 Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board Tuesday, February 6, 2018. First item on the agenda is directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room. If there is an emergency, we will meet in the South parking lot, which is right behind this wall. And there are a couple of exits here, these two doors, and in addition to the door that we all came in through. And yeah, so let's meet there and of course the sign-in sheet will be important to make sure that everyone is safely out in the parking lot. Additions, deletions, changes in the order of agenda items. So, two things. One is to move item number eight, which is sketch plan SD 1802 to come before item number five, and then in the packet there was one item under other business, which has been rescinded, so we don't need to do the other business. Okay. Alright. So, eight before five and skip 11. Alright. Comments, questions from the public, not related to the agenda. Anyone have any comments or questions not related to the agenda items? Hearing none. Announcements. Yes, tonight. The next meeting will be at the police station. Uh-huh. Thank you very much. Next meeting at the police station. February 20th, okay. Upstairs conference room. Oh, the upstairs conference room. Yeah. The best. Cheers this time. Very good. Okay. Police station, upstairs conference room, next meeting. Thank you very much. Number eight on the agenda, coming before number five, sketch plan application SD 17-1802, excuse me, SD 18-02 of John and Joyce Belter to subdivided 286 acre lot developed with a farm into two lots of 3.57 acres, lot number one, and 282.43 acres, lot number two at Ethan Allen Drive, who is here for the applicant. The applicant has requested continuance of this item to the February 20th hearing. Good. We continue a preliminary plot application SD 17-29 of JJJ South Burlington to February 20th. We're not on that. Not JJJ. Number eight. Yeah, number eight, SD 18-02. Sin that motion. I move that we move sketch plan application SD 18-02 of John and Joyce Belter to February 20th. Second. We move in second. We continue to do this application to February 20th, fall in favor, say aye. Aye. And all opposed, thank you very much. On to number five, which has also requested a application, continuance. Five and six. Yep. Five and six. Five and six. Both. It's okay. No, keep the numbers, because five and six are both the same project. That's all. Right. So let's just call it five so we don't get confused, which is continued proven preliminary plot SD 17-29. I move that we continue preliminary plot application SD 17-29 of JJJ South Burlington to February 20th. Moving second. We continue this to February 20th. Fall in favor. Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Number six. Same deal. I move that we continue continued master plan application MP 17-02 of JJJ South Burlington LLC to February 20th. Moving second. We continue to February 20th. Fall in favor. Say aye. Aye. Opposed? Item number seven, reconsideration of preliminary final application SD 17-18 of South Village Community's LLC for approval of phase three of 334 unit planned unit development. Phase three is to consist of the following. 22 single family dwellings for two family dwellings, two, three unit multifamily dwellings, and two, 12 unit multifamily dwellings. The reconsideration is to amend condition number five pertaining to waivers of land development regulation standards and to amend condition 25 pertaining to the number of affordable housing units in phase 3B 1840 Spear Street, who is here for the applicant. Ireland and South Village communities. Swear it? Okay. Please raise your hand. You promised the whole truth and nothing but truth on the penalty of perjury. Thank you so much. Please describe what's up. Please describe the application reconsideration. The application is for an amendment of two conditions. The first one is to allow five foot setbacks from 10 foot, which had been on a list that we had worked through with staff from the beginning, and it was accepted. It's been accepted in phase one and phase two. And we believe it was just an error that no one caught that it wasn't on this particular list. So we're looking to have that added to the list. It is in conformance with the way all of phase one and phase two have been built in the way phase three was designed. And then the second request is for condition 25 to be amended to add a sentence at the beginning that says you haven't heard what in the event that the applicant builds more than 269 units and then the rest is the existing condition. And we believe the way that it's worded, it's asking for six units, regardless of being the 269 or the density bonus requirement that's already in place. So our request is that it says in the event that the applicant builds more than 269 units is added at the preface of the condition. Yep. So with regard to the first request for waiver, any comments from the board? Any issues with it? We've granted it throughout the rest of the development. So it seems like it makes sense. Mark, any comments? Not on condition number five. Yep. Staff, any comments? Okay. And the next one, condition number 25. I'll open up to the board for comments. Mark, it sounds like you had one. Well, I just, I'm inclined to not be agreeing to it. You know, this goes to my issue with, you know, we have a master plan with X number of units which takes into account the bonus density for a portable housing. So the project is planned for that many units and it's laid out for that many units with a mix of the portable housing in it. But if the applicant chooses to stop building at 269 units, we're going to vacant hogs, vacant land, no portable housing. I'm just not inclined to agree with