 Don Filibert, I'm the chair of the DRB. And with us tonight on the board is Jim Langen, Stephanie Wyman, Frank Cokeman, and Mark Baer, DRB members, Alyssa Eyring is not with us tonight. And also with us is Marla Keen, the development review planner, and Delilah Hall, the zoning administrator from South Burlington. So honor, oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, Dan Albrecht, who is joining us remotely. Thank you. Thank you for all being here tonight. Some of you are in person, some of you are on the phone, and some of you are watching us remotely. Let's move ahead to the agenda and ask if there are any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items. Hearing none, we'll move forward to announcements. And let's first hear from Marla as she tells us about some hearing assistance improvements or initiatives. Great, thanks for the reminder. So we have in this room, if anyone would like to take advantage, a teacoil, if you have a teacoil-enabled hearing aid, you can just turn that on if you need a headset. Just let me know and I'd be happy to grab one for you. Great, thanks, Marla. So just a reminder that this meeting is being recorded and anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign their name and contact information at the back of the room, or if you're joining us virtually, please sign in in the chat box. And this is necessary in order to be considered participant should you want to obtain party status in the future to appeal a decision made by the board. Anyone on the phone that would like to sign in to be considered a participant should send an email to Marla Keane at M-K-E-E-N-E at S-Burl.com and provide your contact information. And you can also submit any comments about proposals in writing. We ask that you please refrain from conversations in the chat box because it's distracting and those comments are not part of the public record. We also ask that you mute your phone or computer so we don't catch the ambient noise in the background. Also, please close your camera unless you are part of a discussion or you're asking a question during public comment, in which case we ask that you raise your hand and we will ask to hear from you. So any other issues I need to... Did you do emergency evacuation procedures? I did not. So the exits are at the back of the auditorium and then either right or left, depending on which door you went out, is the closest or if there's a fire or something blocking, go the opposite direction. Thank you. Okay, are we ready to proceed with the first project? I think Delilah is just pulling it up now. Good, okay. The first project we're going to review tonight and just to give you an overview, what we do at these meetings is we introduce each applicant and the people representing each applicant and then we review the staff comments and the board asks questions either of staff for clarity or of the applicant and then when the board has reviewed the staff report and answered any questions that it might have, we then turn to the public for public comment. So the first project in front of us tonight is... Don't forget the continuation. Oh, okay. Thank you. Yes, we do have a project. The first project item number four on the agenda is continued preliminary plat application SD 2119 of 800 Spear Street for plan unit development. The applicant has requested continuation to November 16th, 2021. So we'll be reviewing that application not in our next meeting, but the meeting after that. So we do have to do a vote. Okay, thank you. I'll make a motion that we continue preliminary plat application SD 2119 of 600 Spear FJT LLC to November 16th, 2021. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor of continuing that application to November 16th, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you, Mark. Okay. Aye. Say aye. Aye. Oh, thanks, Dan. So the first application that we'll be reviewing is MS 2101, which is an application about the South Burlington Proposed Dog Park during deliberations after the hearing for this proposal, the board decided to reopen the application because they determined they didn't receive enough, they didn't receive sufficient testimony on why the wetland impacts are justified. So that's why we're reviewing that again tonight. So who is here for the applicant? State your name, please. Good evening. Justin Rabadou, the director of public works for the city of South Burlington. Hi, Justin. Anyone else? There are various members of the Common Area for Dogs Committee, formerly the Dog Park Committee in the audience. They might, if they choose to offer their thoughts as well. Okay. But I will be, I am the one speaking on behalf of the application. Okay. They would be speaking as members of the public. Okay, all right, fine. So maybe we'll hold off on taking their comments and swear you in. Would you raise your right hand, please? Are the comments you're about to make do they represent the truth to the best of your knowledge under penalty of perjury? Yes, they do. Thank you. And is there anyone on the board who has a conflict of interest that they need to disclose? I have a disclosure done. My name's Stephanie. So the company that I work for does do work for the city occasionally, but I don't think that will affect my ability to be impartial on this project. Thank you, Stephanie. Any other disclosures? Okay. So let's, is there any, before we start going through the staff comments, Justin, are there any comments you'd like to make? Yes, thank you. Good evening. And we certainly don't object to Stephanie's participation, just for the record. Good. So as you know, we were here on June 15th in front of you and there were some concerns about. I'm not sure about the one you were doing. Should I wait? I think that was Dan. Okay. Sorry. There were concerns about the impact of the park to the wetland, to the wetlands on the property. So in response to that, we have spent the past few months preparing the application you see in front of you now. The revised application reduces the area of the dog park by 12% to just over one and three quarters acre. It reduces the wetland buffer impacts by 65% to roughly one 20th of an acre in totality. I'm sorry, the wetland impacts, not the buffer impacts, the wetland impacts by 65%. And it reduces the wetland buffer impacts by 33%. When we looked at the park in the field in response to the board's comments, wetland A, which is the wetland to the West, which is closer to Dorset Street, and wetland B, they look to the naked eye quite different. And I believe that difference is commented on in our application as well as supported by staff comments. Wetland A, which is the wetland that is still contained within the application in the small dog area, looks like my backyard, it looks like your backyard, it looks like the ball fields right across the street. Wetland B looks like, as described in the memo, it has functions such as water storage for floodwater and stormwater, as well as surface and groundwater protection. So it has a much different look than wetland A. So in response to the board's concerns that we heard on June 15th, we thought that as you can see on the site plan by removing the entirety of wetland B from the application, there are still some minor buffer impacts to be. But by removing the entirety of wetland B from the application, so it's no longer contained within the proposed dog park. Our thought was that would sufficiently address the concerns of the board. And now would you like to go through staff comments and have me respond to them or would you like me to respond to them in advance? Or how do you normally conduct this? Okay, why don't we, there are a lot of staff comments, so why don't we proceed and then you can address each issue as it comes up? Does that make sense, Port? Okay. All right, the proposed dog park will initially smooth out the existing ground within the proposed large dog and small dog enclosure. