 Hi, Jim. Stephanie is not, I don't think, because she's recused and Dan is, okay. Pardon me, so shall we dive in? All set. Okay. Welcome everyone to the South Berlin Development Review Board meeting for April 20th, 2021. My name is Dawn Filiburt, and I will be chairing the meeting tonight because Brian Sullivan is not available. With us tonight are DRB members, Mark Baer, myself, Dawn Filiburt, Alyssa Eyring, Jim Langan, Dan Aubrak, and I think Stephanie Wyman is not on, because she's recused for many of the projects. In attendance from the city of South Burlington are Marla Keane, Development Review Planner, and Delilah Hall, the Zoning Administrator. Pardon me. So our first agenda item, are there additions, deletions, or changes in order of the agenda items? Any changes? Okay. Number two, any announcements? Just a small announcement, Madam Chair. I'm sorry? Just a small announcement. Sure. The town of Shelburne is still in a bind with their meeting assistance with their Development Review Coordinator position, which I had stopped briefly, but their town planner, Dean Pierce, is on medical leave. So I am back pinch-hitting for them with some Development Review. There's no project, and it'll affect my opinion in one way or another, how my activities on this board. And also, hopefully that's only gonna continue two or three more meetings in the mid-May and that the town of Shelburne will be able to have somebody to do that. And then I do that, Mr. Snyder, from just professional capacity in working on Brownfields projects and other things like that, but I do not believe it will affect my ability to be impartial. Thank you, Dan. Helpful. And I seem to have lost you, but I will continue on. I can't see anyone, but we'll continue. Any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Hearing none, we'll move on to reminders. Thank you for those in attendance, those on the phone and those watching online. A couple of reminders. Pardon me. This meeting is being recorded and anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign the virtual sign-in sheet and the chat box. Please indicate you have a comment by saying your name or write in the chat box that you would like to ask a question or write your question in the chat box. In the chat box. In the chat box at box. And we tend to go project by project. You can write in early or not, but it's important that if you wish to have any party status in this process, you should register as a participant. Pardon me. Anyone on the phone that would like to sign in can send an email to Marla Keane at mkeaneatsberl.com and provide your contact information. This is necessary in order to be considered a participant should you want to obtain party status in order to appeal a decision made by the board. You can also submit comments and writing. All the comments that are submitted, I can assure you are sent to all the board members. And during the hearing, I would ask that you mute your phone or computer so we don't catch the ambient noise in the background. It also sometimes is helpful if you are not on the screen so we know who the board members are and who's talking. Any questions? Sure. So if two things, one is if you're interested, if you would like interested person status and you want to sign in in the chat box, I do need your email address and the project you're interested in. If you'd rather not put that information out available to the public, feel free to send me an email with that information. That's M-K-E-E-N-E-S-B-U-R-L dot com. The other point is that we will be taking public comment on each application. We do that after the applicant and the board have had a conversation about the project. So you will get an opportunity and Dawn will make it clear when that opportunity is. Dawn, I think you've muted yourself. Thank you. There is a process that we go by and there are three projects we're reviewing tonight. And for each project, I will ask the applicant to identify themselves, be sworn in if they need to be, and then the board will go through the comments that Marla has written. We'll ask questions of the applicant. And after all the comments have been reviewed, we will open it up for public comment. And it would be appreciated if any members of the public could address their comments to the chair. Okay, so the first project we're reviewing tonight is sketch plan application SD 2112 of Snyder Braverman Development Company, LLC, to subdivide an existing 11.9 acre lot into four lots of 9.4 acres lot L, one acre lot M4, 1.2 acres lot M5, and 0.4 acres lot M6 for the purpose of constructing projects on each of lots M4, M5, and M6, which will be reviewed under separate site plan applications at 311 Market Street. So this is a sketch plan application, which is a very high level review. It's kind of the initial step. It's a high level review by the applicant, identification of early on issues that the applicant might want to pay attention to by our staff and the board will give feedback on these comments and any other thoughts they have to guide the applicant as they prepare to submit a formal application. Land development projects that do not require subdivision or do not qualify as a plan unit, development are eligible to be reviewed as site plans. In this hearing, the applicant will describe, oh, I'm sorry. That's a site plan, not a sketch plan. Forgive me. So we are doing a sketch plan. We're going to ask for a very high level review of this project. And so the first step is to identify who is here for the applicant. This is Ken Braverman here, representing Snyder Braverman. And I'm also being joined by my partner, Chris Snyder, along with Tim McKenzie from South Burlington Realty. And our engineer, Andy Rowe, is also joining us. And he's with the firm Lemero and Dickinson. Thank you, Ken. And because this is a sketch plan review, we don't need to swear you in. So we would ask you to go ahead and give the board a little overview of your project and take it from there. Great. Well, thank you, everybody, and special thanks to the board for giving us the opportunity to review this at the sketch plan level, which we do find very helpful to get the board's feedback and to reflect on some of the comments made by staff. If you could zoom in a little more on the site, on the property plat, just to get everybody oriented as to the general plan. These lots are located on the south side of Garden Street. And they are directly across from what we call garden apartments, which is this 60-unit apartment project that was recently completed at the corner of Garden and Market and further down on Garden Street, where we have a 42-unit building that is under construction. As mentioned, this is a three-lot subdivision. We find it useful to go through this process to be able to really figure out how the LDRs and the form-based code relate to building design and configuration. As you can see in this plan, we have some building footprints that we've laid out. It's interesting in that, in the city center form-based code district, we're obviously working with the various transect zones. This project is located in the T-4 transect, which is a lower density zone compared to the T-5, which is the area to the north. We're under the impression that within the T-5's transect zone, there would be no curb cuts allowed on Market Street. It's been our understanding that within the T-4 district, that is allowable. So we look forward to kind of getting some feedback and talking through that as we get through some of the staff comments. The other key feature that we're always really working with are the natural topographic features of the site and a wetland that is running. It's called Tributary 3. It's running to the south of these lots. And obviously, the location of Garden Street is fixed and the location of the wetland is fixed. And it's our job to really figure out how do we advance the city's vision for city center and having a high density kind of town center urban feel within the context of a wetland and existing street network. So as a next step, I'm not sure does it make sense for us to go through the comments or would you prefer chair to have Marla do it? We're happy either way. If there's obviously any questions at this point in terms of the site and how it's laid out or any general questions, I'm happy to answer those as well. Thank you, Ken. Dawn here, I think that what we usually do is have the chair run through the comments and then we often ask for Marla to have input and the board members to have input. So having said that, let me fire up my little device here and start to walk us through the comments. The first comment is staff recommends the board direct the applicant to provide a plan demonstrating that the subdivided lots can be supported with one additional curb cut on Garden Street and no curb cuts on Market Street. And I'm gonna be honest, I wasn't clear from the drawings where the suggestion had that placed. So Marla, maybe if you or Delilah could provide some input into that or applicant, that would be helpful. Sure. So let me just orient everyone Delilah. Yeah, that's the perfect page. So as they have shown right now, I think they have to enable drawing tools. So thank you. Okay. So right now, this is the intersection of garden and market and I'm gonna draw all over this and then you can erase it and start over. They have an existing approval for a curb cut here. The LDRs limit curb cuts on both garden and Market Street to a minimum spacing of 400 feet. Right. This approved curb cut on Garden Street is more than 400 feet from the other break in the curb on Market Street. And then they are all proposing a new curb cut conceptually, obviously this is like a high level sketch plan right here on Street. And that is less than 400 feet from the next curb cut, which is the Garden Street intersection. If you go up in the staff notes above the comment itself, you'll see that staff recognizes that this is a challenging situation. They have approval for this building here. I probably should change colors. So this building here is a large multifamily building. This conceptualizes the large multifamily building. This is conceptualizes the large multifamily building. And I believe this is also conceptualizes large multifamily. You know, we are, we understand that asking them to access all four of those buildings to be a single curb cut on Garden Street is not a great idea from safety perspective, from ease of access perspective. And so that puts them in a difficult spot as Ken alluded to, you know, they've got the Garden Street, the limit of the property line and this wetland. Given that we acknowledge that something has to give, our recommendation is that the second curb cut be on Garden Street because Garden Street has been designed as a secondary support street compared to Market Street. Market Street is laid out with a very specific tree spacing, a very specific lighting spacing, a continuous path along the entire length with a very nice, it's already installed sidewalk, like decorative walkways, you know, different materials along the rep path and along the sidewalk. So our recommendation is since we acknowledge that something has to give, we recommend the additional curb be on Garden Street. So that's sort of the background sounds and has some other ideas. So this is. Marla, do you have any idea where that, that curb cut could go? Yes, let me see if I can get a different color going. I think I, now, no, I'm still on yellow. So this would be where I think the other curb cut would want to be. And we would also support another curb cut on the opposite side. Can you hover that cursor again, Eric? What's up? Where would that other curb cut be? I tried to tell, hover the cursor. Okay, got you. And did you say another curb cut, Marla? So we would support that being a through street along the other side as well. So we think putting it here would give us a situation where it could be an alley to the back of the T-5 in the future at such time as they came back over there as well. Okay. Thank you. Questions? Thank you, Marla. Questions from the board? Okay, hearing none. Go ahead, go ahead. If I can make a comment on behalf of the applicant, Andy Rowe with Lamber Row and Dickinson. I think we generally understand Marla's explanation. I guess where there's a bit of a misunderstanding is when we are looking at the T-4 BES standards, the curb cuts does specify 400 minimum distance between curb cuts on Market Street, but it's explicit in that curb cuts are not including street intersections. And so, we think that the curb cut being proposed onto Market Street is compliant. Because it is closer than 400 feet to the intersection of Market Street and Garden Street, but the BES standard is explicit in that it does not include street intersections. And the definition of curb cuts also seems to be supportive of the interpretation that curb cuts apply to access to property, not street intersections. That's an interesting point, Andy. Can I ask Mark? Is that one of the recent modifications that you did as part of the Form-Based Code Committee? Today specifically, because I don't remember seeing that until Andy pointed it out right now. And so the curb cut is defined as the opening in the curb measured at the property line at which point vehicles may enter or leave the property. And in the Form-Based Code table, there's parenthetical after curb cuts. And it says, sorry, I had to flip to the other page. It says curb cuts, not including street intersections. Is that new, Mark? Mark, I think you're muted. Mark? We can't hear you. I can see you. He's working on it. Yeah, thank you, Mark. That's great. This is what happened last night at City Council. I don't recall the exact conversation. If it was, I suspect, because we were trying to go through the Form-Based Code specifically in regarding to, obviously, Market Street and some of the issues that we were trying to address to make sure that the codes aligned with what could be and what was desired to go into the Market Street. And I don't specifically remember that point. I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm not saying that wasn't what the intent was. I just don't remember specifically that conversation. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Okay. So is that what the regulation says, though? Yeah, I can share my screen for a second. No, I do. Okay. On page 135. I don't remember number B4. Well, I guess I'm interested in whether the Board interprets trip cuts, not including street intersections to mean measured from anything that's not a street intersection to the next thing that is not a street intersection. And if the Board agrees with that interpretation, then I guess we're okay. That's how I would interpret it. Okay. Others? Again. It was a different Board, but under the subdivision application for lots C and D off of Garden Street, there was a positive finding that the proposed shared driveway there, that's about 250 feet from the Garden Street, Market Street intersection, complies with 8.13D4, the same section that we're talking about now. So it's not a new interpretation. Obviously different members on the Board, but this was a positive finding that was made on another application nearby, albeit on Garden Street, but at least it appears to us that the circumstances are very similar. So that would have you having the curb cut on Market Street? Correct, it would be leaving the curb cut as it's shown on the site development plan version of the property plan, as submitted with the application, yes. Okay. Other thoughts, Board members? I mean, personally, it seems to me to make sense that the curb cut should be on Garden Street, not Market Street, which is more of a thoroughfare, but I'm open to other thoughts from other Board members? None? Okay, Marla, your thoughts? Yeah, Dawn, I tend to agree with you. It should be, but given the information that Andy presented, I don't know that I have the ability to offer anything other than guidance. Okay, all right. But we would encourage you to consider it. It's just hard, because that lot, that M6, the lower right, is that, it's hard to see that M6 in the lower? Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's to some extent, yeah, I mean, I understand the need for a curb cut there and separate, because the buildings are separated and all that, and it's hard to know what the individual resident would do, depending on where they're going or the history of development. Well, they want to go to the main intersection, kind of depends which way they're going or headed to work or headed shopping or whatever and time of day, whether they choose to turn left or right. So, but it's not, it's not within the 400 feet of another true curb cut. So I'm okay with it. Well, think about it. Take these comments under consideration and we're going to see you again. So let's go ahead and move on. Thank you. Comment number two, acknowledging that the site plan review or the buildings themselves will be conducted administratively, staff recommends that in order to evaluate compliance with the subdivision criteria number three, the board discuss with the applicant what the anticipated number of dwelling units, non-residential square footage and PM peak hour trip generations of the lots will be. Applicant, what are your thoughts about that? So it was just today that we provided that information to Marla and I'm not sure that she's had much time to look it over, much less digest it, but just to sort of provide a high level recap to the board. Of the six lots that are there, there would be a total of four buildings proposed, one of which has already been approved by a form-based code site plan application and then three additional buildings on lots M4, M5 and M6. And collectively the applicant anticipates that there could be approximately 259 dwelling units between those four buildings and about 1,800 square feet of non-commercial space, a restaurant, fast turnover type restaurant coffee shop was originally anticipated in the building that was previously granted form-based code site plan approval. And so to put that into terms of trip generation, that would equate to 145 PM peak hour trips using the latest addition of the trip generation manual. And again, so about 259 dwelling units, about 1,800 square feet of non-residential space and 145 peak hour trips. Again, this project as any other is subject to the transportation impact fee, although the applicant has been successful in getting an in-kind credit from the city council for the applications that have been approved thus far. That's sort of an overview on trip generation, which I think addresses the second staff comment. Thank you for that. Any comments from the board or questions from staff about that before we move on? Quick question is, Andy, is there any underground parking anticipated? Yes, at least three of the four buildings, the one that's already been approved has parking underneath. The two larger buildings that front on Garden Street are anticipated to have stricter parking at the lower level and potentially the one on Lot M6. So although that building really hasn't been designed yet, but that is something that if it's possible, would be incorporated into the design of the building depending upon what the unit types end up being and the number of units if it's feasible to incorporate that into the structure. It's been a goal because surface parking is limited here. Right. Thank you, Ken. Is there any sense of how many total parking spaces are there? Is there a way to reduce the amount of surface parking at all, or are you kind of getting by on the minimum here? Well, the minimum in terms of the LDRs is zero. You know that well. We're not approaching two spaces per unit jump in, Ken, but I think the goal is to try to get in the range of one and a half on some of these buildings that's been less on some, it's been a little bit more. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, obviously for us, we think of structured parking under the building footprints is a key to the development formula for this site. It comes at a pretty significant cost, but I think it's well worth it in terms of being able to achieve the densities. It's the difference between a three and a four story building. It's also kind of in our market, obviously attractive to have covered parking. So we think it's key. It also factors actually into the previous discussion in that when you provide parking in a structured garage under the building footprint, it requires some space and thought and strategy as to how you ramp down to get to it. And we don't wanna create a situation where we don't have room to provide the ramping to get us under those buildings. And it's just part of the overall formulas that consideration of the whole site and goes beyond just the building footprints and the surface parking and the curb cuts. Yep. Thank you. You bet. Any other questions related to that comment? Staff comment. All right, moving on. Pardon me, comment number three. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to discuss their plan for design and construction of the path boardwalk connection at the sketch plan stage of review and provide a detailed plan as part of the preliminary plat application. If the applicant pursues a collaborative approach to construction of the path that is irrelevant to the DRB's review and approval of the connection. Applicant, what are your thoughts about this? I'm gonna hand it off to Tim McKenzie who is with South Burlington Realty to kinda walk through some of the background and history related to this. Thank you. Tim? Yes, thank you. South Burlington Realty is the owner of the property. And I thought since I've had different communications with different departments within the city over the years regarding this topic, I thought it was important to take us through a little bit of history is how we got here. And I'm going to demonstrate that history by the documents that are on the city's webpage. Start with the proposed tax increment financing district. Adopted TIF plan, which was adopted 827 in 2012. The plan proposed $1.185 million for Dumont Park and it included TIF funding and impact fee funding for the park. Following the adoption of the plan, the park was to be rebranded as city center park, Land Works was hired to design the park and Alana Blanchard, the project manager, asked if South Burlington Realty would give all of the wetlands corridor, which we now refer to as the conservation area from the northern edge of the buffer to the property boundary with the park. I said yes. In 2015, the design team produced four different design alternatives. Each one of those design alternatives integrated the South Burlington Realty land with the park land. Again, I had no objection because it was assumed that the city would own the land because of the boundary line adjustment request. Or to 2015, the team put together a project definitions report. And I asked Marla to include that report or include a link of that report with a packet so that you could review all of the information that's in there. It outlines the features and benefits of the park, the design teams, four different alternatives, all integrating the South Burlington Realty land into the park land. It also makes reference to the boundary line, thank you. It makes reference to the boundary line adjustment, which was pending, is pending on page 37. It also requests that the boundary line adjustment not be made until after we start a wetlands permit process to avoid the responsibility of acquiring a separate wetlands permit. It's on page 37 and 38. On 4-6 of 2015, the city council adopted a resolution which is the most important document of this discussion. And I'm going to read the now and therefore. It defines what the park is. Now and therefore be it resolved that city council hereby approves the following. One, a preferred park concept for Dumont Park as shown in exhibit B. Two, a preferred circulation plan shown in exhibit A. And three, unrelated to our property, exploration of the land acquisition of the parcel to the west of the adjacent to Dumont Park. So clearly, the park is defined by exhibits A and B, and therefore the paths in the bridges and other design features and park improvements are not connections. They're part of the park. There was the resolution was part of the packet and the resolution that was in your packet did not have the correct exhibit B. And I'm wondering if we can pull up the correct exhibit B. The packet where would it be? So the exhibit B, Tim, in the packet was downloaded from the resolution on the city council webpage. So that was the city council record of exhibit B. I didn't compile that separately. So that's, I'm curious about what you're saying. So this is what was in the packet. And this is exhibit B. You can see on the top of it, it's labeled exhibit B and it's a little more explicit in terms of what the park is. No, that was totally in the packet. Did I somehow, cause the copy of the packet I have does have that, what happened? It was in the packet. I have it right in front of me. The one that I downloaded, it was not. So I get caught up in the right. Let's get to exhibit B if we could because it's important. Do other board members have that in their packet? So the last page that you were on just now, page 11. Yeah, that's a good idea. I don't know what happened on your end. So go ahead, Tim. So exhibit B as defined by this exhibit clearly defines the park as including the South Burlington Realty Land. And that the elements of the park, the design features, the art, the boardwalk, those are park features, park improvements that should not be part of the connection requirement. Okay. Okay. So if I get to the exhibit B and I read some of the elements of it, most specifically the item number 12, a multi-use boardwalk bridge in parentheses, a 10 foot wide, the bridge being 10 foot wide with railings approximately five feet above the wetland water level. It clearly shows that the boardwalk, the bridges are designed features and park improvements. So just to complete the timeline, in 2017, we went on to acquire our wetlands permits. Upon a request of Alana, we integrated the park design into our permit drawings. The state was reluctant, but we did pay for the permits and we paid for the mitigation in the park area. So here we are present time and we're now pursuing a subdivision permit. And it seems like the city has, instead of contemplating a boundary line adjustment, they now seem to be using the zoning process to require us to pay for park improvements that were supposed to be paid for by TIF and by impact fees. So I would suggest that if the city wants this design in the park, they should move forward with a boundary line adjustment and do it soon. We would have never agreed to have this park design on our land. What property owner would want to assume the liability of bridges over wetlands and wetlands that have standing water certain times of the year or that level of activity in an environmentally sensitive area. So in terms of the request for the connection, referring back again to the exhibit B, we would be happy to make the connection as shown in exhibit B from item number one, which is right at the edge of the wetlands. I don't know if you can see it here. Item number one, which connects down to, and it's illustrated by point number 13, it's the little strip. Marla, do you want to draw on this map? We will make the connection from the edge of the park to Garden Street. If we could just zoom in to the top one third of that page. So Tim's talking about, oops, talking about the things that are north up plan, top of the plan above the thick dark line here. I'm talking about above the green, the highlighted green area. Right, and then specifically you're talking, you're saying that you would be willing to construct a path from here to here. Correct, I don't know if it would be that in that specific location, but we will make the connection from the edge of the city park and tie it into Garden Street, a cycle track. It seems to me like that meets the requirement of the code to provide a connection. And that the other elements are design features and park improvements. Marla, what are your thoughts? I would like the board to discuss this. Okay. Okay, board members, what do you think about Tim's proposal? Mark, I think you're having sound issues. I didn't have sound issues. I was just sort of saying, give me a sec, give me a sec, give me a sec, give me a sec, give me a sec. Okay. Other board members, what are your thoughts while Mark's gathering his thoughts? I think Tim just presented a lot of information and having 30 seconds to think about it is probably fine. We can have, we can have this silence, that's all right. So if this is not obviously resolved tonight, it's something that we will deal with in preliminary plat. We do not have to conclude the meeting tonight. We can have a second sketch plan discussion for our questions. Okay. Well, I'm just curious if a second sketch plan discussion is necessary or is it to me, is it a matter of getting together with Alana and others to see if what Tim said is, he concurs with their records. Well, a lot to digest here. Yeah, right. So the advantage of having a second sketch plan conversation is if the board has any question about what direction to provide the applicant, it gives them the opportunity to hear from the board before investing more money into their design. So if I could reiterate what I think Tim is saying is he believes that the exhibit, the report from which those exhibits were exerted, which I emailed you his email today that has a link to that full report states that the city is responsible for doing the boundary line adjustment to acquire that land in the city is responsible for constructing construction of those features. I am not an expert in the history of city center and that's why I am unwilling to provide an interpretation of that document. Okay. So given. Go ahead. I was just gonna say, you're not telling yes, the city asked for the land. We told them we would give them the land. They designed a park on our land. And if they want the park, they can have the land but don't make us pay for the park improvements of their designs. So