that. I think if you want to propose a project that designs it for the bonus density then decides to stop before you get to the bonus density trigger and build any portable housing. You've got your approval for all those units. I think you can even build them on a prorated basis as you move forward with the project. I'd appreciate hearing from staff on the authority, the board in this regard. Do we have the power to force the applicant to build affordable units before they get to the magical 269 number? The project was approved for 334 units. That includes a certain number of affordable and some of the bonus units. So I think on that basis, the board does have the authority. If the applicant were to choose to not build more than 269, it could apply to amend their approval to reduce the number from 334 down to 269 and then there would be no obligation to build any affordable. But at this stage, the affordable units are part of the approval, the original approval. So I think I would agree with Mark. Go to the board. Well, my inclination is to be exact, is to end up in future projects exactly where Mark is talking about. But I do think that throughout this, throughout the hearings for this, we constantly said these will occur after 269 and we were, we openly talked about it. I think that was what we, it's what I came away understanding we were looking at. So, well, I agree that I wouldn't do another project like this. Now I wasn't here at the beginning of this, but I wouldn't do another project like this that didn't spread the affordable units throughout the 330, whatever it is, 332 evenly. And as they, and prior to hitting the 269, I do believe that the addition of this sentence is what we talked about. Is what we talked about or is? Is. I think we, I think, I think, Oh, I see what you're saying. I think we said that after 269 units, any additional adds to that trigger the affordables. Yeah, and just to add to that point, I agree with that. I don't think we said, we didn't preclude them doing it before they hit 269. Right. They could build the first 6,000. We just said if you hit 269, you must. You have to. There's no wiggle room. And so what are we saying here that, yeah. Jennifer. I, I'm, I'm agreeing with John and Mark and Matt, but I'm also following the logic of Ray's argument about it was approved for that. And that this was originally part of the application. And I would like to see. I don't know if we can do anything about a rewarded or, you know, if they decide not to do the three, the full 300. Well, it's 270 triggers. The start of the fortables. Right. So it's, they're, they're giving up the opportunity. How many, Robin, how many total affordable units? With, if there was 332, is it, was it about 18? I think it's 33 and 34. Something like that. Yeah. So you're giving up something, something like 30 units of market housing. If you don't do the affordables. That's right. I think there's a financial imperative here that they probably will move along. But I, you know, I just bring that up. The problem that I, that I sympathize. So I understand Mark's point. And I would like maybe Robin could comment on is, is how do you spread the affordable housing out evenly? And you not create a section of affordable housing if you, if you wait till 269, is there a, is there a way to accomplish that and not build an affordable housing complex until you hit 270? Yesterday. Can you explain a little bit more of that? We are currently looking at views of all those plans with 334 units and it's, there's ample land and lots. We've only pulled 155 building permits. So of the 334, the bulk of the units are still to be built. So you can pretty easily sprinkle them into that plan. Pretty easily sprinkle them into it and actually seeing a plan which I know I've been asking for since this issue has come up and multiple meetings have never gotten it. You know, I just, it just concerns me that we're going to wait until we get to 270 and then we're going to start figuring out where we're going to put these affordable housing units in. And if we don't go above 269, we have 60 units of land that have impacted the potential infrastructure and planning that potentially could lead to open spaces. We don't have that. So Robin, is there any chance that you'd offer to show us the, show us a plan? We submitted a plan along back with this for, for, for the affordables for 334. We have not submitted a plan for where they would go. The plan that we submitted for the 334, which was conceptual only contained the, the 33 and the 34. We're all in that plan. But it was conceptual. It is conceptual and it was, it's been presented to staff with clouds drawn around the, the areas, which was how we were directed to identify the affordable. We're not ready to present a formal plan and come in for that. We are working on it. We're doing our due diligence. We're talking to the builders about building and the costs for building and all those steps, but we need to iron out all those steps before we can bring in a plan. Question for staff. Say this sprinkling as Robin suggested is not as easy as say it doesn't happen as easily as previously thought. Would we have the authority to demand retroactive sprinkling? In other words, housing that you created at market value would then have to become affordable housing in order to comply with the mandates that they, that they not be all segregated in one area. Well, if the board is reviewing an application as it, as it was reviewing an application for phase three, it was able to at phase three, sprinkle the six units in that phase. So it's up to the applicant to come before the board for phases one and two for the board to have the authority to, to ask for that information. If the applicant were