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe what it means to smooth out the ground. So if you could do that, that would be helpful. So our department has lots of experience on all of the various natural areas within the city in terms of both maintaining them as well as converting them to some degree of active or passive recreation. We have not gone out and done a photographic survey of this property, but based on some recent work we did immediately south of here at the Wheeler House Pizza Hut for lack of a better word where we helped them kind of create a walkable safe accessible area. We fully expect that there are particularly the lower areas of the park. There are gonna be some ankle grabbers and they were just gonna be some spots that from an accessibility and safety standpoint we might need to bring in appropriate soil quite frankly and just fill in those areas. So smooth out is not meant to be some sort of bulldozed or large scale operation which we're stripping off and rototailing and receding. Again, just based on our experience other areas in South Burlington. We recently constructed a playground down in the neighborhood just below Swiss Street. Kerry Lane is an adjacent street. Pheasant Way neighborhood, thank you. So again, another area where there wasn't really a formalized use, we went in there to help create the formalized use and we noticed the ground again just needed some minor smoothing out. So that's when we use that term that's kind of what we mean. We know we're gonna show up and we know the park is gonna be used by people of all ages and varying degrees of access with varying degrees of accessibility needs. So to the extent that we can create the safest area possible where you're not gonna again, catch your ankle or your pup won't either. So that is the intent of that is not meant to infer some large scale construction project. So no major excavation of that area. It would all be hand tools. Again, we did this exact same thing 50 feet south of this proposed location. Thank you for that clarification. Questions, comments from the board? I guess just the only question I have is will any of the restored areas then be revegetated in kind? Yeah, so again, the hope would be to reestablish, the city owns a hydroceder. So we would go and hydrocede, let the vegetation take before the dogs come in and do what they do at every other dog park in the county, turn the grass into something a little bit less than grass. But we do wanna give the ability for any of that reclamation work to have enough time to become permanent. And so we're not just letting people run on this repaired area that hasn't returned to a natural vegetated state yet. I think you said two to three weeks. Oh yeah, yeah, if we get good sun and we're able to either water it or we get some help from other nature, with the hydroceding, we can reestablish vegetation in roughly two weeks. Good. Mature vegetation. Thanks. Other questions or comments from the board? Let's move on to the next staff comment, which at the June 15th, 2021, hearing staff had noted that due to the limited size and stabilized nature of the wetlands watershed, they considered this criterion to be met. However, depending on what it means to smooth out the fenced areas, staff considers the condition requiring time to allow, I guess we've already addressed that. The deputy director of operations estimates it'll take two to three weeks. So I think we have addressed that, but I'm wondering if people have any questions about that. That's an appropriate condition that, again, we would not, if anyone here is a parent of and they have had children in our recreation programs, you have no doubt been frustrated by the lack of available baseball or soccer fields because we tell you they're not safe or usable. So our staff is very mindful of the damage that can be caused to these areas by either heavy use or use in inappropriate conditions, such as standing water over at Memorial Park, or if we've resurfaced an area, hasn't been, so this is kind of our standard operating procedure anyways, but we would certainly welcome it as a condition as well as if the zoning administrator would like to see the site, even though we say two to three weeks, if the zoning administrator would like to see the site and bless it as appropriate for public use, that would be fine as well. Okay, thank you. Questions, comments on the board? I would support a condition or having the zoning administrator look at it either. I would normally dispatch my staff, but that might not be appropriate in this case. Okay, so are there any other comments you'd like to make before we move forward to the public comments? There are no other staff comments that I feel need addressing at this point, thank you. Okay, thank you, Justin. Can I just chime in on the site plan itself? Yeah, so I just had one concern or question for you, Justin. Yes. So on the new layout, you've got two separate entrances, one's going to the small dog area and one's going to the large dog area, and right to the, I'm going to say plan west, so it's the east, there's a little area of fence that kind of looks like it could be possibly a third entrance. And my only concern with that is it could be an area where dogs could become trapped and kind of like, you know, your intent was to smooth out the corners of the entirety of the dog park and to remove those areas. So would you be willing to consider to remove that portion of the? I want to make sure we're both, if staff or if someone could put the cursor over the area in question. Right next to the two entrances. It's just the left of the entrance. So the area just immediately leads to the entrance? Yeah. So the thinking with that design is if that entire fence line, if that curvature, if that fence line moves to the eastern boundary of the fence, we now have a more of a narrower chute. And if you've ever run to a dog park, the most activity occurs at kind of a greeting area where the greeting committee comes and meets the incoming dog. So the committee felt it was appropriate to have as much width as possible within that entrance. So I think perhaps to address both the concerns, if, I believe it's just that small kind of little rectangle in question. Yeah, I'd kind of like to just see the fence square. If it was, and whoever's drawing, yeah, if that red, yeah, red, thank you. If that yellow area is where you're concerned about, I think removing that, it's roughly a 20 by 10 area. Yeah, it's not very large. That's what, that's kind of what fuels my concern. It might eliminate the further trapping of incoming dogs, but still allow us the width to address the concerns. Yeah, I was thinking like more as when a dog comes in, you know, if you've got six or other seven dogs there and they all go to greet and then some of them get trapped in that smaller area, just now it's harder to go in and grab them. It's just a kind of a tight spot that seems like we could eliminate without too much impact. Understood. Is there any reason, I'm sorry, is there any reason not to extend the fence to the boundary? I'm sorry. Is there any reason not to extend the fence to the eastern boundary? Oh, you mean the entrance? The entrance. Yeah, the concern could be addressed by either making the entry larger or by removing the small area under the magenta and making the area larger probably seems more appropriate again because that's just more room for if you're entering with two dogs and if things get caught up so that would work as well and I think it would also address your concern stuff. Yeah, that's fine. Good comment, thanks. Any other comments before we take public comment? Dan? Yeah, so just to be clear, let's see if I can draw this. Can somebody turn off their, I'll try mine. So if we go like this and now it's gonna be still the right, it's still a rectangle and it's, but we've got two, we've still two entries, one for large, one for small. It's just gonna be wider. No need to be wider, is that what we're saying? Yeah. Right. Yeah, all right, sounds good to me. Thanks, Dan. Any other comments? I'm just curious, I'm trying to orient here. Where is the Wheeler house? Isn't it quite close to this? You can, do you want me to answer that with the staff on a point out on the map? Staff has just drawn up, it's a rough location on the map. It's immediately south of this location or up on the sheet. So it is pretty close, right? Yes, we're, there's a, there is, if you've been to the Wheeler park, there is a kind of a six by six wooden post with a power box on it that powers this new pizza area. That's roughly 20 feet from the southern boundary of our fence. We wanted to leave enough room between the two uses and not butt up right against it. And where are people gonna park for this? For