Tim, can I ask a question then? If you are willing to give the city the land, should that boundary line adjustment not be part of the subdivision application? It doesn't any more probably be part of this application than it does to do it separately. We'll do the boundary line adjustment anytime. So just to reiterate and make sure I heard that correctly, if the board interprets the document the same way as you, that the city is responsible for the construction, you and give you that feedback at your preliminary plot, you would add a parcel or an easement to your plot that shows the land of the park shown in exhibit B as an easement or dedicated to the city, whatever the appropriate languages, yeah. Is that correct? Yes, we're happy to give the land to the city at any time. Okay. I just want to make a comment. Go ahead, Mark. The link to the document that Tim is referring to is broken and I assume you're talking about the supplemental with Tim's email with the link in it? Yeah, I have a brilliant idea because Delilah has in trouble with that link too. My brilliant idea is I'm going to put a link to that document in the chat box right now. Okay. I'll be hyperlinked. But I would like to take a look at that. Okay. Well, give it to me. Oh, that didn't work. I'm sorry, Mark. It says that Tim is referring to the report on Dumont Park. There we go. I just sent a link, it's in the chat box. Yep. Great. Thank you, Marla. So thank you, Tim. And it sounds like, given that we've gone through the staff comments, there's a little more thinking to do. Board members have to review the document that was just sent out. So we need to continue this meeting at a later date before we can consider it concluded. Sure. Is that correct, Marla? I think that would be wise. Also, I think that this is one of those rare opportunities where we have all the information we need and we can continue it to the very next meeting. I would agree with that. I don't want to do this on. I agree. I don't think the applicant needs to submit any additional information, it's just we need to review the document submission. We have a little bit of time. Well, it's going to be a busy meeting. We've got the BlackRock project and the Allen Longs project, and those are both somewhat hot topics in the community. But if we commit to providing a concise answer to the applicant at the next meeting, is that all right? Yeah, I think so. This would be the May 4th meeting, right, Marla? Yes. Yeah, I think we should just put this at the front of the meeting. Yeah. Yeah. Work for you, Tim and Gang. Sure. Appreciate the consideration. Okay, so let's conclude this meeting and we'll move on to the next agenda item. Thank you, applicant representatives for being with us tonight. We'll see you in a couple of weeks. Thank you, Chair. Okay, moving on to the agenda. Agenda number five, which is continued preliminary plat application, SD2040 of O'Brien Eastview, LLC to create a plan unit development of six existing parcels currently developed with three single family homes and a barn and totaling 102.6 acres. The development is to consist of 135 homes in single family duplex and three family dwellings on nine lots totaling 21.8 acres, 19 commercial development, pardon me, lots totaling 44.0 acres, one existing single family home and 25.1 acres of undeveloped open space at 500 Old Farm Road. Before we introduce or have the applicants introduce themselves, I'm wondering if anyone has any disclosures or recusals. And I think Stephanie has already recused herself and I will disclose that I own a property on Hillside, which is in the Ryan Farm development. And I've been there two and a half years, but I don't believe it will in any way influence my judgments. And if anyone has any concerns about that, please raise them now. Other disclosures or issues of conflict? Okay, thank you. So this next agenda item is a continued preliminary plat application. This is a very big and complex project. And so we want to make sure we give it a lot of time to review all the issues. And we already know that this continued preliminary plat application will be continued on May 18th. So there are some issues in the staff comments that we will not be addressing or resolving tonight. So having said that, who's here for the applicant? Evan Langfield, the Bryan Brothers. Hey Evan. Hi there. Anyone else for the applicant? Andrew Gill with O'Brien Brothers. Okay, hi Andrew. Andrew, anyone else? Yes, I'm Scott Homestead, civil engineer for the project from Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Before we start going through, picking up where we left off at comment number 32 for the original, staff report. Does the applicant have anything they want to say as kind of an overview comment to orient us? I don't think so other than what we said, this is really just the kind of continuation of a long-term vision for the overall development of the site in a mixed use, walkable pedestrian-scaled neighborhood. Okay, thank you, Evan. So again, let us turn to comment number 32 by the staff, which it strikes me that the next three comments are really procedural. So let's look at them. Waiver request 18-20, the applicant requests that sketch plan and preliminary plat not be required for the subsequent applications within the PUD and that site plan review be allowed instead of final plat review for single buildings on single lots. This is a waiver staff would consider as part of a master plan, but has strong reservations about recommending with the current proposal as no concept of the commercial lots has been provided and therefore no framework for under what circumstances such a request may be acceptable can be developed. And then the staff update from 424-420 says the applicant has provided a general concept of the lots in C1-LR and one C areas. Pardon me, staff still considers that this waiver request should not be granted. The newly provided concept shows the lots as strongly interrelated than approach staff supports. Because the lots are interrelated, staff consider standalone site plan review to be inappropriate. However, the board has the authority to allow the applicant to skip sketch plan review for these lots as part of this overall, but a part of the overall final plat. Staff recommends the board consider such a procedural waiver at the final plat stage and review. Such a waiver should be contingent upon the lots being developed in a manner generally consistent with the approved concept plan. Myla, can you please summarize that in one sentence? I was having a little trouble understanding that. Sure. Perhaps we can go to page 72 of the pocket. So I love this pocket. I have made bookmarks, so that may be helpful for you. So they have requested that they skip sketch plan for these lots and instead review them as. And staff suggestion is, I'm sorry, is there feedback from someone? I'm getting feedback from you, Myla. If everyone who is not a member of the board are not talking, just mute their mic. That would be helpful. So there are lots that are interconnected and it feels like interconnected lots need PUD review. However, the board has the sketch plan if they would like. It just feels like saying that along with the PUD regulations pertaining to connection and access and extension of services are applicable. So our people are still getting a lot of feedback. If everyone could please accept people who are speaking, please mute their mic. So I think it's you. No, mine is on. You think it's me? When I'm talking, I can see that. Yeah, so I think we're just. Okay. I'll turn my mic off when you're talking. And I'll do the same. So our suggestion here is that while the, you know, they're the board can grant waivers to not require a sketch plan or preliminary plat. These should be PUD lots because they are interrelated and the PUD standards pertain to interactions between properties. So we feel that PUD review should be required rather than just site plan review. What are your thoughts about that? Well, so we had the staff comment is summarizing three waiver requests, 18 through 20. And I think it's helpful to just view each one in what the particular request is. So there were, you know, we had sent a packet in today which you can pull up or I can just tell you, but waiver request 18 was that we requested that sketch plan review be voluntary for applications within the PUD, which it sounds like staff supporting as something that makes sense. If you sort of step back a little bit to the sort of intent of these waivers, you know, you have before you a PUD, it's a PUD of the remaining land at O'Brien Farm that is being evaluated under the PUD review criteria to create lots that are developable for the uses allowed under the zoning regulations. And there are some uses, not all uses, where a lot is required to be within a PUD whether or not the just by the use. So in the purple area on your screen right now, the C1LR, a multifamily building is required to be reviewed as a PUD, other uses are not. So other uses in the C1LR on these lots that you're creating now would be evaluated just at site plan review. Similarly in the IC area, the individual lots that are being created would be able to be reviewed under site plan only for certain uses. What we're saying is that this is a PUD review. We're reviewing these lots for connectivity, for extension of utilities, for adequacy of green space, for traffic impacts. And what we're requesting is that we not look at many PUDs within the overall PUD at each step of review just because it creates a little bit of uncertainty. This waiver was provided in phase one in the master plan. I believe at that point it was suggested by staff and we weren't able to make use of it because we still needed to seek waivers and therefore we went back within the PUD process, but it does just create a little bit more complexity in the permitting process that is in particularly necessary having these many PUDs within the PUD. So that's sort of the broader context of what we're requesting. If you flip forward a couple slides on the presentation to page 11. So this is the second waiver summarized in the comment, I believe. The comment was 18 to 20. So this waiver is requesting that final plat only be required for proposed amendments within the PUD. And this is a waiver that was also granted in phase one. It's a waiver that we've used. For instance, at hillside, we changed a couple of duplexes that were up on two brothers drive into single family homes because those were selling better. And at that point, if that waiver had not been issued, we would have had to come in for sketch plan, preliminary plat and final plat review for that minor change. We were able using that waiver in this particular waiver for an amendment to a final plat to just come in for one hearing, get the thing changed and move on to act 250, get a change there and have the change take effect. We found it to be super useful. And that's why we're requesting it again. This would just be for pertaining to amendments. And then the final one, which is on the next slide, waiver request 20 was that for a single structure on a single lot that site plan review only would be required. If you flip forward one more slide, I can show you. So we took a look at the specific PUD review requirements under section 15 and I've highlighted in red the three requirements that I could find that are not also reviewed under site plan, sufficiency of water, open space areas, roads, rec paths, stormwater and landscaping. These are the things that it's our intent to secure within this PUD application. So, you know, if you think about what are we trying to achieve by coming to you with this overall plan for the development, it's to get solidity to these major components of the PUD review. And I think that's at the heart of our request is saying, we'd like these to be solidified and not to be reevaluated as each subsequent lot comes in, because we're making these broader commitments across the whole project, right? The green space is provided for all the lots, not for one individual lot, if that makes sense. Thank you, Andrew. Board and staff, what are your thoughts about Andrew's explanation? Board members. I'm more inclined to, I guess I would defer to staff because this really does go to more of the administrative procedural review of how these things come about. You know, I, I, but you know, I'm, I, I find seeing everything at sketch plan review because I like getting a set of eyes on it. I see how it works together. But I know that a lot of the times the whole purpose of these master plans is to develop a cohesive established plan for the whole project that developers can sort of run with if they follow those approved master plan guidance. You know, so I kind of, like I said, I'm deferring to staff say, do they want us to have that set of eyes at a sketch plan review for each of these individuals site plans? Thank you, Mark. Other board members. Yeah, I tend to agree with Mark's opening comments there. Thank you, Dan. Marlo, do you have anything to add to this? Do not. All right. Applicant, is that helpful? Do you, does it give you guidance? Um, Don, given that this is preliminary, this is preliminary plus. So it's the board that has to make a finding rather than. Waffle both ways. I sort of said, you know, I could see if. I guess I'm leaning towards saying I'd rather see a sketch plan, you know, unless we have a hard, you know, development plan for the master plan, which we have for other projects, you know, where we sort of saw like exactly what was going to be done. And they just need to sort of dot their eyes and cross the T's as they submitted for each site plan. I don't really see that here. So I, I, I guess I'm leaning towards, I'd rather see a sketch plan. For each of the individual sites as they come up. I have a suggestion. Yeah. Andrew, what if we were to defer. This, the decision on whether to grant these waivers to final plot. Hending more solidification of the design. If you choose to solidify the design more. Then the board would be more inclined to grant these waivers. If you would like to keep the design at the high level that it is, the board is less inclined to grant these waivers. Yeah, I think I again would say there are, there are three separate waivers. We just touched on the sketch plan waiver. I don't, I don't know if the final plat amendments waiver would be viewed. Similarly, that's, that's to say that if we have a minor change to the approved BUD that we would be able to just have one hearing to get it, to get it. That's the only one. I would say that's to be expected. And third was site plan review only for lots within the, the PDA. Now I'm not sure that site plan that the site plan review require sketch plan as well. I think it might. I mean that's sort of the intent is that, that we'd like to be able to just propose a site plan and, and come into the board and, to the board at the sketch plan has always been for the applicant's benefit. These can eat up quite a bit of time in honesty. I mean, we filed this permit in late August of 2020 and we're still in the preliminary plan process. We filed the sketch plan