it does need to have at least an element of it facing the street. So those are the basic elements of it. In addition, at certain key intersections, there are what are being called primary nodes and secondary nodes. So at certain key intersections all along those two corridors, at the intersections themselves, if somebody chooses to build a new building there, then there's a slightly higher standard. The window percentage goes up to 60% on the main street and 40% on the side street. There must be a prominent corner architectural feature and it gives some examples of what that could be. And depending on whether it's a primary corner, which is really the main ones or a secondary corner, there must either be a minimum of a two-story building or the minimum of an appearance of a two-story building. So on the secondary ones it has to have the look and the size of two stories. On the primary ones, of which there are a handful, there must be an actual two-story building there, which for the most part, certainly on the residential side, we're seeing well more than that anyway. But a New England Federal Credit Union on the... I can't come up with a corner, but it's right by the bagel store. That would be a good example of a false two-story building. It almost qualifies as an actual two-story building. There is a second story element of it, but it's relatively small there. It needs to be at least 75% of the footprint in order to count. It's something like 50% of the footprint. It's just not the public area. So with a minor modification it would have counted. Yeah, the concept is right. They've got a lot of glass. Absolutely. Yeah, that would be a great example. Well, could we back up to set back for a minute? I'm just wondering. And let me be clear. I kind of like buildings in commercial areas closer to the street. Big setbacks don't seem to me to have a point, except for this one thing. We're talking, you know, with our two main arteries, what consideration has been given to the possible need for yet additional traffic lanes? I mean, you know, we're choking. Has this gone into the reasoning or the thinking about all this stuff? The Planning Commission did look at the what right-of-ways exist, and there is on at least the east side of the street some additional right-of-way that belongs to the state. What speed are we talking about? Shelburne Road, excuse me. There is some additional right-of-way that exists. In addition to that, that's part of why the Commission wanted to make sure there's at least this 20 foot in the off chance that there's an additional need to gain a few feet, which is... But if you reduce it to 20 feet, and you take some of that 20 feet for roadway, that's my point. It seems awful skinny, right? It does, but at the same time, it's a little bit of a catch-22 in that buildings that are speed-auto-oriented area are a little bit closer like where the Lighting Shop is, like where the New England Federal Credit Union, some quite 20 feet, but it's probably 35. They create a little bit more of a pedestrian-friendly environment which reduces the need for the road to get widened at a future time. That was the debate that the Commission had in that. I'm coming in after the fact, so the fact that I don't quite follow that doesn't matter much, but it just... Well, you've expanded your right-of-ways as far as you think they are needed, and you've done a whole study related to it, correct? That's correct. Whether we agree with it or not. And so they've done some long-term studies on traffic which include the ability to handle everything we theoretically have and we're not stepping on that footage, right? Right, yeah. I've seen the studies and don't necessarily agree with them, but they've done the studies. Excuse me. Third Amendment that I want to speak about quickly. The last two, you're likely not to see too much in this, but I want to give you just two as context. One is a relatively small one related to the permanently favorite subject of bicycle parking. Thank you very much. This one is a tweak to the regulations to allow pre-existing racks to count for the spaces that they create wherever a bicycle can attach to the frame. Some of the feedback that we got was that there are some racks that, while they may not meet the design, are still perfectly serviceable, so there are some adjustments to that. Will you reimburse for the thousands of dollars I've spent on those stupid racks that you made me put in? We will... I'm going to move on to the next one. Paul, have you done a long-term study to demonstrate these racks are absolutely essential to mitigate the effect of the narrower rights of way? I'm sure you have. All I can say is thank you very much. That's great. It simplifies the standards for where and how they can be attached. And it clarifies the spacing between the racks, which would seem to be something fairly simple, but believe it or not, what the industry makes and what the sort of national guidance on them are not the same thing. So we went with what the industry actually makes so that when you buy a rack and you think you've bought the right thing that it actually is sufficient. Previously, I've been pointing to what are sort of the national guidance, which for whatever reason, it's sort of like hot dogs and hot dog buns. Anyway, the last one I want to mention quickly is... One sec. Why can't they be made out of wood? Is that just because you're worried about somebody sawing through it? I mean, you could have a beautiful work... In theory, it could be well made, but a lot of the ones that have been seen just have rotted out and they just fall apart completely. And then somebody just takes a hammer to it and steals the bike. Got it. It's one of those things that if somebody did it with a 4x4, it would be perfectly fine, but... Well, if it was well maintained, you would have just as much trouble getting through a metal rack as you would a wood rack. We're trying to balance simplicity with creativity, and we didn't want to be in a situation where we say, oh, well, actually, use a little less, that's not going to be good enough. There's already too much discussion. Fair enough. Housing preservation, last thing. After a substantial amount of work starting with the Affordable Housing Committee and then on to the Planning Commission and City Council, the city has adopted new standards on the subject of housing preservation. So where applicable, and I'll give a couple of districts that are exempted from it, the rule is that if a housing unit is removed, then the housing unit needs to be replaced. If a housing unit is rebuilt on the same property within two years of the removal of the house, then that's or housing unit, that's perfectly fine. If the owner, for whatever reason, is choosing not to rebuild on the same property, a dwelling unit, then they have two options. One is to rebuild on a separate site somewhere in the city in which case this dwelling unit must be affordable for a period of at least 20 years, or they can make a contribution into the city's affordable housing trust fund equal to 25% of the assessed valuation of the premises, which is land and the building. Of the unit and the premises or the whole premises? Of the, let's assume it's a single family home for a sake of discussion. If you, if somebody chooses to remove a single family home in its entirety and they choose the payment option, it's 25% of the assessed value of the building and the property. So for say in the orchards or Chamberlain neighborhood, that might be somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 to 70,000 dollars. Huge. It's a, it's the, I would say that the first goal of this is that none of the above take place, that the dwelling unit