to come in the future, let's say for an amendment to the master plan, that could be a topic of discussion at that time. But if they weren't to come in, if they weren't, if they decide to not come back to the board for any changes in their development, then I think they're going to be, you're not going to get a choice, a chance to review their proposals. Right. That makes sense. On the condition, the next condition, which I believe that we're not warned so I don't know if we can talk about it, but condition 26 does already warrant that none of the undeveloped land of which there is quite a bit can be further developed until there is an affordable plan presented to you. I believe section 26 covers the board and the development. For phase one example, there's over 26 units that are not yet permitted. Okay. I'm inclined. I'll take the board, reading of the board. I'm inclined to go with Ray's interpretation, Mark's interpretation and say that as long as the plan is 4334, that we do want to see what you are working on, the plan for the affordable housing units, and to not include the sentence because we do not, because we're not thinking at this point that it's anything other than a 334 unit development. So if it becomes a 334 unit development, then you can come back and say, we're really, you know, Mark is just in there. We're stopping at 269. We don't, we're not going to put in affordable housing units, affordable housing units. So that's my inclination board. Yes, no. I know Mark. Okay. Just confirming. Are we not tonight only deciding whether we'll open this for reconsideration, or are we reconsidering? No, we've already opened it. Okay. Sorry. Thanks, John. Thanks, Mark. Thank you, Frank. So, Bill, as you described it, what you're essentially saying is that they have an opportunity if they decide to stop at 269 to come before and then ask for this, essentially ask for this language at the time that they're stopping. Right. As Ray said, they can ask for an amendment. I think that's, I'm sorry. No, I'm done. Good. I was, I was coming up here. I was trying to think of how I was going to formulate that. And I thought, as I walked in, you did a great job. Surprised. No, not surprised. Pleased. I'd be more comfortable with the original language in bold rather than adding the original sentence or the earlier part of the sentence. Well, isn't the original language actually consistent with that interpreted, the original language? Well, they revised it to add in the event that the applicant builds more. Oh, no, I would take that out. Excuse me. Right. I would, I would just take that out and say, you know, you got to build the requisite number of affordable units that go along with your waiver, with your, with your waiver request. And your remedy is, I think those suggestions is terrific. Otherwise it's, it's a rational application. It's a rational application to the rule. So any further comments? Can we consider condition five and condition 25 separately? For sure. I mean that to me, yes, you could approve one and not the other. Right. I'm sorry. Do you want to take public comment? Yeah. So it's your belief that condition 25 that you can say that there shall be six affordable units, irregardless of the density bonus? Yes, because we're a 334. It's a 334 master plan. Okay. So that's, and if it becomes something other than that, then for sure we would be, we must be open to reconsideration. Okay. Yeah. So that's public. Yes. Please identify yourself. Excuse me. I live in Sir's village in phase two. And I don't think I need to say anything. If you guys are saying that there is no need to change condition 25, then I have nothing to say. Correct. Other comments from the public? Okay. I think we have a motion to close. Move that we close SD 17, 18, 18, 40 Spear Street South Village communities. Second. Second. We're moving second. We'll close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. Take care. Thank you guys. Okay. Next on the agenda. We did eight. We did eight. Yes. So we are up to number nine. Yeah. I'm sorry. No. We're doing. I don't know. A sketched on application. It's SD 1801 of cat, about Middlebury LLC for review of a re subdivision at 68 Ns D drive and 1795. Shelburne road. Who is here for the Alkan? Yes, that's planned application. So no swearing in. Correct. Hello. Hi. Fernando Cresta. Fernando Cresta. Yes. Yeah. My name's Doug Netty. Conflicts. Conflicts of interest. Thank you very much. Fernando represents us at one of our buildings. I don't think there's a conflict, but if you have any issue, I'm happy to step out. I don't think so. Okay. Conflicts of interest. There ain't none. Please describe the project. So currently there are three lots as you can see. 68 Nesty Drive and 1795 Shelburne Road and 1785 Shelburne Road. Our goal in this application is three-fold. One, we'd like to create two lots versus three lots. And then we'd like to do it in such a way that we would allow signage to 68 Nesty Drive on Shelburne Road. And then the third goal of our application is eventually to create access to 68 Nesty Drive by Shelburne Road, by continuing that access lane. Currently, we have the pool and property under contract. We're interested, you know, we have under contract for sale. And the folks that are interested in buying it are interested in buying it and fee simple. So we're trying to structure a way that we subdivide or do a property line adjustment here that provides him ownership and fee simple property and not a PUD, which we could have come here requesting. So I guess the issue at hand is front lock coverage. And if you go back to the top map, we're not proposing to do any additional construction or additional parking on 1795 Shelburne Road. We are interested in increasing