for it months before we had a sketch plan hearing and that hearing closed out months after we filed it. And so I think within the context of the framework of the project being solidified, we would appreciate the ability to move projects forward quicker at our risk. The board has the ability to say, we don't like this. I think the timeline you're experiencing is reflective of the scale of what you're proposing though. We see one site project move forward much more quickly than the timeline you're describing because it's only one thing to review as opposed to I think it's 17 separate lots here. I don't disagree. I mean, I guess, our hope would be, I think we're certainly fine with deferring this decision on this waiver to Final Platt. I think we'd be fine deferring most of the waivers to Final Platt. So that's an answer to that piece of the question. And maybe we can provide sufficient information in the course of leading up to the Final Platt to make folks comfortable with it or perhaps we can provide just more discussion about it that would bring people along. But I do think, we find that it to be valuable in terms of being able to advance projects which sometimes have faster turnaround needs. I mean, it's not uncommon to get a user who needs to be in by a date certain and you lose those opportunities when you're not able to expeditiously through the permit process. So that I think it's, Evan, you're on mute. So does that mean number 30 comment, number 32, 33 and 34? This is suggestion to defer that until Final Platt. Can you hear me now? You can hear you Evan. Okay. Well, what I was gonna add to that was it, it wouldn't preclude us from submitting a sketch plan in the event that we thought that we needed more feedback from the board. It's just if we think we're sticking very strictly to the plan that we provided and that it's not coming out of left field that we would be able to advance a little quicker would not have to submit a sketch plan. So that's something to think about as well because again, the sketch plan, our understanding is that it really is to the benefit of the applicant to get a read on where the DRV's head is prior to moving forward and spending more capital on the plans. Thank you, Evan. So are we, pardon me, ready to move on to comment number 35, Marla? Give me a second. I'm just reading comment 33 and 34. It seemed to me that they were all procedural waivers. While we're doing that, can I just get a general question about the actual site alignment that we were looking at when we were looking at slides 70 or page 72 of the packet showing the commercial district? Go ahead, Mark. Maybe it's something we've discussed in past meetings. I just don't recall it, but on the left side, you have the approximate location of Tilly Drive connections on city maps. And then you have the icy road above that. Where is that alignment discrepancy coming from? That is later in the agenda this evening. If you would like to jump ahead to that, we can do so, but it will be- Well, I was just, because I just saw it here, so. So I think that reading through comments 32, 33 and 34, I understand Evan's request that you would like the board to take these waiver requests, waiver requests seriously and provide some feedback on where, if they are under what conditions they would accept these waiver requests. I understand that Andrew is okay with that being at final plot, but he is asking the board to take it very seriously. So I guess I'm just gonna make a note to myself to look at it really closely before we close this. That sound okay? That sounds good to me. Yeah. There were a couple of, there were a couple of items in the packet. I'm not sure if they were addressed in the packet or not, but there were a couple of waiver requests that I think are sort of important to our sort of timeline or just to the direction of final plot. And I'm not sure if they're coming up in your packet or not, but there were waiver requests 24, specifically we were asking about the ability to put plants inside the cul-de-sac that's planned on O'Brien Farm Road extension. We wanted to propose landscaping in the center of that as a feature. We didn't know if that was allowed or if it was something that the board could allow. Yep, so that one is addressed in the staff comments, but it's not read because that's unfortunately dictated by the fire department and that's a hard no. So you're not allowed to plant around about that? Okay. If you wanted to propose a much larger geometry, you could work with the fire department, but they are not going to accept plantings in the middle with the geometry provided in the LDR. Okay. If you work with the fire department, if you work something out, we're fine with it, but it's a fire department, not a board question, unfortunately. Okay. And then- Yes, and also DPW. So you'd be working with the fire department and DPW, and if you get them on board with something, then staff will support you. Okay. Do they have specific guidelines as to what they would accept? So we can just review and see if it works for us prior to- No, we've never got, we've never, no one has gone to the point of something that they, no one has shown them something they would accept. Okay. I think they're right, yeah. Okay, let's move on to comment number 35. Nonetheless, staff recommends the board consider whether to, this is about the light-colored roofs. A condition requiring the use of light-colored roofs, staff considers the board may wish to request either the board or the NRCC provide a specific metric for this applicant. Yeah, we worked with, we got questions from the resources committee about our project and I had a bunch of back and forth with the members of the committee. And this was one of the questions that came up and we had specifically responded to them. I did look into the issue of light-colored roofs and from what I could find, the reason that you have a light-colored roof is that it reflects energy back away from the home and the amount of energy that it reflects back away is this, it's something called the solar reflectance index and shingles of certain colors have a, I think it's polar reflectance rating of 20 or higher. A lower the solar reflectance index, the higher the amount of heat held and generated by the roof. So the lighter-colored shingles have a higher solar reflectance index and the dark ones. So we started looking into shingles that would meet these requirements and in general, it's basically white shingles, white roofs, which are not very aesthetically pleasing and sort of would provide a rather singular color palette in the neighborhood. So I did more research on it and there are a bunch of manufacturers specifically in California who sell cool roofing shingles which uses a bunch of different technology to enable the roofs to be having a solar reflectance index of 20 or higher and also be of colors that people actually like. There's only one manufacturer that we can get in Vermont which is IKO that sells these cool roofing shingles. And what I had said to the NRCC was that we'd be willing to use that product but that use has to be at our discretion because shingles are an integral part of the home and if the shingle doesn't perform, if it leaks, if it doesn't hold together or if it's otherwise deemed by us to be of low quality that we wouldn't want to be bound by a permit condition to install roofs that don't work on people's homes. So... Or if we simply can't get it. Sometimes products are discontinued or like we're dealing with right now, there's supply chain issues. So we need to be able to buy it. So that was, we were happy to proceed using that product and specking that product as long as it's available and that it performs and meets our quality standards for holding together. Madam Chair. Yeah. Go ahead. I guess, I mean, I'd kind of defer to our stormwater staff on this only because it may be that at some point the city wants to amend its stormwater standards to not only define treatment volumes and things like that before discharging into the city system. And at some point maybe there will be certain standards on temperature requirements and then it's up to the applicant to meet that discharge temperature requirements. Cooling sounds like a great idea. I just from a practical standpoint, I mean, if it's a flat roof maybe, but again, unless the city of South Clinton has discrete standards because this is really down to the micro level of treatment of stormwater, then I would ask, you know, what Tom DiPetro and Dave will think of it and if they're gonna move in that direction to start on some of these temperature things then so be it. But if not, I think it's going down a rabbit hole with this issue. Two thoughts. Thank you, Dan. Other board members thoughts. Can I respond to Dan? Sure. The draft LDRs that are, the planning commission has warned for May 20th include revisions to the stormwater standards and those revisions do not include a thermal reflectivity standard or reflectance in the index standard. So I don't anticipate that being a thing in the near future. Second point is this, all projects are approved under the LDRs that are applicable at the time of their preliminary plot. So if there were to be a new standard, they wouldn't be be hold into it anyway. Gotcha. Thanks. But thank you, Dan, for raising that. So where does that leave the applicant, Marla, in terms of the options available to them? And the point that Evan and Andrew are making is that they are willing to express a commitment, but would like the board to not make it a requirement because they want the flexibility to be responsive to the market. That's great. It's available for us to write that into this mission. The board encourages the applicant to use roofs with high reflectance index. Okay, good. Thank you. Number 36, the proposed configuration results and lots, which have two fronts. Parking is required to be to the side or in the rear of buildings. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide a concept of how an adequate amount of parking can be provided on these lots while meeting the required location standards prior to approval of these lots. And the update from staff is the applicant has provided a concept for the C1-LR lot showing parking and access consistent with his comments. Staff recommends the board defer discussion of the C1-LR area to the next meeting. The C1-LR area represents a significant development area for which any other application would be given the attention of the board over the course of multiple meetings. Therefore, staff considers a single meeting to focus on this area to be appropriate. So I believe that that puts us at the May 4th meeting to discuss this. And there are other staff comments that refer to this issue as being something we should address at the next meeting. Right. May 18th. May 18th, okay. That's from November, not May 4th, okay. So page 30, sorry, 73 of the packet, just to show the area we're referring to that we're going to discuss the area in case there's members of the public that are interested or whatnot. Thank you, Marla. That's helpful. We're talking about this area. And so because this is a lot of project, it's eat commercial lots. Staff's recommendation is to discuss it at the one time and dedicate a lot of time to it. All right, so we'll be revisiting this at the May 18th meeting. That's good to us. And here, Don. All that. And I wasn't even unlike, sorry, pertaining to the 1C Road staff recommends the board require the applicant to consider an alignment which minimizes wetland impacts while still providing the required connection to the Tilly Drive community. It appears this would result in the road moving further west. And the staff comment is that this issue appears to have been addressed. Does anyone- So this is what Mark was asking about if Andrew wants to give a three sentence explanation. Maybe the sheet prior to that, so we can see the zoomed out context. So page 71. Do you think you can do it in three sentences? We had made a few sort of substantial changes to the project since the last hearing, sort of as a result of feedback that we got from the board. And probably the most significant change was the reorientation of the IC Road. And so you can see here that the road had previously been running across the project like much further to the east. And we moved it up and sort of against the buffer with the green space between the two uses. We did that in consultation with our neighbor on Tilly Drive PC properties. So like just below the red dot that you're looking at, you can see the sort of white area of their property that is developable. And that was where our old road was coming into the project. And so it was difficult to envision how you could connect that road through to Tilly Drive with all of the wetlands surrounding it. And so what we did was we moved the road further to the west and oriented it on the top side of the wetlands so that the road can continue. And you can see how if you go straight to the south from where the road is now that you'll hit the existing city right of way, which can avoid the wetlands that the right of way currently runs through and that you'll extend straight to Tilly Drive. We really liked this new configuration. Thought it did a really good job of framing the green space of the park that's being provided. Thought it did a good job of sort of creating a buffer between the IC area and the residential one sort of single family area because they're pretty distinct uses. And if you go to the slide that shows the conceptual layout of the IC lots, you can see how this enables us to create a layout that sort of has a much better street presence than one road running through the middle. It allows us to shield the parking. So if you go up a couple slides, up one more, there you slide 72 it looks like. The new layout allows us to front buildings on the roadway and there's some staff comments about consolidating some of the driveways and curb cuts and all of that makes sense. We're certainly able to do that. This was just a quick conceptual layout, but as you can see, it sort of enables us to create parking which all of these uses are pretty heavy on and to hide that parking sort of behind structures that are fronting on the city streets. It also lets us frame in that green space and I think we were really happy with this layout. The other point that I would point to in the context of what this road layout achieves is that it also was able to create a connection point with the spur road that you can see up above it. And so if you, I don't know who's got the highlighter tool, but if you essentially continue the road straight to the south instead of, which is like to the left of the page, it's not gonna work. So we had had an exhibit, I think 32 maybe or that sort of shows how the roads continue in the future that would probably be useful for folks to see. I don't know, do you know where that one is? Marla, the VHB plan. Sure, give me a second, page 69. Yeah, so you can see on this plan how that road comes through and connects to Tilly Drive. You can see the facility there in the bottom of the plan and