this use, the primary parking lot would be the existing parking lot off of Swiss Street extension. That's where the only way to enter the park is off Swiss Street. We had contemplated putting in other entries either to let you access it from the rec path along Dorset Street or up from above on Wheeler, but the general concern feedback we got from the public was that's the mixing of too many different uses in too many different places. And that's also consistent with some of the operations at our past dog parks, including at JC Park and the current one at Ferrell as well. So we figured one entrance, one location is what the community seems to be in favor of. Maybe I'm visualizing it wrong, but isn't the area marked off as the large dog area pretty heavily treed? No, the trees are all shown on the site plan. So it's not heavily treed. There might be some small undergrowth here and there, but for the most part, it's an open piece of land. Okay. Other comments? Dan? Yeah, this is Dan again. Did the dog committee people or whatever the committee's called, are they okay with the size of this? I still look at the area to the east of the design over to the North South Arrow as unutilized ground. And you know how everybody, the moment you build this, somebody will moan that it's not big enough. So I'm just wondering why we can't go this way a little bit more. Well, that's all. The committee has twice endorsed the site plan commensurate with the application. If at such time needs, if at such time, after a park is fortunate enough to be constructed, if it wants to be, if it needs to be larger, you know, the city could re, the city could approach the city for an amendment to its existing permit. Okay. Good. Sounds good. Does that answer your question, Dan? It does. Thank you. Any other comments before we go to public comment? Thank you, Justin. So I would suggest that first for public comment, we go with our own city committee. And you'll have to remind me what the name of the kids, not the dog park committee. It's the, okay. And I just asked that you use the microphone up here because we do have people who are remote and using the virtual option. And do you want to get a show of hands so we can see if we need to limit time at all? How many people want to speak? Do we have any indication that there are people who want to speak on the website, on the chat room? Well, we haven't asked if you would like to make a public comment and you are joining us virtually, could you please either put a note in the chat or turn on your video or some things or just say your name so we know? And I don't see an overwhelming number of people in the audience. So we just ask that you keep it as brief as possible and that as different people testify, rather than say the same thing again, you just refer to someone who has previously spoken and endorse what they said or disagree with what they said. So come on up and let us know your name, please. I'm Betty Malizia and I chair the committee on common areas for dogs. There we go, thanks. And we certainly have put Justin through his paces on the dog park. And I, as Justin said, the committee did support this last revision of the park and we were concerned about the same thing around the gate and making sure things were safe in that area and got rid of the chute and made a nice curved open area for dogs to be able to get in and not be confronted by six other dogs. So I think we're really pleased with it. I think the next thing will be, as Justin said, around making sure it's accessible and how that occurs will be determined, I guess at a later date to some extent. So I wanna thank you and I'd be nice to be able to go ahead. It's been three years. So thank you very much. Thank you, Betty. Who else would like to make comments? Yes, sir. Good evening, Mike Siminoe. I'm on the committee. And it has been a long time. You know that we had another plan that had been submitted and we recognize the concerns that people had regarding the wetlands. Even though they're class threes, it's like, okay, let's see what we can do to take care of that concern. And also the change that you made, I think the folks that are here support enlarging that entrance area as opposed to moving the fence and making it smaller. So I think that would be the best approach. So anyway, thanks for your consideration. Thank you, Mike. Yes. I'm Lacey Yankowski. I'm on the committee for Common Areas for Dogs and I'm also on the Natural Resources Committee, Conservation Committee. And I help oversee Red Rocks Park and I highly endorse this plan. I know there's been a lot of work going into it and some revisions, which I did get to participate in a bit and I hope we get the okay from the committee. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not on the Barber Service, I'm not on the committee. However, I was the chair of the original dog park committee. Okay. I just want to say it has been a long time coming. I know there have been some comments in the past about the environment, et cetera, but I just want to stand here and say, we are going to protect Wheeler Nature Area if we build this dog park. And I think that the committee has done an extraordinary job. And Justin, thank you for working with them and everybody else for making that happen. So, fingers crossed. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any other members of the audience who would like to make comments? Any comments in the chat box? Anybody? No? Okay. All right. So, I think it's time to entertain a motion to close this hearing and I would ask members of the board to make such a motion. I'll make a motion that we close reopened MS-2101, 1100 Dorset Street. Thank you. Any second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Any? Dan votes aye. Any opposition? Nays. So, the motion is carried. So, we will deliberate on that and move on eventually soon and move on to the next application. Thank you. The next application is reconsideration of miscellaneous application MS-2101 of the city of South Burlington Department of Public Works. Sorry, sorry. I'm thrown off by the one we continued. Continued preliminary and final plaid application SD-2121 of Donald and Lois Kerwin to amend a previously approved plan unit development of two lots. The amendment is to subdivide 2.83 acres into three lots of 0.28 acres each in order to develop a single family home on each at 1420 Hinesburg Road. Who is here for the applicant? I'm Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. Hey, Dave. Just make sure I have this up in front of me. Yes, I do. Any other presenters for the applicant? We may have a representative of the family speak on behalf of the application for whatever I can answer the questions on. All right. Well, let's go ahead and swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that what you're about to testify represents the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Okay, thank you. Do any members of the board have any disclosures or conflicts of interest? Hearing none. We will ask you if you would like to give us a very brief overview of what we're reviewing tonight and this project has been reviewed by the board but this is an amendment to it. So tell us a little bit about that and then we can move through the staff comments. So in this particular case, this application represents a proposed subdivision or resubdivision of an original two law subdivision. And in this particular case, the new information being presented to the board is associated with a specific request of the board from the last hearing about a month ago. And that particular time, our understanding or the staff's reports indication was that the board was looking for additional street trees to basically maintain consistency in regards to this particular project and the remaining portions of the neighborhood. One thing that was a challenge with this particular site was trying to retain any of the existing vegetation. It's not high quality, but nonetheless, it represented an opportunity to create a new vision or a new aesthetic along the street. The other thing that is the major issue was there is a very poor quality wetland on the property. It's one in which the wetland consultant indicated that there are actually no functions and values. Honestly, I've never seen this particular consultant indicate that wetland has no