the width of our right of way or the access road. We're not looking to do any additional construction at all in 1785 Shelburne Road. So we're not looking to develop any more of that green space along Shelburne Road. So if we were granted the permission to do what we want, you know, you wouldn't, you know, the average citizen traveling up and down Shelburne Road wouldn't really notice anything different with the pool and building, the parking lot. You know, the green space to the north with the exception of increased width access. I, for the life of me, I couldn't figure out where the access is that you're proposing from the three maps that we had. So if you could walk us through. I can show you on the screen there. Great. C11, right? One more. Well, that was the one. That was it. Yeah, this is the current access. There's a traffic signal right here. And this is the current access road. This was contemplated to continue to serve this building and this this parcel at some point, but was never continued. And so this access, this road here would be improved to be be widened a bit and would continue to serve where WB Mason is currently. And then we have another four or five acres, which we hope to develop over here. So currently this building is served by Nesty Drive, which isn't the safest and most ideal access on the Shelburne Road. And we'd like to improve that access by coming out to Shelburne Road with a traffic signal this year. So that's what it is. What would you do with your Nesty Drive access? It would just continue. It just probably would not be the preferred access because a lot of trucks coming in and out and they need the light to get onto Shelburne Road. Is there now a left-hand turn available onto Nesty Drive going north? No, you have to go right and for trucks you have to go down I think like three or four miles and turn around somewhere and then come back up Shelburne Road. The turn around is at IDX Drive. It's about a mile left. The turn around is at IDX Drive. It's about a mile left. Is that where it is? No. Is that where the trucks turn around? And then for cars sometimes they kind of look around to the left-hand side and try to do a little U-turn and head back to the north. And with this expanded access, you say there's a light there? There's a current light there. Is there a left-hand turn lane? On our access road or on... On your new... On our new access road. In other words, imagine a truck coming down a road now and when they get to that light, are they going to be blocking that left-hand... Are they going to be blocking a lane in order to make a left or is there an existing left-hand turn lane that they can pull into? There's a left turn lane. Yes. It's on the plan. The purpose really is to provide... I'm trying to get at what you're getting at. You want to provide an access for your undeveloped piece of land back there. So that's one of our goals. The second goal is to do a property line adjustment. So the 68 Nesty Drive parcel has owned land on Shaubert Road so we could have signage. So currently we have no signage for WB Mason and we would have no signage for a new building to the north of WB Mason. So it's important for those buildings to have signage and we would be able to do that if we did the property adjustment as proposed. I don't get it. Where's the proposed adjusted property? You've got a C-1-1. Yes, a C-1. Can you pull C-1-1 more? So this dark line is what was proposed currently. Two more down. It goes right across. I have more of the plans that you'd like. Yeah, it's C-1-1. Who's next? So... Can you blow it up a little bit? Sure. The current... What do you want to see? It's the entry lot. There's two current lots. There's one current lot right here and another current lot right here. What we're proposing to do is... And there's another lot up here. We're proposing to create a new lot that looks like this. So there's a lot back there that continues to Shaubert Road and that means this lot. So you're creating an irregular lot just to give it frontage. That's the idea, right? Yes. Three is becoming two. We're down to two lots. Currently we have three lots. And one of the lots kind of cuts right across the street there. They make the access drive. It does. So part of the lot... Part of that access road will be an easement. Part will be on owned land. So it's a combination. Historically it was all easement and now it's ownership part easement. And then in order to develop your land... Now who owns 68 Nesti? Yeah, the same partnership owns both parcels currently. So you'll need yet another easement to get to the land behind it. Correct? To get to the undeveloped portion. And it's owned by the same entities. But the lot will be distinct or not? Yes, it will be. So again, this lot is owned by the same entity. In the future this will be owned by somebody else. And there will be an easement here for this benefit. And then we'll have an easement on their land for our benefit. So the whole thing, the existing 68 Nesti drive and the five acres is all part of one lot now or not? Yeah. Three lots. Staff's position is that there are actually only two lots. 1785 and 1795 are merged. Because 1795 cannot stand alone without the green space that the benefit of the 1785. So 1785 was joined at some point in time in the past in order to further develop the two parcels together. So that by merge them that can't be separated. Or else it would be a violation on 1795. So they're essentially merged those two lots together. Maybe they were purchased in separate times and separate deeds. But the fact that they have been merged for development purposes. From our standpoint they're basically one lot. So are you saying that 1795 can't be its own? Not separated from 1785. But