you can see the new roadway alignment. You can see the point that I was getting to was the sort of black dashed arrow there that's running from Legacy Farm from the spur road where the single family is down to that Tilly Drive connection. We had previously talked about connecting Legacy Farm Road with the IC Road and there were significant rating challenges doing it in the area that we previously discussed. And we found that this connection will require using some of the Tilly Drive property, but that actually works from a grading perspective and creates sort of less of like a through way and more of a connection that would probably be used by folks in the neighborhood. And we felt really good about the ability to create that connection that you guys were looking for vehicularly and also reorient this road in a way that avoided wetlands and got us across and through to Tilly Drive in a way that made sense. Thank you, Andrew. Any comments or questions from the board? No, that makes sense and I appreciate that explanation and it does make logical sense. And I like the sort of the fact that the IC Road now does separate the commercial with the residential and the fact that there's actually some thought for future connection of Legacy Farm to the IC Road and into Tilly Drive because much is it's gonna don't have control over when it's gonna happen. Like you can't not that we can say it has to happen during this project. The fact that there is a potential vehicular connection now between the two different areas. I like that because that was something I didn't like that there was no potential future connection thought through. All right. Other comments or questions from the board? Thank you, Andrew. Okay, number 38. I'm sorry, go ahead. Just said no problem. Okay. Number 38 relates to what we're going to defer to the May 18th meeting. So let's move on to number 39, which deals with road phasing. For the C1-LR and the IC Lot staff recommends the board require the applicant to propose triggers for construction of roads, including a scheme with which they will reserve funds with each lack of funds. Yes. I'm gonna save you about a minute and a half. This comment in summary says the first half we'll talk about on May 18th and the second half we'll talk about on May 18th. Okay. The first half, I'm sorry. The first half we'll talk about on May 18th and the second half we'll talk about later in the staff comments. Okay. So we're gonna move to that one. Okay, we're moving on to number 40. All right. Thank you, Marla. Number 40. Staff recommends the board ask the Affordable Housing Committee whether they have any additional feedback after the above comments pertaining to transitions are addressed. So there was some question about eight inclusionary units in the triplexes and where the others would be located. And then I think the applicant corrected the math and said that five actually five inclusionary units are required. So what are your thoughts about this comment applicant? So we had sort of responded to this in the pack that we submitted. We've proposed, I believe at this point it's 13, 12 or 13 inclusionary, affordable homes. I think eight of them are the center units in the triplexes and then the remainder we would be saying would be the cottage homes that are proposed on the, I guess it's the north side of Lube phase. The math on that, since our last meeting, one of the other changes is that we were able to create their connection from legacy farm road to old farm road. We were able to add some units to the plan. And so the plan I think currently is 146 dwellings proposed for construction, which increases the affordable requirement for 15. And so there's some math there that as you know, as you build three bedroom homes, every two three bedroom affordable units that are count as three under the regulation because the three bedrooms are, I suppose more desirable from the perspective of the ordinance. And so we're proposing all three bedroom or four bedroom affordable inclusionary homes. And our expectation is that that then, you know, if you were to build, I think, if you build 10 that it would count as 15, right? Is that the right math? I'm not a, I'm not Einstein here. So, but our intention is to fulfill the requirement with the center, the eight center triflex units and then the remainder with the cottage homes that are proposed up to whatever is required 12, 13 homes. For members thoughts, Marla thoughts. I would ask that we invite the floor to weigh in on the revised proposal. They are in advance to me. Okay. Would that be appropriate now? Yes. Okay. I saw Sandy Dooley earlier on this. Who is who is speaking for the housing committee affordable housing committee. Hi, Don. Chris Trombly. I chair the affordable housing committee current. Okay. Thanks. Hi. Thank you. We're, you know, we passed a motion after. Evan and Andrew visited the committee and gave us an update on the proposed plan. We were very satisfactory with that in that motion. You know, we shared. We've seen some changes as a result of that. We're encouraged by the. Enter units as well as the cottage homes that provides a diversity of housing types. And it's actually we're very excited to hear the larger bedroom units available as well. That's a difficulty to before families to find a larger unit. So we're excited to hear that. But particularly the mixed use was exciting to hear. That was a great development. So we thank Evan and Andrew for coming to our group hearing that feedback and applying some of that in the real world. Thank you, Chris. Good comments. Okay. Any other comments from the board regarding this? Okay. Number 42. Well, I think Sandy would like to chime in as well. Okay. Sandy, go ahead. I was just going to add in addition to what Chris said, I was remembering that how the applicants shared, you know, that all the amenities, swimming pool, whatever, that would be available to the folks that purchased the market rate units would be available to the folks that purchased the inclusionary units. And we really appreciate that spirit of inclusion and community. And I wanted to make sure the board was aware of that. Thank you for sharing that, Sandy. That is good to hear. We've been down this road before and it's good that the applicant is considering this. Thank you. Any other comments? Go ahead. Covered 30 and 41 with this conversation. Right. Thanks. So now we're on 42. Okay. Brian Brothers has touted energy efficient efficiency as an important element of the development in the past. So based on staff recollection, some of the energy efficiencies may have an additional upfront cost to home buyers stuff. Pardon me. Staff recommends the board. Ask the applicant how they propose to meet this criterion. If there is an additional upfront cost of energy, the board will ask the applicant to clarify what is standard and what efficiency measures are to be provided at an additional cost. So applicant, what are your thoughts about that? What do you have to say? Sure. So we have. At all of the homes that we have. Proposing in this project, all 146 or five, whatever the number is that currently will be built to the 2020 stretch energy code, which went into effect last September. That code is. Is beyond the code that has previously been in effect. So when we began construction, we were able to do that. We were able to do that. We were able to do that. We were able to do that. We were able to do that. We were able to do that. And that was the plan in effect. So when we began construction on a phase one master plan in 2018, it was a different code, a less strict code. The 2020 code as increased efficiencies substantially. As we're, you know, from a, from a regulatory compliance perspective. Currently. The. We're enrolled in an efficiency Vermont program, which allows us to go even beyond those efficiency measures in participation with efficiency Vermont. The homes are being certified by efficiency Vermont. And are being provided at a level to see that we're really excited about. And, you know, we are happy to do that. And we'll plan on doing that for all of the homes in this development. Provided efficiency Vermont is still running that program. Those measures will all be included as standard for no additional costs from the base price on all of the models being sold. So those types of things include, you know, ERV systems, which are sort of energy recovery, recovery ventilators. I think that it's, you know, direct then instant hot water heaters increased insulation. You know, it has a continuous insulation on the exterior of the building. So you're using a like a one inch foam board. You know, it's the zip system, the insulated sheathing to avoid thermal brakes and studs. You know, there's a bunch of different measures that are all part of the code and the efficiency Vermont program that would be included as standard. Things that are are typically additional solar panels would probably be your number one example of something that is not included as a standard in the home. And that would be extra. We do not tell folks typically we don't tell folks that we will not entertain efficiency improvements, right? So if somebody wants to get a heat pump, a heat pump stop heating system in lieu of a gas furnace or somebody wants to look into putting solar on the roof as part of the construction project, adding insulation using spray foam instead of fiberglass, whatever the case may be. So we will we will provide those efficiency improvements at additional costs at the request of the folks building the home because that is a benefit to us all. But but typically, you know, typically speaking the 2020 stretch code is what the base efficiency standard is has expanded through the efficiency Vermont programs provided they continue. Thank you, Andrew. Questions from board members. Any other comments? No, that makes sense. Other comments before we move on. Okay. Comment number 43 relates to unfinished space. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant whether they intend to provide unfinished space within the inclusionary units. Applicant. Do you have any response to this? I think it's a little bit of a weird part of the regulation, but our, you know, the homes that we're building, whether they're the center units of the reflexes or the cottage are all anticipated to have basements. And so those would be provided in an unfinished. You know, I suppose we're we're, I'm sure that we'll look into whether we can, you know, add bedrooms or, you know, if there's an unfinished space down there, if folks want that, or, you know, there's a potential to make a three bedroom into a four bedroom to serve somebody's purpose. And that's, you know, feasible. Then that space might not be unfinished. But in general, that that would be an unfinished space. I have a question, Andrew. Does, do the unfinished basements have egress? I believe they would. If they would, for certain, if they add a bed. So, but they might not, if they're not planned to have any, any use, they would just have those little daylight windows at the top of the foundation wall. And as well. So some of them are downhill and would have, you know, some of the cottages have walkout conditions on the, on the back. So I guess it would depend. But if there's a bedroom, absolutely. No, probably not. Any questions? Board members. Okay. Moving on to number four question number or comment number 44. Staff recommends the board include a condition requiring that 25% of the inclusionary units be constructed and made available for occupancy prior to 25% of the market rate units. And so on for each additional 25% construction or similar scheme with a different percentage. And the update is the applicant has indicated they intend to construct the metal loop phase first. Though this will likely result in the inclusionary units being constructed towards the beginning of the project. Staff will consider the wreck. This recommended recommended condition to be applicable. Otherwise the applicant could start a second phase before completing the inclusionary units in metal loop. Staff considers this or similar condition need not come into play unless. Things evolve in a different manner than the applicant is anticipating. Do you have anything to add to this? Evan or. Andrew. Yeah, I was. You know, in general. Our development progresses is that we build homes when they're sold. So there are a lot of reasons for that primary reason is that the homes are financed. And the construction contracts are meaningful to the to the bank who's financing the construction. So, you know, typically speaking, we proceed with construction on on sold homes. And so, you know, a condition that we would build homes that aren't necessarily sold, I think could be problematic. You know, I would suggest that. The first phase of infrastructure we're building the first road that we're putting in is where all of these homes are located. All of those lots will be offered for sale. At the point that the road is, is constructed. And, and at the point that the project commences, you know, right out of the gate. So I'm not sure that a condition saying that they'll be built by a certain point. Is it is necessary? I think that they'll be built when they're sold and they'll be offered for sale at the inclusionary pricing dictated by the ordinance. And I think that one thing to just kind of strengthen that comment is that by virtue of the majority of these inclusionary units being the center units of the town homes. As you well know, I mean, we'll start a town home, a duplex home when one half of it goes under contract. And so the other half is essentially a spec home. It'll be the same thing here. You sell one of three. You start the, you start building the building. The unit is available for sale. But, you know, to Andrew's point, you know, we can't commit to selling them all because it requires a buyer to sell it. But I think that the, there should be some confidence on the city side that these are all going to be available in the first phase right off the bat. Thank you, Evan. Any thoughts or comments, Marla? Go ahead. So the applicable LDR here is 18.01 C2C, which is that the inclusionary units must be constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently with market rate units. So the requirements are based on the requirement of the financial proposes, provided, post facing plan demonstrating concurrent development and occupancy of market rate and inclusionary. The development of review board may attach conditions necessary to assure compliance of the section. And may based on documentation from a financial institution denying financing or on physical said constraints approving the plan from non concurrent construction. was not to name names, but I don't see any way avoiding it, was written to avoid the South Village situation where all the inclusionary units are being built last. So I am inclined and I would love to believe Evan and Andrew that their best intentions are to construct the units. What happened with South Village is that the original company went under, there was a contraction in the market, all of the market rate units