functions and values. So this was hopefully an indication that this particular, essentially a man-made wetland, this is basically at the outlet end of a foundation drain, is one that is not essentially natural nature, but it's actually man-made. But that being what it is, we're still obligated to demonstrate to the board that what we're proposing makes sense and that ultimately we end up with something better than where we are today. So in this particular case, in order to support that component, the applicant is proposing to construct a rain garden between two of the buildings. The plan that's up on the screen right now represents the landscaping plan that was prepared by Michael Lawrence. And in this particular case, North is straight up on the right-hand side, actually underneath most of all of the landscape schedule. On the right side of that plan is actually Highland Terrace. That's the existing street. That is on the east or right side of the proposed buildings. And in this particular case, you can see the three lots, the generalized three footprints, conceptual footprints of buildings. And in this particular case, a very robust landscaping plan. It basically has three intents. One is to address the board's request as far as street trees, the Long Highland Terrace. Those are the largest circles that are on the right-hand side of that particular plan. And then we also have a landscaping plan for the proposed rain garden. That's one that the applicant is committed to do, committing to. And then from a marketing standpoint, it was to basically, they asked the, was to create supplemental landscaping around each one of the buildings. Now, if we were to come in and build exactly the buildings that, well, let me take a step back. The family has no interest in building anything here. They're just looking at selling the lots. So there will be somebody else that comes before the staff for a zoning permit. And what we would be looking do is to have the flexibility to have them create a building footprint and a building that complies with the land development regulations, but also within the context and the requirements of hopefully an approval for this project. So that being the background, we wanted to just have everybody on board with the fact that the family is not going to build these particular buildings, but they are submitting these to demonstrate compliance with the requirements set forth in the land development regulations. And one of the requirements in the Southeast quadrant is to demonstrate that your buildings are such character that they fit with the intent of the Southeast quadrant design standards. So that is the effort that has been presented to the board and is up on the screen right now with regard to these particular buildings. And if and when there is an approval here and these lots are sold, whoever buys them comes with these particular characteristics and proposals that are associated with the application. And that if they want to work within that, then I would like to think that they could work with staff on any minor modifications. But at the same time, if there is a substantial change, then they get to come back before the board. And again, if there's no agreement, typically if there was no agreement between staff and the future owners on how to apply these concepts, then we'd normally come back before the board to have that reviewed. So we're just trying to recognize that, A, the family is just seeking to subdivide, but at the same time, it is important and it is a requirement that these particular submitters be made to the board so that any future owners of these lots understand the obligations going forward. Thank you. I should know this, Dave, but what is a rain garden? So a rain garden is a, there are a lot of different stormwater treatment practices. This is probably one of the lower technology end where unlike a bioretention area that has a very deep profile of different types of soils and drainage that this is shallower in nature. It's designed to have short-term collection of stormwater so that either it can be evaporated or through evapotranspiration is eventually leads the site, but it's also not designed to be a major stormwater management facility. So it's kind of a low-tech depression with appropriate plantings to support that temporary inundation of stormwater runoff that would be coming from the roofs or from some of the graded-out areas surrounding it. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for Steve. I don't quite understand unless there's some specific requirement of the LDRs that I'm not aware of. Rather than go to the trouble of building with elevations, why don't we just have a building footprint laid out and the buyer who's gonna be the builder comes in with his own plan? Do they have to have a building design? Yeah, in the SEQ, elevations are required. All, it is a little bit clunky because it's only in the SEQ, but it is a requirement, and then certain elements of those elevations that require to meet the design standards of the SEQ. So you can't just get a naked subdivision, so to speak. Right, so the way we would write this decision and the way we typically write these decisions is we call out and the applicant has actually done this and they did a really nice job. They said, here are some sample elevations. These are the elements of these sample elevations that we are willing to commit to. And they said it'll be such and such a style and it'll have, it's in the original staff notes, but they specifically call out the characteristics of this drawing that they're going to commit to. So anybody who buys it, buys it with the package and this is their, all right, I got it. But it is peculiar. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments before we walk through the staff comments or questions? First comment, staff recommends the board require the applicant to modify the plantings to reference caliper and provide a minimum of two and a half inch caliper for the trees between the buildings and the eastern lot line. Yes, that is an acceptable condition. It is curious how the landscape architect identified the height of the trees as opposed to the caliper, but that is a very appropriate condition and that's acceptable to the applicant. Okay. Board, any questions? Okay, staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe their intention and then the board determination whether to require all or some of the proposed planting. Staff notes the specified sizes at planting for any required trees should be by caliper with a minimum planting size of two and a half inches. So the intention was again threefold. One is to meet the street scape request of the board. Two is to provide a planting plan for the rain garden. So those are two things that we feel we're fully committed to as far as things that any future owners would be required to put into place. And then third one was more, hey, how can we show a nice pretty picture around each one of the buildings? So that was more marketing aspect and right now the applicant isn't fully committed to having those particular components be essentially conditions of the approval. So in order to allow the record to reflect that I suppose that an appropriate condition would be to have the applicant identify those particular features that are going to be required as final components of the project which would be the street trees and the rain garden. Questions, comments? I have a question about the rain garden. It's being shown two separate lots. So what happens in the case where one of the lots gets sold and they have to build half of a rain garden and then is the other buyer responsible for building the other half or would you construct it all at once with the first house or wait until the second one is built? I think that it would be more appropriate to wait until the second house is built. There's not a lot of room in these particular lot sizes to accommodate the construction of the first house and the rain garden. So it would be a requirement that before the occupation of the CO, you don't have COs for single family homes. Okay. How do we condition to make sure it actually gets built? Certainly there will be. Can I interject a little bit? This is a PUD. So there does have to be some sort of HOA agreement anyway. But I think Dave's speaking, so that's the long