that's not their proposal. Their proposal is to basically if you assume that 1785 and 95 are merged as one lot, they're then taking that lot making it smaller and adding the frontage that 200 feet of frontage that it has and add it to the 68 Nesti drive property in the back. So Ray may be correct, but on all your tax maps and everything we see we see two lots. But if you look at all the plans and everything else, I don't know if it really matters. It doesn't really matter. I'm just representing what we're seeing on the tax maps and what we're seeing on our plans. We see two lots. For the purposes of this subdivision, it doesn't matter whether you're adjusting the property line on three lots or on two lots, the net result is the same. Frankly, I can't see why we would object, but it looks a little weird. And I'm wondering why, for example, when you do your regular lot, you make a point of bringing the diagonal line, so to speak, across the face of the right of way. In other words, you're putting a piece of the right of way on the other side of the new boundary line. Why is that? It's because of your signage bylaws reflect a certain amount of road frontage for a certain size sign. And you're not getting that road frontage? We're just responding to what your bylaws require for the size of sign that we need. So this frontage that you're otherwise getting is not enough to give you the sign that you need? That's correct. If we brought the property line to the north side of the access road, we would not get the size sign that we need for these two large buildings in the back. How big a sign do you need? We'd like to, I think it's 80s. I think it's 40 square feet. The minimum 40 square feet? Right. But the reason you're going with 200 feet of frontage is to be able to take advantage of the provision so that a 50,000 larger than 40 could go up to 80 square feet. If you have enough frontage and or building square footage, you might be able to have an 80 square foot sign. That's why you're doing this. That's what I understand. So, you know, again, we've got a 50,000 square foot building existing. We're, you know, we're could build another 40,000 square foot building. So we've got two large businesses that we'd like to have some signage for on Shulban Road. And 80 square foot sign is both sides, right? I mean, that's not 160. So it's really 40 square feet per side. No, it's 80 square feet per side. Oh, it is. Okay. So it's a 10 by 8 sign and one possible configuration. And likely we'd have two different businesses sharing that sign. So each sign would have 4 by 5 by 8. Which is not enormous at the speed these people go. Which is what? It's not enormous at the speed people go. I mean, how big is the pooling sign right now? That's huge. Yeah. It's larger. Yeah. It's huge. The gorilla they put up or the... Yeah. Mark, did you have a comment before we dive into staff comments? Me? Yeah. You. Oh, so Ray, I got a question. Is this not going to want us to get into more waivers and issues and stuff like that? But it seems to me that the concept of doing this is going to make it a lot. It's not going to change the layout of the lot. It's not going to change anything. It's purely to get frontage or signage. You know, it seems to be doing a clear subdivision. And if there's way of doing the allowance or variance on the phone side of the frontage, is there anyone who can do that? Because, like I said, it just seems silly to do this, the regulations subdivision to give them the frontage they need. Well, the proposal as submitted, the board does not have the authority to approve because of the front yard coverage. This proposal reduces the amount of front yard green space that is existing mostly on the 1785 resulting in what's left with mostly a lot of pavement up along the street. As a result, they exceed the front yard coverage and I have an estimate of about 54%. The maximum is 30%. So the board does not have the authority to approve that. That's correct. Is there anything you can just combine all these lots together with PUD so that you don't have to discuss this issue of, you know, lot coverage and just where it needs to be to cross it or whatever like that? If we didn't have a buyer of the Catamount South Brilington LLC property wanting to own his property in Fee Simple versus an economy unit, then we would be doing that. And that's why we're here proposing where we're proposing. We don't have an option. We have to figure out some kind of Fee Simple solution here. All right. So it sounds like we've already started to touch on staff comment number one, which it sounds like prevents our approval of this application. Could I ask them something else? If we said no to this diagonal line and they had to live with a 40 square foot sign, would it then work or would it still not work? That's up to the applicant. It certainly would work under the sign ordinance. Well, that's what I mean. No, under the coverage. Yeah, it doesn't. So there's no way. It still wouldn't work. There's no way to. So the requirement is that you cannot increase preexisting nonconformance. There is no way mathematically to take something that already exceeds the allowable coverage, divide it either in half or quarters or whatever, and still without making it worse, unless you were to somehow balance it half and half and it comes out exactly the same. But there's no way to improve. Mathematically, it's impossible to improve the nonconformance without removing the pavement. And what we know, I don't know if this makes any sense, but on the lot towards the north, we're happy to put in some development restrictions, green space open, whatever. We're not looking to do any more development along either one of these lots. And I know it's not conforming currently, but. But it looks like you got a black and white problem here that we don't have authority to mess around with. That could be true. All right. If we are able to convince our new buyer to remove asphalt, does everything else look okay in terms of our property line adjustment? Can the problem be solved by the removal of asphalt? Yes. So that's staff comment number one. I think we should go through the other comments before we say definitively, but removing pavement would address reducing the degree of nonconformance. How much? It would have to be decreased from 36%. So if it's 36% today, and you subdivide the lot so that the area of the lot is smaller, it would still have to be 36 or less. It couldn't be go up by moving the property line and then go back down to something above 36. 