were constructed and we are left holding the bag for inclusionary units. So I would just reiterate the second part of the staff comment. If their intentions pan out, this should have no effect on them. It's only if something terrible happens that this really comes into play. I guess what I would say is that I think that finding that we would make the affordable homes available for purchase would in our beginning from the first day of our project and that they would be there available for anyone to buy and would be built upon purchase would satisfy that concern on behalf of the city and would not cause an issue whereby we would be being forced to build something that we had not sold or could not sell. So certainly it's strictly that if no one wants to buy these and we're required to build all eight of them that we're gonna just, or 12 of them that we're gonna have 12 inventory homes that we can't sell. And if we can sell them, then we're happy to build them concurrently with homes that are adjacent to them. So I think there's a middle ground there that it could be worded appropriately to sort of offer concerns here. I understand your point, Andrew. The language is specific and clear and has constricted and made available for everyone to be concurrently with market rate units. It does not say made available for sale. Mara, what do you think about the percentage? Because I saw that the staff comment talks about 25%. So that's a suggestion. Staff felt that that represented 25% of, it would be sort of like a check-in point. You would build 25% of the affordable units by the time you got to the 25th percentile of the market rate homes. But that part of it is really, that's the board's discretion. They can attach whatever thing they feel is meets the standard of constructed and made available for occupancy concurrently. Well, I was just gonna say, something along those lines that allows some flexibility, because again, if we're building these within the townhome phase and that's the first phase, the 25% I think will be relatively manageable. But I still stand by the point that I made and the point that Andrew made is that we need buyers to be able to sell them. And we don't just build a whole bunch of spec inventory, which doesn't really seem to do anybody any good because typically speaking, we're customizing these units to what the buyer wants. And sitting on a bunch inventory is painful for us. And I don't see how it furthers the interest of the city, but I also understand what Marla's saying, that there's language here that needs to be met. So I'd like to think that maybe what we do, I mean, unless board members have strong feeling on this is maybe we punt on this. And Andrew and Marla and I have a discussion about crafting something that we come back to at the next meeting. Thank you for that, Evan. Board members, what are your thoughts about that? Yeah, I'm trying to work up something where staff and come to an agreement and then presents to the board because I hear the applicants comment, but I think we all know or we're coming from as a board and staff is trying to prevent another situation. So if applicants presentation that saying we shouldn't have an issue, let's see if they can come to work with staff and come to a mutually agreed upon condition that we can all live with. Yeah, I agree with that. I mean, our intent is aligned, I think with the boards and what the city's here. So I'm pretty confident we can come up with something. All right, thank you. All right, moving on to comment number 45. This is about our friend, the ledge. Comment from the staff. Since the area is not presently proposed for development and there are other sources of fill in Vermont including quarries in Williston and in South Burlington, staff has serious reservations about the board directing the applicant to further pursue this proposal. However, if the board chooses to allow the applicant to proceed, staff considers detailed ledge removal information should be provided including mapping of extents, methodology of removal and mitigation measures to minimize the impact and demonstration of how the below resource extraction performance standards and standards of the city's public nuisance ordinance will be met. And the update, pardon me, is in their cover letter for this meeting or the hearing, the applicant indicates they do not believe 13.16 applies because the gravel extraction area is part of a larger PUD. Staff is not swayed by this argument and recommends the board apply LDR 13.16 as written below. Staff considers if the applicant proceeds in the responsible manner they are representing compliance with these standards will not be an unnecessary burden. So applicant, you certainly are no stranger to ledge removal or mitigation. So what are your thoughts about this at this point? Yeah, so we can just bring the conversation back up a little bit to a sort of broader level. I don't know, is the site plan still available? I just wanna make sure everybody knows where we're discussing this particular ledge removal occurring. On the site plan, Andrew? Just the, yeah, the overall plan or whatever the, you know, any. Hold on. Probably the page 71. One. Okay, hold on. I have a lot of these things. It might just be, you know. So specifically, you know, throughout the project that's proposed, throughout the roadways and home footprints and utility and stormwater runs that are proposed, there is ledge, you know, around. There was ledge on the other side of the road. There's ledge on this side of the road. And, you know, so that will be a part of the project. And, you know, we're working on figuring out the extent of that. You know, we do intend to have a significant amount more detail on that at the final flat level because we wanted to get the roadways and unit locations solidified so that we could go do probing of the sort of depth of ledge and getting that solidification was part of this preliminary flat process. So there's a little bit of work to do still to define that, but we have done some preliminary boring and have found ledge in a number of areas that would suggest that we're gonna need to do more. This particular area that we're talking about, if you zoom in on the sort of bottom of the page where the IC road connects with Kimball Avenue. So the little bit further down like where life 38 is, right? So you can see where the IC roadway is coming into the project, right? They essentially in the roadway is right in the middle of what is a sort of big knob of ledge and the intent of the project is to construct that roadway in a construction staging area off of Kimball Avenue in that location, essentially of lot 38 and that that would be done through the removal and the blasting of the ledge in that location and that we would process and reuse that ledge in the construction of the development. And so if you read our application, we sort of go through all of the different benefits of this and I think there are a lot. I don't have the numbers exactly in front of me, but there are thousands and thousands of truck trips avoided, tons of carbon emissions avoided and some sort of very compelling reasons to make use of this resource from onsite. I'm gonna interrupt you for a second. I don't think that the board has a problem with you extracting the resource. I think the question is how to comply with 13.16. Right, so I think just, I wanted everybody to understand the area, the project they were talking about and the location of it and sort of the reasons behind what we're doing. So it's specific to the requirements of 13.16. We looked at the ordinance and I think it sort of might be a distinction without a purpose. Our perspective is that section 13.16 would not apply to this project because this project is not proposing a resource extraction operation. The language specifically says except when in connection with or construction of a building on the same lot. This extraction is 100% in connection with construction of buildings and roadways on the same lot. And so the language there does not seem to support that this falls under the requirements of section 13.16. What I would say is that we are happy to produce the plans and information that is being requested, that would be requested by 13.16. And if the board reviews that and has no concerns that we're not satisfying the requirements of 13.16, then I suppose it wouldn't matter if it applied or not. And so perhaps we can sort of punt on determining that until final plat will produce all of the information that is required under 13.16 for your review because we're gonna be producing it anyway for our own internal purposes to make sure that we're mitigating the impacts of this. And we can provide all of that and go over it and go from there at that final plat, if that makes sense. Thank you, Andrew. Thoughts or questions from board members? No, I think that's fine. I think Andrew's response is appropriate at this level. He's gonna provide the information, we'll take a look at it and we'll determine upon review of it whether 13.16 applies or they've satisfied 13.16 with their submission. Okay, other thoughts? Yeah, I agree, this is Jim. I'll just say my inclination looking at the reg is that I think that 13.16 probably does apply. But I wanna take a closer look at it but that's my initial reaction. Thanks, Jim. Any other thoughts? I have a question, Andrew. When you were building Hillside, you had this huge piece of machinery that took big rocks and ground them up into small gravel. Is that, will you be doing that again? Yeah, so that I believe was the rock crusher but it could also have been the big jackhammer that was up there periodically, I'm not exactly sure. But the intent here is to process the blasted ledge from the project, essentially on lot 38, which you'll see on the phasing plan as proposed as a construction staging area. We learned quite a bit in the process at Hillside in terms of sort of the logistics needed and the site area needed to construct a project of this size. And we really wanted to, with this project, develop sort of a permanent home base for construction operations. And so that is what we're hoping to establish in the area of lot 38, 39, two areas that are sort of away from the brunt of the initial development and the housing development but enable us a great staging area with off-road access to all of the areas that we're building. So we can be processing the gravel and then trucking it across internal hall roads to the roads that we're building and avoiding impacts to local streets of, you know, during the process. So that's the sort of vision. Thank you. Any other questions? Do you anticipate this being a staging area? You know, I would say until the construction of the roadways and homes is, you know, largely complete. Oh, 15 years? Oh no. I wouldn't think, I would think all these homes would be built within five or six years as our current target. Any other questions or comments from the board? Okay. Comment number 46. I think that is still relevant to our former discussion. So I don't think there's anything else to say about that now unless anyone has any questions. We'll move on to 47. Oh, there is a 47. So now we're moving on to, there is a 47? The top of page 13. Oh, I'm sorry, top of page 14. Okay. Thank you, Marla. Staff recommends the board request to address the final comment of the energy committee and further consider whether they will incorporate any other recommendations of the committee as requirements of this project. That's okay. What are your thoughts? Sorry, this comment was pretty well hidden in here. I seem to have missed it in taking notes for this meeting. You guys want to run through the comments. So the first comment, the SBC's first and strong recommendation is the homes be built to be fully electric and not built with fossil fuel infrastructure. So this comment is just the recommendation that you addressed the last bullet point of the energy committee. Okay. SBC would appreciate that would provide a submission that demonstrates how each of the homes will comply with the residential stretch code, particularly elements set forth in table 5.6 of the 2020 Vermont residential building energy code handbook. I think you already addressed this, didn't you, Andrew? Yeah, I mean, our homes are certified by Efficiency Vermont and we file an RBES certificate that demonstrates compliance with the stretch code for basically every home that we build and it gets sent to the public service board. It also gets sent to the city and recorded in the land record. So the RBES certificate is the code path certification for every home that's built under the energy code stretch code in effect. It is recorded at every home closing. And so I think that this condition is satisfied inherently the way the project will proceed. I suppose that every home is different. And so I'm not sure why I would address that sort of out front of having the homes, the plans finalized and sort of the particulars of each understood, but we are required to certify the compliance. So we can review this table and look into whether it's something we can answer currently to do that. Thank you, Andrew. So I think we need to back up to page 12. And there are staff comments in red that aren't enumerated. So the first one is an update. Was there sort of embedded within the led removal section? Okay. So I think maybe we should talk discussion of those until final five, because it sounded like we were going to defer the ledge discussion. Okay. All right. I'll stay with you guys. Andrew and Evan and board members, does that make sense? Yeah, we're good with that. Yeah, especially since it sounds like the applicant's planning on submitting a venture material, aligning how they're planning on doing all the mitigations and that they essentially will be in compliance with 15.1.6. Thank you. So Marla, where shall we pick up? Page 16. So on, where are we? So on page 14, letter K, we kind of start over at the beginning. The applicant has, because we've had a couple meetings, they have presented some new materials responsive to previous board discussion. So starting with item K, the formatting's a little bit different. You'll see that now it says SC1 refacing, that's sort of my shorthand for staff comment. One was originally about phasing and here's the, Oh, I see, okay. So now the red comment, if you see at the bottom of the page, if results that are available at the time that fall under the heading of staff comment three, four and five. Thank you for clarifying that. I didn't get the SC, okay. So the staff comment is if results of the traffic review are available at the time of the hearing, staff will share them with the board. But I think those just came in today, didn't they? They did. Okay. So will we see those for the next May 18th meeting? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Next comment. Go ahead. I was just gonna say, I think the SC1 phasing comment, there was some stuff in there that we should probably unpack. Okay, around the phasing, yeah. So we provided a phasing plan as part of this submission with triggers proposed for when the phases would be constructed in response to comments from, and that is an exhibit that we could look at. But the, so essentially the staff comment here was looking to construct phase 11, phase nine and phase eight concurrently with the construction of Meadow Loop. And so those phases are essentially the relocation of the north end of old farm road, the connection of O'Brien farm road and the hillside neighborhood to the relocated old farm road, and the improvements and parallel parking, raised crosswalks and traffic calming measures on old farm road, simultaneous with the construction of Meadow Loop, which is the first phase of proposed, revenue generating infrastructure. If you look at the chart on the right-hand side, you can see the triggers and phasing that we had proposed with the application. So if you kind of drag a little bit further over to the right and then go up a little bit, these phases are listed in order. So you can see that the first phase we proposed was the construction staging area off of Kimball Avenue. The next phase at the start of construction, the first residential phase proposed was Meadow Loop, Parkway Homes and Mountain View, phase three. So that's the orange outline phase on your left. And we were saying at the discretion of applicant prior to or after completion of Meadow Loop phase. And so we've sort of gone through and provided, you can see the soil stockpile and fill area, phase four, and that we had sort of intended to start that with the Parkway phase because the Parkway phase has some really big cuts involved in it and there's gonna be a need to store a large amount of fill that we're gonna generate during that phase. Whereas the Meadow Loop phase is going to use quite a bit of fill that we have on site from Hillside. So, we've put a lot of logistical thought into how these phases line up and how they work to be constructed. You know, I think our perspective, you know, our proposal was to relocate Old Farm Road prior to the construction of O'Brien Farm Road extension and subsequent to the construction of much of the new roadway network servicing the single family homes. And I think that the intention there was to complete the revenue-generating portions of the project in order to enable an investment in city infrastructure that does not serve directly, you know, any single family duplex or triplex home lots. You know, so there's a bunch of investment here that generates revenue and that can fund future investment and there's a bunch of investment that is revenue-neutral and that to say that we should start with the largest, you know, infrastructure relocation and roadway network improvements prior to any home sales, I don't think it's feasible. Thank you. Questions from the board and Marla? This is an important topic for the board to address. You know, construction of project supporting infrastructure. I guess the question I would pose to the board is construction, is construction of project supporting infrastructure a prerequisite to approval of this project? Would we accept this project if they built metal loop and then just stopped? Or would we say in order to build metal loop you need to connect to hillside, you need to relocate old farmer? You know, at what point would we say we would never have approved this project if you weren't doing these associated infrastructure improvements and that is the point at which those infrastructure improvements should be required. Or alternative, as opposed to if I get really creative, if that doesn't work, there could be some sort of bonding scheme where the city could pull a bond to construct those improvements if the applicant, if that was more amenable to the applicant, I guess. Okay. Board members, what do you think about that? You know, Marla raises a very interesting point, you know, because this is such a large project that is gonna take a significant amount of time and resources to complete. You know, I do understand the realities of market conditions and no one has a crystal ball, but at the same time, you know, we're approving a project for the city, which ultimately, you know, the envision is that it's got a benefit to the city, but, you know, it's because of the whole, not because of the parts. And so, you know, while I understand the notion that, you know, some of the revenue generated portions need to be built so that they've got further revenue or further funding to build some of the other parts, you know, I think we don't wanna get burned by the market, you know, like changing and we end up with a partial project, which we, you know, we saw happen at South Village for many, many years. It is ultimately getting, you know, built out, but it was, what, 15 years, you know, or something, which, you know, no one foresaw, well, let's say no one foresaw, you know, 2008, you know, happening, but I think that this phasing does garner another look, you know, and I would like to see some triggers for some of these things that maybe do happen a little earlier or Marla pointed out, you have to make a certain connection before you can do something else. It is a little disconcerting that, you know, the old farm realignment doesn't happen till was it phase six? So is that existing old farm improvements in Village Green phase? Is that what I'm seeing? So... It looks like phase nine is when they're proposing to relocate old farm road and then the connection hillside would be, when is that one? Is that eight? I think so, is that old farm gateway? It's phase 11. Phase 11. So before those things as currently proposed would be most, if not all of the homes. But none of the nine commercial development lots because I believe relocated old farm road is triggered by the first commercial development lot that gets built. I mean, the most valuable part of this project is the commercial development lots and those are triggering the relocation and construction of that road at development of the first one. So that is the trigger that we proposed. And what I would note is that our traffic study conclusively stated that the 146 homes do not require the relocation of old farm road, that the current intersection can support the traffic of those homes. And so, the relocation of that road is part of the overall PUD, which includes those nine lots. And I think that's why we use those lots construction as the trigger to create that new network. I think we can certainly look at the triggers proposed and talk about all of them. But in general, that was what we provided as the point in time. So the construction of the first building on the nine or 10 D1L are lots. Yeah, but the other thing about that is, one thing that one concern I expressed early in the project was that, I didn't want this to feel like it was two separate neighborhoods, even though they're built right next to each other, East New and Hillside, and you're not connecting it until after you've built all the homes. And it's only that the commercial lot triggers actually connecting these two neighborhoods together with phase 11 O'Brien Road extension to New Old Farm Road. To me, that's a little concerning when one of my initial concerns I expressed was these felt like two separate neighborhoods. And all you have is one road connection and you're not even building that till you've built the entire neighborhood. Put a finer point on what something that Andrew was saying, he was saying that traffic is not in this. There are lots of things that connections are required for, not just traffic. But I saw it on, it's kind of nodding her head. I'm adjusted in one of the members of the board. I'm sorry, Marla, I didn't hear, I didn't understand what you said, the last part. Did I wanted to hear from other board members? Okay, board members, what are your thoughts? I have an issue with building the roads after you've done the rest of the project. It seems important to me that you would put the roads in first. Especially the old farm road. I worry about the intersection not relocating the entrance to that road before you put in the homes. I know the commercial space you say will produce more traffic, but there's still going to be residents coming in and out of that street, right at that intersection. And I've sort of been looking at this project with the understanding that that road would be relocated and then the homes would go in. Applicant, what opportunity is there to rethink that? Well, I think that our intent is not that we are necessarily just pushing off the connection. It's that we have to make it financially viable for us. And I know that's not necessarily the board's concern, but I think it is worth noting that there's a lot of feedback. It is worth noting that we are of that first phase of homes on Meadow Loop, the roughly 30% of them or more than 30% of them are the inclusionary units, which we're building at a significant loss. And then on top of that, we will be putting in infrastructure that's not supporting any further revenue generation unless there's a commercial building that goes up there. So I think that's what we're trying to balance here is how do we manage sinking a significant investment in infrastructure when there's nothing there to support it? If, and on top of that, the traffic study isn't stipulating that it's necessary to manage the traffic flow. And again, we're, I think we're open to creative suggestions that we're just asking that the board understands what the challenge that we're trying to manage here. Hi, John, can I just say anything on this? Yes, please, Mark. You know, I don't hear you, but I don't think it's for us to offer creative suggestions. I think it's for you to get creative and say something to each other when you hear some of our concerns. You hear Alyssa saying, you know, and I agree with her, you know, that, you know, the perspective building all of the homes before you then start a major road reconstruction undertaking where you're gonna have all of these new residences and people that are living in the neighborhood that are suddenly gonna have to have now this major road reconstruction occurring. And I get, I hear your comments about the Meadow Loop with the inclusionary housing at a loss, you know, get it. But I think you need to get a little more creative and proposed to us because, you know, the thing is that if, you know, and it sounds to me like what you're hearing from staff and the board, you know, these ones I've heard from so far is that we wanna see the road and the infrastructure put in earlier than later and not do all the houses and the infrastructure and then put the commercial in. You know, that also gives you the flexibility of doing the commercial earlier than once you've done with all the houses. So I think what you're hearing from us is we'd like you to get creative and come and propose something that's a little more palatable than building all the houses, then build the road and then start filling in with the commercial. Especially if the commercial is where the profit is and a lot of the money is, that gives you the option of starting to build it earlier than later. Understood. Maybe this is a conversation that we can have with DPW and Justin as to whether there's a creative way to look at the bonding requirements on the existing infrastructure that's being put in place because it does require a significant amount of bonding capacity on top of the investment that's being made. The more road you build, the more bonding capacity you have to be putting in place. And if we're adding a significant investment that isn't offset somewhat by some revenue generation and we're also having to bond for that, it does become problematic when you're talking about the high level investment. So I don't know if the city has flexibility on those bonding requirements but that would be helpful to have that conversation. Thank you, Evan. Just to one last point, I think the one thing I wouldn't wanna say is that I don't think that we were proposing to build all of the single family before constructing any of the commercial lots. I think that we would be looking opportunistically at constructing the commercial lots as soon as possible because those lots are important and valuable. So maybe there's a middle ground there where there's a point in time from the commencement of the project or something like that. But I think the intent is not to build all of the single family homes first. Thank you, Andrew. It sounds like Andrew, you, and Evan, and Marla and other town representatives need to put your heads together and see what you can come up with before our next meeting. And then we can talk more about this. I am aware of the time, it's 9.29, we still have another project to review. So I would like to entertain a motion to continue this hearing until May 18th. And so we can move on to the next agenda item. Do I hear that motion of someone? No, motion moved. Thank you. Dan, thank you, and do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Alyssa. All in favor of continuing this proposal until May 18th, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, Evan and Andrew, thank you for your patience and your expertise. This is a complicated project. You're with us, we're just trying to dot every i and cross every t. So we will look forward to seeing you back with us on May 18th. Great, thank you all. We appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving on to the next agenda item. The next project is a continued site plan application, SP20-035 and conditional use application CU-2002, a rearch company to amend a previously approved plan for commercial parking and a vacant 54,459 square feet building. The amendment consists of converting the use to general office and expanding the existing parking lot, 12 for technology parkway. This is a continued site plan application. And this is for the public land development projects that do not require subdivision or do not qualify as a plan unit. Development are eligible to be reviewed as site plans. In this hearing, the applicant will describe the project and then the applicant and board will step through the staff comments, thereby considering the proposal's conformance with the applicable land development standards. The board may choose to continue the meeting to a later date if there are questions that remain to be examined. The future date will be announced prior to concluding this item for the evening. At the end of this hearing, the board will vote on whether to close the hearing and once closed will issue a decision on the site plan. Who is here for the applicant? Hi, Don. Andrea. Anyone else with you, Andrea? Yes, Abby, Gary is on here. Also from Trudell, Michael, Yama, from New York. Okay. Oh, it's Arch, not Arch. Okay, good. Thank you. Are there any disclosures or recusals? I will note that Stephanie Wyman is recused from this. Are there any others? And I will remind you that you are still under oath because this is a continued review of your proposal. So we have some staff notes and I'd like to start with having you give us a little update in a very brief overview of what your proposal entails. I recognize that we've already heard a lot of this, but just remind us, please. Yes, and I know you do have