term. There is some sort of HOA, but in the short term, I think we should keep going the one year line of thinking because it's important to think about that. My brain jumped to the second part of the question as opposed to the first, but to answer the first, Marla's headed in the right direction in the fact that typically we will have cross-seizements that basically allow for this particular common feature to occupy portions of two lots and that there ultimately would be a maintenance obligation in order to ensure that this would remain in place forever. And ultimately, there is a staff recommendation that indicates that it is the any, the applicants or permittees responsibility to maintain the stormwater infrastructure in perpetuity. I'm sorry, Frank. Were you through with your? Yes, sir. I don't understand that. You mean the applicant does not have to create the rain garden? The package just goes to the, I thought with the subdivision came at least the landscaping but they're doing nothing. They're not building it. So, well, the applicant is the entity, right? The city is sort of blind to who does the actual work and if they wanna have the buyers take on the full obligations of this approval, that's their right to do so. Okay. But if we don't have single family COs, how do we enforce it if it's not built after the fact? If these are being sold as single family lots with an HOA but the city doesn't have enforcement over an HOA? Right. And then the next question I have is, and it falls into it so I'm not changing so, but the rain garden, is that part of the storm water and erosion control for like the runoff as part of the PUD? It's part of the proposed mitigation for the impacts to the wetland. Okay. So then if lot one or whatever the one on the top gets built and lot two doesn't get built for years, we're not gonna have that rain garden mitigation until that second house gets built. That's Dave's thought, right? That it wouldn't make sense to build it because you'd have to, you'd carry it up with your excavators and things. I get that. But what if we had some, just kind of going down that road, what if we had some sort of condition of like, it has to be built within three years of the first lot and then if the second lot just stalls out or if like one person buys both lots because they want a bigger yard, then we still have to see it within three years. Lacking other tools, I think that's probably the best that we can come up with. So that works. Well, don't we have a dedicated patrol in the zoning department that goes around and checks from time to time on the compliance of developers with the conditions? As soon as you've found that. I noticed you tried to say that with a straight face. Yeah, I mean, there's just like any other thing. It's our compliance, our zoning enforcement is largely complaint based. What was the end of the sentence, is what? Largely complaint based. Yeah, right. We certainly have some interested neighbors in this project, so I wouldn't be surprised. Yeah, I mean, I like the idea. I like the rain garden. I like the idea of the structure of this proposal with the proposed design elements for the houses without it not being the approved houses, like in other PUDs where we've basically, the houses have been approved because the applicant is the developer who's the builder. I get what we're doing here. I like the idea of sort of suggestive landscaping for each lot so you don't end up with a house with nothing around it for years, which is the only question I'm running into is the mechanisms for how we approve it and condition it and sort of enforce it so that what we're approving and what's being presented does ultimately get built in some fashion, but that's what we're presenting. So that's the difference between single family and PUD and individual homeowner builder and developer builder. So they're, I'm sorry, Frank, go ahead. Why don't we simply make a condition that before anything is built, the rain garden goes in, however that gets accomplished. Because it's difficult to build a rain garden and then build two houses of that terrible rain garden. You don't have like 10 or 20 feet between the edge of the house. As a matter of construction, construction logistics, right? So maybe the best tool you have, one of the tools you have available is actually a landscaping escrow. So what it does, unless you happen to have bonding capacity, that what it does is basically commits the permittee to putting aside a certain amount of money until the landscaping is done. You know, that's kind of an accelerated approach. Typically when you have a landscaping escrow, you put all your landscaping in place. The zoning administrator comes out and looks and counts and makes sure it's all in place. And then you have a three-year period in which you wanna make sure that it stays viable and you have an escrow in place at that point in time. So, you know, what I'm trying to do is figure out, you know, how can we create a carrot at the end that basically says, okay, you get your money back when all of these things are in place. So just a thought. The bond is not a bad idea. Did you hear what he was proposing? Yeah, we were kind of having a side conversation about it. The thought being, you know, does that put an unnecessary burden on the first buyer? But then we were thinking, well, what if the owner, you know, it's really, like I was saying before, the owner can come up with any agreement they want. And so if the owner comes up with an agreement that says, okay, first buyer, you pay for one third of it and we'll pay for two thirds and then the second buyer will pay us back and then the third buyer will pay us back. That's their call. We don't have to get involved. And then the escrow is in place for a period of typically three years, but if we don't think that, you know, that term can be adjusted if it needs to be depending on when the lots are sold and built. And then they get it back after everything's established. My suggestion, I guess, is why don't we hold that issue in abeyance and figure out what kind of conditions, is this preliminary or preliminary and final? And final, yeah. We could hold it in abeyance for deliberation and try to figure out what our mechanism is rather than take up all the... Yeah, that's fine. But we at least we... Some more fundamental questions. What makes this a PUD? Is there any common land here? All applications for development in the SEQ. All applications for subdivision in the SEQ are required to be a PUD. And that's the only reason in this case. But there's nothing to distinguish this so-called PUD from just a line of single-family houses. That's all it is. What makes it a PUD? The fact that it's in the SEQ. It's stated in the LDRs that it has to be in the PUD. Subdivisions in the SEQ in the LDRs are stated that they must be a PUD. And I would note, we only have to put up with that for another three weeks. And then that goes away, because it's absurd. I mean, there's a couple of absurdities in this application. It's being amended, yeah. All right, so it's a live on the ground critique of certain aspects of the LDR, all right. Okay, any other questions before we move on? Number three, because the previous proposal rooted in existing drainage ditch through a 15 inch culverts with significantly less than 12 inches of cover, the applicant indicated to staff via phone conversations, they would, pardon me, modify the plans to root the existing drainage ditch over the driveways. However, the plans provided on October 5th, 2021, did not reflect this discussed modification. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to provide an update. So we're fully committed to following through with what Justin Rabbit who asked. So there's actually a great example, just two lots downhill of this particular site where newly subdivided properties and new homes were constructed without culverts. And basically the drops of water are just allowed to go over a low point in the driveway between the street and the building. So we are comfortable with that particular approach. We obviously approached it in a manner that represents a traditional way of basically moving drops of water through the ditch, but there really isn't a ditch along Highland Terrace. So Public Works Department asked that to simplify this consistent with the recent construction in the neighborhood. So we're comfortable with a condition that indicates that the applicant is to revise the plans to reflect the geometry inherent to the most recently constructed lots in the neighborhood. Thank you. Questions about that? Frank, you look like you're... I have to do some reading. I don't wanna take up the board's time. All right. I spoke to Justin about this and he indicated that he was shocked that he was not being shown a plan of what this would look like. However, I feel more comfortable with it than Justin does. And I feel like we could accept it as a condition. Okay. And not off the record, on the record, I spoke to Justin while he was here about that same thing. He said he's fine as long as we can make sure that the proposed driveways are consistent with the installed characteristics just downhill of this site. Okay. Good. Okay. The final staff comment. Staff recommends the board review that provided elevations and floor plans and determined whether to include a condition that 35% of the self facade be glazed as proposed by the applicant or whether to require the standard of 35% of glazing to be self-facing consistent with the LDR. As much as staff supports natural light as a good design principle, staff considers the provided elevations result in a potentially untenable amount of glazing relative to interior home design. We like staff's recommendation in which the applicant be revised to follow the guidelines set forth specifically in the LDRs as opposed to what has been shown in this particular graphic. Okay. Questions, comments? How do we, so when does that elevation appear with the reglaze? So that's an example of this is an example and we're going to say in words what elements of the example they're going to be beholden to. So they provided a plan that shows 35% of the south facing facade as glazed. The condition is that the applicant shall provide 35% of the total glazing facing south. So this is an example. They're not going to do exactly the example. They're going to do what it says in words. They're going to do what it says in what? In words. In words, what it says in the decision. So the decision will say. But if that's what the decision says then it's accomplished by this design, right? How do you contradict this design? Yeah, so this design shows 35% of this. It's overboard, yeah. Yeah, it's overboard. The math is, let's think about it this way. If you have four sides of the building and all of the glazing was equal on all four sides you would have 25% on each wall. What the LDRs ask is that you increase the south facing wall from 25% to 35% and redistribute the remaining 65% on the remaining three walls. So we've said all these years? Yeah. So this particular diagram actually takes 35% of the entire wall on the south side. I was going to say that's as an architect that's way too much glass. Yeah. I've never said that about a project but that's just way too much glass. But from an energy efficiency standpoint you have the good news on one side of the coin is you get some passive solar gain but at the same time you also have a lot of essential holes in the wall because windows have installation values that are a fraction of what their normal wall would be. So there is a balance but we like the LDRs as far as the balance right now. Questions and comments? I don't think that language accomplishes the result with that language. What is the difference between what they're showing here is 35% of that one of the wall. 35% of the glass in the building. The entire structure. And if I should just point out that I've been pointing out for years the 35% is a should not a shall. So it's suggestive. Yeah. So at the previous hearing the board decided they directed the applicant that it was going to be a shall in the case of this PUD. Okay. And as a PUD we have the authority to do that. Yep. Other comments or questions before we move on? I'm really glad that we clarified that 35% of the whole building rather than one wall. You learn something every day, Mark. I have a spreadsheet for it. Okay, good, because that doesn't work. Good. Questions, comments? Good meeting. Do you have any final comments before we move to public comment? No, we're all set now. Thank you. All right, thanks. Okay. Are there any members of the public that would like to provide comments on this application? If you are a virtual participant, please indicate in the chat room that you'd like to make a comment and we'll start with people who are here. Are there any members of the audience who would like to make comments? Hearing none. Is there an indication in the chat room of anyone who would like to make comments? Okay. So I guess it's time for us to entertain a motion to close this hearing. Do I hear a motion? I'll make a motion that we close SD 212114 Hinesburg Road preliminary and final plot application. Do I hear a second? Thank you, Stephanie. Any discussion before we move to a vote? All in favor of the motion as presented, signify by saying aye. Opposed? Aye. The motion is carried. Thank you. Thank you very much for your time. Okay, give me one minute. The next project, can't seem to call it up. Oh, there it is. Okay, thank you for your patience. Now, Stephanie, I believe, no, Jim, you're recused from this. Okay, thank you. So the next project is site plan application, SP 21042 of the University of Vermont State and Agricultural College to add stormwater treatment to a previously approved plan for research and education facility. The plan includes encroachment into class two, wetland and wetland buffer at 705 Spear Street. Who is here for the applicant? My name is Lonnie Raven. I'm an associate planner with the University of Vermont. With me is Derek Reed from Krebsen Lansing. He's the engineer for this project. Remotely, I see Scott Goodwin is also here remotely. He's the project manager for this project. And your name is Lonnie? Lonnie Raven. Okay, thank you. Would you all please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to provide represents the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Okay, I think we've handled recusals, so. Don, I have a disclosure to make. Pardon me? I have a disclosure to make. So I worked on the solar project on this parcel, but I don't, you know, it's not connected to the gravel wetland, so I don't think that that's going to impair my ability to be impartial. Okay, thank you for that disclosure. Please give us a little overview of your project and then we'll proceed with the staff comments. Okay, so this project is part of the university's obligations in the 2016 Potash Brook Flow Restoration Plan, commonly known as an FRP. So the university is planning to construct a gravel wetland to improve stormwater treatment within the watershed at this address at 705 Spear Street. This is the UVM Aiken Forestry Research Complex. And this is a collaboration between the city and the university to improve overall water quality in the Potash Brook watershed. And that's, you know, within the city of South Burlington. The stormwater outfall pipe extends into the woods area and will subsequently require some minor clearing of a single mature tree and some woody brush. Now, the constructed gravel wetland will also accept stormwater from the nearby parking lot as well as from about 7,500 square feet of public right of way on Spear Street and the shared use path before flowing into the nearby tributary of Potash Brook. So that's the project. I'd like to note that the university has reviewed the staff comments and in general, we accept the recommendations but we'd like to clarify a few points as we go through the project. And in general, we'd like to submit these recommendations, a plan with the required information regarding the dumpster screening, the snow storage and the bike racks to staff for administrative review as a condition of the permit. Now I'd like to ask Derek Reed, the engineer of the project to walk us through the project unless you have a question. Do we need to walk through the project or should we just proceed to the staff comments? What is your pleasure? I think we can just walk through the staff comments. I think it's pretty self-explanatory what the project is. It's not a super complicated one. So I think just going through the concerns and having you guys respond to them is probably the best. And you said you've