30 is the maximum, so 30% coverage is the maximum. We would ask that the app can be bringing it down to 30%. Down to 30%. Bring it into compliance. Can the board approve something that's a reduction in nonconformance somewhere between 36 and 30? I'm not sure. I think that when this was originally approved, it was at 30, because the 30 requirement has been on the books for many, many years. I think that it increased from 30 to 36 when the road is widened. And took up some of their green space. So I'd have to do a little research to find out the effect of them rising from 30 to 36, not their fault, and what the effect of that would be. Yeah, so it would be great if you could consider 36. We're talking about 1795 Shelburne Road before the none of the dealership. We're talking about just asphalt that's in front of the front yard and setback, right? Yeah. And so none of the Shelburne Road pavement is within the 50 yard setback. The Shelburne Road pavement is all within the right of way. So if we look at sheet. We're talking about just the pavement that's in front of the, within the front yard setback. Right. And so the front yard setback shown on sheet 1.0 is as 30 feet. It's actually 50 foot setback, but staff just measured to the 50 foot line as though it were there. So the coverage within that 50 yard, 50 foot setback. So does that eliminate some parking spaces? Yeah, it eliminates the whole road potentially. And what does that do? And what happens assuming those parking spaces are eliminated? How do they stand in relation to whatever parking requirement applies? Well, it's a car dealer. There's lots of parking, right? Yeah. No. Low number. Yeah. Low parking. According to car dealership, there's never enough parking. So. But what's the answer? I can't understand what Mark is saying. It's a help me out. Car dealership. Auto dealership has a small number of required parking spaces for customers and employees. The rest of the spaces are for display. So this property currently meets the minimum requirement for providing spaces for customers and employees and has probably, you know, three or four times that number of spaces in car display. So this would be reducing their car display area. Right. They could swap a couple from the car display to the employees if needed. So it would work is what you're saying. As far as your car. It could have fewer cars for your area to display cars, but they would have plenty of room for customers and employees. Your inventory would shrink. I understand. Yeah. I mean, if you look on Google Earth and look at the parking layout of the parking Google Earth, it's not very tight. It's not very efficient. I don't know. You might just be typing up the display area. Yeah. It's a new business and it's hard to tell how they're going to utilize it. So it looks to me as though, I mean, almost all of the lot is you're going to have to move the paving for like 70% or 70% of what's inside the front setback. Marla, is that correct? You have to. Sorry. You have to remove about 70% of the paving. That's in the front setback. Well, if they're at 54 now and they got to go down to 30. So that would be 24. That would be 24% of the total area. So yeah, they probably have to remove about half of it. But we're still considering 36. Aren't we? No. I thought the 36 versus 30 is an unanswered question. We were going to look into that. So I mean, the difference between 30 and 36. You and I could probably take it out with a shovel, you know, but. So, all right. So that's staff comment number one. It sounds to me like you understand that there has to be a whole bunch of pavement go into some dump somewhere. Staff comment number two. If you could read that and then respond to it. Comments number two discusses the proposed property line crossing a stream. Yes. And do you want to go back to the plan? I've never, you know, I've never, in all the subdivisions and development I've done, I've never had any pushback in terms of having a property line go down a stream. The stream is going like this and a property line goes like this or property line goes like this or this. I've never had any, any municipality have an issue of how it follows the stream or being or anything. So this, I don't know how to respond to this. I've never seen it before. Doug, is there any reason why it needs to go on a straight line from the, from the southerly front point to that rear point? Is there a, you know, couldn't you pick a point and come straight west? It could follow the stream, but we need to get it over towards our axis road at some point because that's where we want to sign. But you could solve this pretty easily. Coming across the, the road and then coming along the side of the stream in the 50 foot buffer there. Just along the, the, uh, northerly edge of the new road. Actually, I don't follow it. I'm just saying instead of coming, instead of coming across. Yeah. You could come up here and then run straight up the