some new members since December. So this is a proposed parking expansion. We are proposing to add a total of 59 parking spaces to the existing property, the lot two of technology park. It's 124 technology parkway that is out about in Kimball Ave. Additionally, we are proposing to change the use of the building from vacant back to general office space. We did do a review of this on December 15th, but had continued the meeting primarily to get some more information regarding the wetland permit. So there is a portion of wetland and buffer impact that needs to be made in order to construct the proposed parking expansion. And we have worked with the wetland department and have a draft permit that's been issued since our last meeting. We have also had the state stormwater permit issued and a draft Act 250 permit issued. Let us just contingent on the wetland permit and the local approval. As far as the parking spaces go, we're proposing to infill the development between the existing building and existing parking area. We do have to take out a portion of existing landscaping. So we do have a heavy proposed landscaping plan and stormwater upgrades. We are proposing to completely upgrade the stormwater treatment for all impervious on the site, not just the proposed expansion. So we are bringing this entire site into compliance with the latest stormwater regulations. As far as changes with the wetland permit, really it's nothing that is under the city review. We are just proposing a mitigation plan. So on this plan that's showing currently, the blue and the green striped area will be planted with wetland mitigation plantings, which are just small, bare root plantings. They're not the big landscaping trees that you would normally see on a site like this. And then we are proposing to add demarcation along the wetland buffer on the Western boundary of that wetland. So on the lot one property, and they will be adding a deed restriction to lot one, just completely prohibits further development within the wetland. Andrew. Thank you. Can I have a quick and just ask a question? Sure. Previously, we've seen, and I know that there's some comments that allude to it. We've seen the entire development campus style plan for the entire site, the entire tech part. Is the wetland mitigation going to impact that previously conceived of campus style development? No. So the wetland mitigation plan is just on lots one into a technology park. Lot one is almost entirely wetland and wetland buffer. It was never planned for development, but we can still have the quad on the lots behind lot two and lot three and continue to develop that campus style development. Okay. I remember seeing the campus style plan. I just don't remember what the exact extent of it was. And I just wanted to ask if this wetland mitigation was going to affect that. So you're saying that no, it was never intended to do lot one was ever intended to be part of the quad style development. No. And yes, that quad campus style development is definitely still the plan for technology park as a whole. I have to admit, I don't really understand what the quad style development is. Could you explain to me what that means? Yeah. I will say that I wasn't here when that was termiting, but what happened is that by putting this in a quad or campus style development, the plan is to allow for a large open green space in the center of the buildings, much like he would see on a college campus, a community space park, say in the middle of the buildings, allowing parking to go in front of the buildings, which is generally not allowed in this district. So does the quad not exist now? So what's up there now? We're approved parking in front of the building under that campus style development. There is the open green space between the buildings on lots two and three and 30 community drive, but the properties east and west along community drive haven't been developed at this point. I have another question. And I believe I asked this at a previous meeting or hearing, but bear with me, I don't remember the response. One of the things that's happened in the last year is that people have found new ways of doing business, much of which involves working remotely. So with that change and the expectation that some of that will continue, do you really believe you need the additional parking spaces and what evidence do you have to support that? Andrea, I'll jump in on this. We have made several attempts to get the GSA and the USCIS to let go of their requirement to build or have us provide through building an additional 59 parking spaces. We would very much like that to no longer be the case for the obvious impact of the wetland and the associated cost, but they are not willing to do that. Thank you. It's all coming back to me now. That's unfortunate. Can I ask a follow-up question? Sure, but I don't want it. If this is the proposed, if it's proposed to be a GSA building, are there any other site related improvements that you have to do for it to meet the GSA requirements? Like, are there any security level or being like, you know, parameter fencing and anything like that that sometimes goes to GSA? No, the lease is fully executed and we had to deliver the spaces by a certain date. And so we are still within that date. I think the construction must be completed by the end of August is how the document currently reads. And this is the last outstanding item. Okay, so the site plan other than the additional parking spaces does meet the satisfaction of your lease. That is correct. Okay. Thank you, that's very helpful. Any other comments before we go through the staff comments or any other questions? Okay, comment number one, the proposed parking is located in front of the building. Staff considers the approved minutes from the December 15 hearing, December 15 hearing provide no indication that the board was satisfied that they could allow the proposed parking expansion. Staff considers there is no clear path forward for the proposed parking unless unique site conditions prevent a building but allowed parking to be located nearer to the street as an exception, III or the applicant submits and receives approval for quad style development as an exception, VVI including specific size and landscaping requirements and recommends the board discuss this criterion. Tell us more about that Marla, please. Sure. Well, it says the board was not satisfied. Whoops, I lost it. And there's no clear path forward unless and some provisions are provided. So how do you, maybe I should turn to the applicants. What are your thoughts about this? Do you see any opportunity to address this? We're understanding that a lot has already been approved under this campus style development. We did speak to the fact that they continue to develop with the campus style development in our previous hearing. Marla, is there something specific that we need at this point for a campus style development on this lot? I was under the understanding that it was already approved as a campus style development. There is no approval that reflects the campus style development. It was conceptually presented once, but it is not memorialized in any decision. So there are, in exception number four, there are one, two, three, four individual things that need to be done. And since we have no plan that demonstrates the no approved plan that demonstrates those things, I would say that it is not currently approved. So how was the existing building in front of the building approved? In this instance, the parking in front of the building was approved in that location because of the existence of the overhead power lines. So Marla, in order for the applicant to convince the board that they're addressing what they need to address, would we continue the site plan application or would they address that? Do they do preliminary plat next? What would you suggest as the process procedurally? Well, I think that before we get to that, the board needs to decide if they would allow, I mean, it seems silly to say, you have to clarify this exception if the board isn't going to accept it. So, I need direction from the board. Is that the way you want them to go or the alternative? And admittedly, there is a certain degree of rhetoric in the staff comment that there is no path forward. Unless exception three or exception four applies, meaning exception, if the applicant can demonstrate that exception three or exception four applies, then they do have a path forward. Oh, except for exception four as applicable here. And if so, then we can decide where to go. So, I'll weigh in only as being a board member that was on the board when the original building was approved and the discussions that took place with the power lines and allowing the parking to the front, that that was the exact reason why the building was set back and the parking was put in the front. And it was also one of the reasons that that bike path, the rec path with the extensive landscaping designed by SE Group was built. It was because we allowed the parking in the front of the building because of the power lines and the green mount power easement and the building was put in that the big landscaping buffer was put in to screen the parking. So I don't see where the conditions have changed from back then other than I imagined that either the original parking wasn't that much wasn't needed or because of the wetlands, we're there. They designed an L shaped parking lot. And if they're not planning on infilling it and doing wetland mitigation that if their wetland permit is satisfied, I'm not sure where how the board's position would change from our original review of it. You know, thanks for that background. Dan, do you have anything else to add to that? No, it'd be great if GSA and the Biden administration would require some carpooling for all those hundreds of GSA employees. I agree, but I feel like I'm in the middle of it. Marla, what are your thoughts at this point? I often might not be able to have an impression that we need back to my seat. I don't have the change, I only represent the regulations. This is really important, you know, what I'm hearing from two members of the board, possibly three, is that they don't like it but they are willing to plug their nose because of the exception of the three. If that is the case, then I have nothing to say about it. Well, it seems to me that given the history and thank you, Mark, for providing that, and the fact that GSA is a good tenant and they're not willing to budge, I, it would be unfortunate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I think. That's just my opinion, but I'd welcome any other board members to weigh in. Jim, Alyssa, Dan? Does the board of the authority that requires some additional landscaping at all, or? I don't know that we control more landscaping on this property. It's already got quite a bit already, but it just, yeah. And I will say, I don't know if we want to discuss exception three further, you know, I think the way that it's worded is difficult and that we have an existing building. We're not looking at siding the building, but we are unable to site parking behind the building at this point. The only other open space on the property would be an encroachment of the parking further towards the frontage the right away can love. You know, we are proposing to, again, infill and not increase our parking towards. And we'll have a now. Again, they still need to come back for preliminary plan. Is that correct? No, it's a little under here. Okay, all right. You know, I still stand by the fact that, you know, I don't think it's, I don't think it's like plugging our nose to accept exception number three. That was the actual criteria that the project was reviewed under and approved under. Was the fact that you had the utility easement and the power lines going across the front of the site. And that's why the building had to be set back and the parking was put in front. And the trade-off was that extensive landscaping and plantings and birthing that was done those way more than a normal prep path just went straight across the front of the site, you know, with plantings and birming and stuff like that. So, you know, and the trade-off with the wetland mitigation, they're not just filling, they're mitigating it on a pretty, sounds to me like permanently conserved site. And I'm okay with this request. I mean, I think that, you know, yes, the concept that GSA is a good tenant. Once they're here, we're not going to get this turnover that we had with Green Mountain Coffee, you know, and then having a used car lot for a while, you know. I'd like to see some stability here. Thanks, Mark. Any other comments before we move on? Okay, staff comment number two. Staff is unable to identify what has changed on the plans and recommends the board ask the applicant to describe in order to determine if the other submitted plans need to be updated to reflect the proposed conditions submitted to the state. Applicant? Yeah, so just as E101 is filling currently, that has been updating during the wetland permitting process and all that happened on this plan is the blue and green hash shading, which shows the wetland enhancement planting area as well as some boulders or demarcation of the wetland buffer along the Western boundary. And just to go into that a little bit further, this mitigation plan is currently a partially mowed class two wetland and buffer with the mitigation plan. They are proposing to seize mowing within the entire class two wetland and buffer as well as plant 5.51 acres of the class two wetland and 0.32 acres of the class two buffer. So it is a robust wetland mitigation plan that does include those smaller bare root plantings that you'd normally see with the wetland stream restoration plan. And those were the changes along with the de-restriction which doesn't affect our site plans or something like that. Thank you, Andrea. Any questions or comments from the board? So it sounds like we should entertain a motion to close this hearing. Would anyone like to make that motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion to close the review 2035 of 124 Technology Parkway. Thank you, Mark. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Dan. Any discussion before we take a vote? All in favor of closing continued site plan application SB2035 and conditional use application CU2002, say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes aye. So the hearing is closed and you'll be hearing from us. Perfect, thank you so much. Thank you, applicants. Thank you. So the next agenda item is the minutes of April six. Has everyone had a chance to look at them? The minutes were not available until after the packet was published. Oh, does that mean to carry this item over? Yes. Okay. Any other business? Okay. I will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. We don't do that. We just end, okay. So let's just end. Pardon? I just think you just take good night, everyone. Good night, everyone. Thank you for your time tonight. Bye-bye. Thank you, Don. Good night. Thanks, Don. The conference is no longer being recorded. Bye. Don, I like your...