already reviewed them so let's just briefly go through them. Thank you, Mark. Yeah. Okay. And if Scott does wanna testify and you guys don't wanna sit within two inches of each other, there is another microphone up there. Okay. Do you have anything to say before we... Sorry, I just called you Scott. Do you have anything to add before we start going through the comments? I think probably as we go through them. Okay, great, thanks. Staff recommends the board require the plans to be revised to show enclosures, screening of dumpsters, pursuant to the subsection and section 13.06C1 as a condition of approval. Yes, we're willing to screen the dumpster. Okay. I looked at your at the 1306C and the standard of the university is either usually vegetation or a chain link fence with green strips to make it solid. So either of those are acceptable. It's a parking lot and I don't know if vegetation's gonna really work, but we'll figure something out and submit it as I said on the site. So can I just ask a staff question on that? Can we make a condition specific enough for an approval? Because typically we need to know exactly what's gonna happen or we need to get revised plans. Right, I think the fact that it's in a parking lot is gonna preclude vegetation. So it's gonna have to be... So we know what it's gonna be and can we identify exactly where it's gonna be? So we know in our approval, we're gonna stipulate that so the revised plans can be administrative. Are you happy with the dumpsters staying where they are and just being enclosed in place pretty much? As far as I know, nobody's said that they wanna move the dumpsters. And then we'll just say shall be screened with a chain link fence with green slats at least as high as the dumpsters are tall. Okay, I just wanna make sure that we can do these things administratively as conditions of approval. Great, thank you. Number two, however, staff recommends this is about landscaping and screening. The board discussed with the applicant potentially re-rooting the outfall of the proposed gravel wetland in order to preserve these two mature trees. The Derek question. So we placed the gravel wetland where we placed it because the water runs down a current existing swale today. So we've sort of offset it from the swale so we could get the treatment with overflow to go back into the swale. Yes, we do have to eliminate one tree, the 16 inch walnut. The second tree, the 24 inch maple is at the bottom of the swale. And our intent is to not touch that tree. The pipe will daylight and kind of flow around the tree which is already in a drainage swale today. So our intent has always been to leave the 24 inch but we kind of have the layout of the drainage is sort of set for us. So we thought we couldn't avoid them. Okay, thoughts from the board? Can we live with that? Well, why would we not? Well, okay. Is there any? The comparative benefit of a single tree standing in a field versus a general improvement in the watershed? Isn't that, isn't that? Justification, yeah. What the choices are? Yeah. I would agree. Anyone else have any thoughts about that? Okay, thanks. And snow storage, moving on, snow storage has not been indicated on the plan. I think we need to hear from you what your snow storage plans are. So there are snow storage areas that people generally use and we can submit that plan like just what is. One of them is near the dumpster so we have to change that a little bit, obviously. So I don't have a plan for you today but it's generally, you know, you push the snow to the sides. But we will, we're happy to submit that with the improvements. Can I describe? Do you have a comment about that? Let me describe where it's currently placed. As you drive down the driveway, there's the small parking lot that you turn left. The end of that parking lot is one of the areas. So, sorry, not that one. Go down. So just at the end of that, there's one of the snow storage. It has great sheet flow before it flows off-site. If you go back up to the driveway and head left, both sides of the road after the parking lot is current snow storage. So there and then on the inside as well are both current snow storage areas. And then the last area, if you go by the barn, yep and go right there, that's the last snow storage area that they currently use. So we would plan to show those areas on a site plan. Okay. Does that work? Okay, good. Number four, the gravel wetland is proposed to be lined with an impervious liner. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant why the gravel wetland is not allowed to infiltrate. There you go. So not the rain garden. So we tried, this was an A soil, it was an infiltrative soil as it was mapped. We did test holes and quickly found that it's nowhere near an infiltrative soil. So we had to switch to a gravel wetland, which is basically two, in our case, two and a quarter feet of stone buried underground with about 12 inches of soil that you plant wetland plants on. The bathtub, I'll call it, with the liner holds that water in so that the roots can stay and we keep that water underground at a certain sort of layer. And so if we didn't have it, basically some of that water would, would inf, you know, basically if it did infiltrate the wetland plants would die. And so the soil didn't promote bioretention because the high seasonal water table is too high, but requires the liner to hold the water and basically have the gravel wetland act the way it's supposed to. Thank you. Comments? We're looking at the same thing, yeah. Comments or questions? Makes sense to me, but I'm not an engineer. So you're saying the seasonal high water is too high for bioretention? Yes. But the soils are not infiltrative or they are infiltrative? They're, they're not, they're not an infiltrative soil. It's not. They're map day, but they don't behave like any. Exactly. That's, when we were doing the flow restoration plan early on, we were sure we were putting an infiltration base in here because the soil said it was infiltrative soil. And then when we took test holes, we quickly found that it was, that was not the case. So. Okay. Any other comments or questions? And the last comment. Educational facilities are required to provide one space per 20 students. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to calculate the number of required bicycle parking spaces and demonstrate that number has been provided. Existing racks may only be applied toward the requirement if they are a certain type. And can I just note, this, this is a bit of a silly twisting into knots because of LDR. This use has to be classified as educational facility because of the zoning district. So as an educational facility, we have to acknowledge that there are students. So the answer may be- I'm not catching what you're saying. Oh, I'm sorry. Because of the zoning district, this has to be an educational facility. We can't call it something else. So that's how you get caught in this bicycle parking thing. Because if you were to say, we're not really an educational facility, we're research and development, then you aren't allowed in the zoning district. So we have to sort of play this game of you are an educational facility and therefore you need to provide the bicycle parking as though you were an educational facility. Okay, so, all right. So you've now, I'll adjust what I was gonna say then. This is, UVM is an educational facility. As you know, this is called the forest research, so we do have students here. They're not necessarily part of a regular classroom because these are labs and not classrooms. However, that said, we do have students and we have staff come here too. We're happy to put up a bike rack. So there's an existing bike rack under the building canopy at the head house. We propose, and that's an old style one, we propose replacing that with the inverted U's on rails and they come in a pack of four. So that is eight bicycle parking spaces. And we think there's somewhat, I'm not sure how many students are come there at one time, but this will definitely cover the number of students that are there. So would that be acceptable? So if your facility, your facility could have up to 160 students and still meet the requirements and you're saying you don't have facilities for 160 students. Not at one time. Yeah, okay. Sounds like that's adequate. Comments, questions? Okay, anything else you'd like us to know before we move on to public comment? It's really just intended to improve the, Stonewater. Stonewater quality and yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. I don't see any members present who could provide testimony. Is there any one in the chat room that's indicated public comment? So I think the next step would be for us to entertain a motion to close this hearing. Thank you. Do I hear a second? A second. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The motion is carried. Thank you very much. I will go grab Jim. Great. And Stephanie, you're recused from this item, aren't you? Yes. What happened? Well, she's just, Stephanie is the applicant, right? Oh, that's right. Yeah, I was wondering where the applicant was. I was like, oh, going home early? Yeah. Oh, thanks, Stephanie. She is among us. Okay. It's more intimidating on this end. All right, the next application is miscellaneous application MS-1904 of Champlain School Apartments partnership to amend a previously approved approval for encroachment into a class to wetland buffer. The amendment consists of changing the purpose of the encroachment at 1068 Wilson Road. Are there any disclosures or recusals other than Stephanie? Okay, hearing none. Who is here for the applicant? Stephanie Weiman. I'm a civil engineer with VHB. And I see Joe Larkin is also on the call. Would you raise your right hand so we can swear you in, please? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yep. Thank you. So tell us a little bit about this project and then we can discuss the draft findings of facts and decision as presented by Stephanie. And Joe, did you want to be sworn in as well? Joe Larkin is on the call. He's the developer for this project. Joe Larkin? Hi. Hi. Yep, good evening. I'm happy to be sworn in if you need me to. Sure. Raise your right hand, please. Repeat. I will. I am. I don't know if I'm video working here, but my right hand is raised. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. OK, Stephanie. Thank you. Listen. Yeah, so this is a project. It's located at the intersection of Dorset Street and Williston Road right at the exit 14 interchange for the existing holiday and hotel. This application is for the wetland impacts, the change of youth. So under existing conditions, this wetland buffer is a lawn area and an impervious patio. And as part of the proposed project, the existing holiday and conference center and lobby will be or has been torn down. And we're proposing to put in a new multifamily and commercial mixed-use building. Yep, Marla's pulled that up right there. And a new hotel at the front of the site on the south end and then also renovate the existing holiday and project. So it will no longer be a conference center? So the conference center correct is going to be demolished. And then they're going to do renovations to the existing hotel and build this new mixed-use building. OK. So I would note that the board previously approved an impact to the exact same area, actually, like 50 square feet more. And so this is to amend the purpose of the impact. Previously, the impact was going to be the creation of an open space area. And now they're proposing to build a building there, which I think was part of the long-term plan anyway. It just wasn't ripe at that time. OK. And that previous approval is still valid. OK. It hasn't expired. And we have already received our wetland or state wetland permit for this impact. So because this is a draft decision, draft findings of facts and decision, I don't see any staff comments highlighted for the board to discuss. So let me just open it up and ask if people have any comments or questions for the applicant. Well, is that a class two wetland? Yes. And what's left for buffer? Essentially, the entire buffer is still left. What you're seeing on this plan, and I think, do you have the wetland impact plan? It should show the entire wetland. Which would be the best page? There's probably one at the end. Let me see if I can find it. I don't have 21 pages here. Yep, just a moment. I believe it is page eight. Or nine. So this orientation, and I apologize, this is my fault. The orientation is a little bit different. North is to the left. What we were seeing before was north, was to the bottom. So the area of impact is, I guess I can draw on it, area of impact is here. Is that right, Stephanie? Is that a little pink line? Oh, sorry, I was distracted by the northeast southwest going on. Yeah, that's about correct. Yep. So it's a very tiny sliver of the buffers being impacted. And then you can see the remainder of the buffer is still there, intact, not impacted, and the entirety of the wetland remains with no impacts. And that wetland is contiguous, or continuous, all the way the heck down? Yep. So it only shows the property. But this is a big, big wetland, and it has something. Questions, comments? Are we ready to entertain a motion? You should ask for a public comment. Thank you. Yes, I should. But we don't see anyone participating that's not part of the applicant team. Thank you, Stephanie. Are there any members of the public online? No? OK. So now would be an appropriate time to make a motion to close this hearing. If we have the do we want to close, or since we have a draft? So we still vote in private? Yeah, got it. Forgot that. So we'll just make a motion. After our discussion during the little versions, yeah. So do we not have to close? You do have to close. OK. You do not vote to make a motion that we close Miss Landy's application MS2105 of Champlain School of Partnerships. Thank you, Mark. Do I hear a second? All second. Thank you, Jim. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Nay. Chair votes aye. The motion is carried. Thank you. Hey, thank you. Thanks, Joe. Thank you. OK. We have minutes. And I was not at that meeting, so I cannot vote on these minutes. You can vote. Yeah, you can vote. But you probably shouldn't be making corrections and things. OK. All right. So what if I was to think of the minutes? Any changes? I had one correct. October 5th. Am I looking at the wrong one? So there were two that were, we were proving to move the date of the hearing, right? Yes. And on one of those, I was recused. Yes. Did that not make it in? Yeah, no. It just said that they were passed 5 to 1. Sorry. Or 5 to 0, I think. OK. Number 5. So Stephanie was recused from? So number 6. Stephanie recused from MS 2104 and did not vote is what I have in my personal note, so I will make a note to amend the minutes to say the same thing. OK. Any other comments? We had a question for the lawyers in the room. Was I the acting chair or was I just the vice chair? You were the acting. Yes. You were the acting chair. Yes. Is that the terminology you use? I don't know. Yes. It's all about power. Yeah, it's all about power. The vice chair weren't there? Someone would have to act as the acting chair and they would get that label for the meeting. Right. I just wonder why I wasn't going to say do y'all break vice chair, because can I chair the meeting and the chair's absence? Is that the way the bylaws read? It's fine. It's not a big deal. I'm just curious. All right. Motion to accept the minutes. Approve the minutes. So moved. As modified. Second. Thank you. All in favor of discussion? All in favor of approving the minutes signified by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Now I feel the entire screen. There we go. That's better. All right, the minutes are approved. And I think we are adjourned. Wow. All right. And it is? This conference is no longer being recorded. Well, we're going to ask you to leave and we're going to issue the decision on MS-2104. Oh, thank you. That's actually great news. If you could email me by 10 AM tomorrow. Probably. I have a meeting with Joe at 10 AM. OK, I don't know if I can get it signed by 10 AM. Do I sign it? Yes. Wait a minute. Maybe it won't be approved. It might not be approved. That's true. But it might be signed anyway. That's a good thing. Who left the meeting and nobody else was in. OK, great. Thank you. This is where Jennifer, what's her name? Smith says, sit down, Frank. Stop zipping up that thing and sit down. Well, I don't know what I'm going to do with all my free time. All right, so. We should wait till Stephanie wonders out. OK. Well, Dan is still online. So.