remains. If that is, if the dwelling unit does not remain then these are the options. There are some exemptions to this converting a duplex to a single family home is an exemption. There is an exemption for the 30 something homes in the current round of the airport buyout program that has been sort of all over the known world for the last year and a half. Units that are deemed completely unfit for habitation and a handful of zoning districts including the districts that really don't allow for housing today, like the mixed industrial commercial district, the industrial open space strict excuse me industrial open space district, as well as a couple of districts where the city has been saying that uses are not prominent such as the form based code district and the Swiss street district as well. So not not fit for habitation. Is there a definition for that? There is a definition for it. It's a very, it's a very health officery definition I can get it to but it's not an exception. I didn't go through every single exception. If there is a house that burns and it's an act beyond the owner's control then that would also be exempt. If the person decides to take a giant jug of kerosene that's not the same story. Sure. Well they're going to go to jail for that anyway. And just leaving a house to not be in good shape does not qualify as being unfit for habitation. That's what I was worried about. We worked pretty closely to make sure that it's the rare circumstance where it's something that is really sort of pre-existing. Like this happens to be a city, was a city owned one but up by the Wheeler house was a house that was basically fallen in if there was another circumstance like that. It was in good shape when the city took it over. I think the city should be paying $60,000 towards this. So that's just to be clear on that point. So for example if you have a large apartment building and it's allowed to deteriorate by the landlord he doesn't acquire a right of demolition through his neglect is that right? An exempt right of demolition. Correct. Even if it's condemned by the health officer. Just neglect of a house to that point does not create an exemption. And let's say it's condemned by the health officer. Then I'll take a look at it but I believe that it was written fairly closely that essentially active neglect does not give you the pass. It has to have been a circumstance where for whatever reason beyond owner's control or pre-existing circumstance. So if we follow it out the health officer comes in condemns it. It's demolished. It's not a condition of two years to replace it. Or pay or of rebuilding one on a different site than they are required to make a bonding payment equivalent to that 25% amount. If they're planning to rebuild on the same property then if they choose not to do so that would be a zoning violation enforceable under our regulations through the environmental court. If they choose not to build on the same property and then they fail to do so that's a zoning violation enforceable through the environmental court. So what triggers the timing? The permit for the demolition of the dwelling unit. Okay so if something's sitting up there rotting. I can picture one at the top of Dorset Street at the moment. Until somebody is actually asking for the demolition the trigger doesn't start. Correct. This is not the same thing as a a the council last year had a discussion about sort of a derelict properties ordinance. That's not this. This is at the active action of removing a dwelling unit. But if the city said a house must come down. Because it's derelict. And the guy does nothing. And the guy does nothing and we the city takes action to take it down. Does it trigger? Why don't I look into that more specifically and give you a I only ask because there are some of those. Yeah. Yeah. That is the intent. However I would like to be able to give you a more precise answer than that in that specific circumstance. Okay. Yeah. So that's basically this current round of amendments. So I'm sorry. So I'm trying to ask a question without asking a specific question. You've got you've got you've got fairly derelict housing that is not technically affordable. But is is is being rented to low and modern income people smaller. And the developer decides to turn it down to tear it down and replace it with fairly high end, not low to current income housing. What occurs in that situation in that circumstance as long as the number of bedrooms remains the same. This is not the the then that would be fine. There's not a statement that so that when you're tearing down little a affordable and replacing it with unaffordable you don't have an issue. It's when it is actually affordable housing. Correct. However, if you choose to tear down whatever dwelling little a affordable or or capital affordable or well no little a affordable or not affordable at all. And you choose to rebuild on a different property than there's an affordability standard. I see. Okay. Got it. The affordable housing committees. It's only when you're transferring the interest to to another spot affordable housing committees primary goal with this was to a retain housing and if not affordable housing rebuilt. That was what they decided to go for. Even if it even if what's replaced with the little a affordable is big time not affordable. Okay, got it. That's what I've got. Thank you very much. Always a pleasure to see you. Well, I'm great to see you on TV this week. You look great. All right. As always. Last item on the agenda. Minutes of February 20th and April 17th. And we saw April 17th, of course, I'm sure we'll get February 20th. When we get it. Everyone's had a chance to read the minutes and does anyone have any comments. See the letter that accompanied. Yeah. Yes. Up to you guys. If you want to take that up. I have already corrected the spelling of her name. I think it would be a good idea to take it. Everyone would be in favor of that. And did you when you say take it up, do you mean you add that comment to the record? Is that what you're saying? So she noted there were some additional people present. It's up to the board whether they would like to add those people who did not sign in hope because we can't confirm that they were present. And then it's up to the board whether they want the pines as the care facility to independent living apartments for people 55 and older. So I don't think we can add unless I'm corrected. I don't think we can add the people who someone else says right here. Exactly. And if the information we were provided said care facility. I think we have to stick with that. But if it was if it was a comment then it was a comment from us then I think we can correct it. What do you guys think? Does it affect? I don't know if it is it correct. I mean is there, is it not a care facility? Is that semantics or is that a the zoning term is congregate care facility. Right. So I don't feel any to judge it. Thanks Ray. Thanks for that clarification. So let's just correct the spelling and not add the folks and not because of what Ray just mentioned. Thank you. Let's not change the description. If that's okay. I'm happy to be overruled. I think that's the terminology that was used during the application. And it's in the LDRs apparently right? Correct. So the description of the application on the agenda. I have moved that we approve the minutes from April 17th, 2018 with the name change or with the spelling correction. Second. Second we approve the minutes with as a menu. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Stay. Abstain. I wasn't there. That's right. Yes. And that's it for the self-propelled development review board at 810. Thank you very much. We're off by 20 minutes.