road. Right. Then we've got an issue, uh, law coverage. So we're trying to get some law coverage for this too. Yeah. You can always steal it back here. Potentially. It's, uh, it's all hillside back there. It's not going to be a perfect, you know, square, a rectangle, no matter what. There's always going to be a jog or something. And it's not that out of a shape, but. A question to staff. What is our authority to push this issue? The board has total authority on the, uh, this resubdivision request. So you could say, yeah, crossing a stream and stream buffer and the issue of erosion, but, um, um, control problems. Sure. We consider that that, um, was inconsistent with the criteria about, um, the one about layout. Yeah. 15.10. So giving consideration to topography soils and drainage conditions, giving the consideration. Okay. Got it. Okay. So, uh, sounds like it's easy fix. I mean, I think, uh, if you look at the Johns idea where you can go up the road closer and then they could go all the way down to the stream bed, right? And I mean, you could take, take it and run. Can we go up to that? I'd like to propose that you can, uh, the map or do you want the, the satellite or do you want the, the plan? CICI. Yeah. If you, uh, if you're coming across here, right? And straight back here, you could come down to the stream bed and just run up the screen. Yeah. And then you're dealing with erosion. Yeah. If you could, um, show that a plan with existing. Proposed. Some of the reasons I just want to make it clear. So when we come back, we, we didn't misunderstood. So what, I think what John, I'm not sure, but what you're thinking is that it would come. Down like this. No, go to the center of the stream bed. Come down. Exactly. And then come over like that. Or somewhere come over. I mean, it just, just so that you're, I mean, we could see that clarity on, on, on the, the erosion side of the stream bed. You can come down to the stream bed and then we can go over like that. If that makes more sense. You're probably going to cut all the way over the other side of the road as you have now because of your front line. Yeah. Yeah. We can do that. Okay. Good. Thanks. Staff comment number three. Next time. The stream buffer itself is not supposed to be impacted by development, but that the stream corridor, part of the board is bisected as described above. Mostly up close is challenging. So does our fix fix that already? Yes. Okay. Staff considers the approach a lot like, creates a triangle or flag, a lot of geometry, which is inconsistent geometry or other parts of the vicinity. Staff recommends board discuss, whether a rectangular geometry, which we have discussed. And it doesn't sound like it works for them. So I think we're moving on. Okay. Well, wait a minute. Is that the end of the discussion? Is there any concern that is the end of the discussion? Okay. You're the chair. No, I don't mind. I mean, if there's other things to bring up. Well, I was just wondering, I didn't want to cut off, you know, staff raised the concern. Is it just a mechanical concern that G, don't you want it horizontal? And the reason is, what would the ration, in other words, would there be a reason? Well, it's other than it's weird looking. Do we care that it's weird looking? Since it's got no actual visual impact on it, on anybody, do we care that if we look at a schematic, it's weird? I think that our concern was that it didn't make any sense with the development patterns or the topography or anything. If it falls central in a stream, there is a reason for the geometry as it is. So, if it can have some sort of sensible geometry that has a cohesive reason, and if that reason is following it, and if that cohesive thing is the centerline of the stream, that would satisfy it. Well, it's still going to remain an unusual flag, because they're trying to get frontage. And I think one perfectly reasonable answer for this is that we need to keep businesses in South Burlington and if they need signage, that's an important reason. So, I don't have a problem with that, but I think this will remain a flag lot, no matter how you look at it. I think what you might ask for, and he's already offered, is that this stays green, that this is an undevelopable lie. I mean, frankly, it's an undevelopable space. This is the bottom of the Barclay Brook. But, you know, having a perpetual green space on Shelburne Road is a very positive thing. Sounds like a great idea. Oh, okay. Yeah. I got a related question, because what's nagging at me is, what is the relationship between road frontage and size of the sign? Is it arbitrary, or, you know, what? No. Oh. What? Or is it a direct relationship? Help me understand it a little bit. Read your book. You'll see. I can explain if you'd like. It's up to you. Maybe just point. It's in the sign ordinance, so it's nothing to do with the land development regulations. Okay, so there's nothing we can do about it. No, the board has no authority over the sign ordinance, but they're simply proposing to do this for the purpose of obtaining frontage on Shelburne Road. Otherwise, they're not able to put a sign on Shelburne Road for the businesses in the back. My questioning was whether the sign dimension is a flexible thing. Whether the sign relationship to frontage is a flexible matter, or whether this is the only way it can be done. If they were willing to live with a 40-square-foot sign, then they could reduce the frontage, and there'd be less of an issue. So what you're telling me is the relationship between sign size and frontage is an absolute. That's correct. Only between 40 and 80 square feet. 40 square foot sign, there's no requirement for any minimum amount of frontage. You just have to have some. So the ordinance says to go more than 40, you have to have at least 200 feet of frontage on a public street. So this is their proposal to obtain 200 feet of frontage on a public street so that they can take advantage of that provision. I understand that. And what you're saying is that as far as the sign ordinance itself goes, there's no flex. There's another issue here, too. If this was all that simple, if they could have tons more, if more frontage would give them even more signage, you'd think that they could put two signs on the old pool and auto, but they can't do that either. They can't put a sign for the back building on a property that's not owned by them. So it has to be, they need ownership. Right. And no sign on a property that's not owned by them is the state billboard law. The state billboard law. That's right. Well, that I understand. Good. Good. Thank you. Staff comment number five. Staff recommends the board confirm the applicant understands the requirements of Article 16. Stabilization timelines, minimum side slopes, minimum topsoil thickness. We do. Okay. Staff comment number six, wetland, when the wetland delineation was completed? I forgot to ask our engineer, but I'm thinking we were doing, we just finished our stormwater management plan for this parcel. We just got our permit 60 days ago. And prior to submitting that permit, we had to update our wetlands. I don't have the data of it, but I know it was somewhat recent. So I would say within the last 12 or 18 months, I think. Yep. So if you, if you apply for the next round, we would just need that, that confirmation as to when they were, when it was regenerative. Yeah, we can do that. The paragraph previous to that, when the applicant is proposing to remove a smaller portion of existing parking area to allow reconfiguration of the access drive, should the applicant wish to reduce impervious and in order to allow the project proceed, one option would be to reduce the driveway width and retain a single length for each of entrance and exit. Suggesting from staff. We, you know, we contacted a traffic consultant engineer to size our entrance for safety, for trucks and everything. And this is what he's proposing. That's why we suggested it's with. The agency transportation will have the final say on the configuration of this access drive. No matter what the board wants or doesn't want, AOT is going to be the final termination. Termination. Meet with AOT and Fernando can even update on that. Yeah, we met with them last Tuesday and with Roger Dickinson, the engineer, and they seem to be fine with it. They were waiting for some information from the engineer to... Including this 24 feet, there's sort of a neck down there, you know, going into the back area. That's enough, the 24 feet? That's correct. Again, it's only serving two buildings. Well, for the moment. But you have a whole undeveloped area. Well, I'm suggesting in the future, the neck is going to serve in one existing building and in one new building. You know, the driveway serves pool and prior to it kind of getting skinnier if that's the neck you're thinking of. 24 feet is pretty adequate, actually. We have an entrance at one of my buildings at 16 and the trucks get in and it's not fun, but it can happen. All right. What's the car's parked on that street? Well, there's no place to park, I haven't parked out front anymore, so... Okay. Site plan standards, reconfigured. Access drive will not meet the minimum criteria for requiring a private road. Okay, so therefore, requirements of section 1512. Okay, so more staff... Excuse me, more board comments. Sounds like we're going to hear a... This is a sketch plan, so we'll come back. You may go directly to preliminary and final plan if you work out something that staff is happy with. You'd be happy to consider that or come back with sketch. Other comments from board? Other comments from the public? Okay. Do we close sketch? Do we close sketch? You can just end it and it automatically ends. There's no close, not like a hearing. Not with a whimper. So, thank you very much for coming in. Thanks for your time. Thank you. And it's up to them, right? The board wants them to, but no one seems to want to continue. Right. Okay, next item on the agenda are minutes from the February 7th. 2017 meeting. There you go. So, everyone's had a chance to read the minutes from February 7th, a year ago. Wow. I can imagine. Yeah, it looks like it was. The issue was it was not televised. We... And the audio tape was non-audio. Yeah, right. So, we did a little recreation. There you go. The next one also is the same thing. Gotcha. March 7th, 2017. Yeah. We had some weather back then and some meetings at the police station and so on. That's exactly what they were. Yup. And then also the minutes from January 2nd, 2018. And then the last item on the agenda is no longer writing what minutes have been removed. Does anyone care why? I don't know why. The... That was the appeal, right? So that project, Spear Meadows had to file for their zoning permit for the six months of approval. The approval was appealed, therefore stopping the block or resetting the block, I suppose, because the environmental court is revealing to no look. So, they no longer have to request continuance because there's nothing to request continuance from. All right. So, we have three sets of minutes. We've all had a chance to review them. Any comments, questions about the minutes? We approve the minutes from February 7th, 2017, March 7th, 2017 in January 2nd, 2018. Second. It's been moving second. We approve these minutes. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Thank you. Thanks, Mark. Good night, everyone. Good night. 803. Not bad. Not bad. Charlie's working six nights this week. Six nights.