 It's extremely unfortunate to hear that members of the public are not behaving in a way that made us feel that we could have a safe meeting tonight and we'll see what it holds in the future. But tonight with quorum were in the remote setting and let's move forward with our agenda. So I'm going to call the July 18, 2023 Burlington Development Review Board meeting to order. We've got a relatively full agenda tonight. We'll be moving through the items in the order they were listed with one change or proposed change to the Agenda 52 Institute Road was recommended for consent, and I would recommend that we move that up to our consent agenda item. We saw it in sketch and we can see if there's members of the audience who are here to speak on it, but I would recommend that we move that up to consent. Does anyone disagree with that? Anyone have a problem with that? I have such a huge project just as consent. I mean, just a lot of discussion on that. I mean Okay, we'll keep it where it is then. It doesn't, it doesn't much matter to me. It was just recommended for it. That's all. So anyway, let's start with what we do have, which is 483 Manhattan Drive, Green Mountain Habitat for Humanity, demolition of existing structure for the conversion of a new duplex. So if you're the applicant, I don't see you. So raise your hand please. I can enable you to speak. I'm not seeing any hands being raised. We could defer this to a little bit later in the agenda if you want, AJ, or you can act on it as consent. Your call. Are there any members? So there's no, the applicant's not here. Are there any members of the audience here to speak on this? So raise your hand. I'm not seeing any hands, AJ. Well, it was marked for our consent agenda. Does anybody in the audience, anybody on the board have an issue with treating it as a consent agenda item? Well, I think we can act on it. I'll move that on ZP 23-30, 483 Manhattan Drive. We adopt staff's findings and recommendations and improve the application. I'll second that motion. All those in favor? Opposed? None? All right. So that's off the agenda. Okay. Next item on our agenda is first item for public hearing. 453 Pine Street. Derek Davis, Kelly DeRoche-Sheriff's major impact conditionally is review for construction of 30,000 square foot health club and 12,400 square foot retail and commercial buildings with site improvements. I'm assuming we have the applicant and a number of people here for the applicant to speak. Is that right, David? I mean, that's, sorry, I said Dave Martian's name pop up. Is that right? Yes, this is Kelly. Hi, Kelly. Who's speaking tonight, Kelly? It will be myself, Dan Voijan, Peter, possibly Cynthia Knopf, Graham Bradley. He showed up in person. I don't know if he's on the call or not. With the G? Yes. I don't see him yet, but when he appears, I'll enable him. Okay. And Jovial King should be on. Hi, Jovial. And that should be everybody. So Kelly, do you want a screen share on your end or shall I just show what we've got posted? Yeah, I'll share. It's probably easier. All right. I'm going to have to promote you to panelists so you can do that. Just give me a second. All right. Can you see my screen? Yes. Okay. So my name is Kelly DeRosh. I'm an architect at women lamp for your architects. And I'm presenting on behalf of the developers of this project. We have came before you with this project back in December. Since then it has been modified. Right now what I have up on the screen is an illustrative site plan that I can just walk you through some of the updated changes. The bowling alley that used to be on this portion of the site has been omitted from the project. The benefit to that was it allowed for the bathhouse portion on this site on the south side of the site. To move to the north, which helped pull some of the X outdoor programs based out of the 50 to 100 foot. The city conservation wetland conservation zone, which is between these two blue lines. We're able to reduce parking counts. And we did increase the size of the commercial building to the right is planned north. So this commercial building to the northeast was increased to help anchor that corner of the site. At the time, it's just three tenant spaces that would be for rental where it's not known who those tenants would be at this time. The bathhouse still remains on this project. Just to kind of remind everyone, we're on Pine Street here. The primary access to the site is with this mall text drive, which will be realigned with the Champlain Parkway work. One correction I wanted to make to the memo is, although our traffic study studied having this be three lanes, we, after discussing this with Corey at the DPW, this will remain two lanes as designed in the Champlain Parkway work. And in our discussion, we talked about after both that work and this development is complete. Perhaps we can discuss how the traffic is moving and look at this. We wouldn't need to widen this at all, but we could restripe and create three lanes, but we're going to table that until after the two projects are complete. On the south side of the site, there's a smaller parking lot and service court of this. The primary access for the reason we need this access is really for the pool pump room and significant mechanical space. That's all towards the side of the site. We did add some staff parking also to the side. At the time you all received your documents, we did not have our traffic demand management plan in yet, but we did submit it to the city Wednesday afternoon after the memo came out. And I just wanted to address some of the items that we are we submitted in that the 453 pine enterprises who is the owner of the site is going to be the transportation coordinator. They will act as they will distribute the information and educational materials regarding the TDM strategies with the tenants and employees. In addition, they will survey the employees annually about how to get work and how to get to work and conduct an annual parking utilization study. The TDM strategies to be implemented are the project will join Katma. This will provide access to front carpools matching platform resources and incentives that Katma provides. There'll also be access to reduce price transit passes through the Katma membership. In addition to what we included in the TDM this project benefits being along this shared use path that's being constructed during the Champlain Parkway work. As well as the adjacent maltex building parking lot in the back is public parking that is metered. We're also proposing 24 short term parking bike parking spaces and that was based on the recommendation of Burlington's transportation planner. I'm going to just go to the buildings quick. So here's a 3D rendering of the commercial building to the Northwest. It's a one story building. The materials proposed will complement the silt structure. And here's a rendering of the silt bathhouse. It is a two. It's two separate gable forms that are connected. The main entrance is within this earth of berm. There's an entrance that faces Pine Street as well as an entrance that faces the central pedestrian plaza. We did bring this project in front of the DAB on June 27. And they agreed with this concept with it being such a unique use that they actually found it to be pretty intriguing to have a different type of entrance that's a little more atypical than a storefront would be. And we last saw, I remember we had a discussion about the entrance. So it's good to see, you know, if I, if I look at the interior layout that does that maybe front entrance doesn't just like dump you in a basement hallway that is actually functionally usable. Yes, correct. Here's the floor plan. That shows there's an entrance facing. This is the one that faces Pine Street as well as there's an entrance this direction. So it doesn't change as well. Thank you. Yep, that's correct. Is there exterior or site lighting. It is. We did submit the photometrics. I might have it's I think it's in a different file. Is that something you want me to pull up to review now. Just if you could go over the site plan if generally where they are. Okay. I'm going to put the landscape plan since that has that. I think there are poles that are proposed. You can see where this P is those. Most of this landscape dairy in the pedestrian plaza are more kind of a ball like a lit ballard, more of a pedestrian type scale. Some of the lighting is that is also proposed or LED linears that are under benches. So we want the lighting to be kind of integrated into the landscape. As well as some, there'll be some mounted on the buildings at the entry points. The last thing before I let civil engineer and environmental engineers talk that I want to discuss was we also met with the conservation board. So I think that went well and most of the items that we are all of the items that are proposed between the 50 and the 100 foot conservation zone are all permitted or regulated uses. Some of those. I'm going to pull up one of these. So we have some of these are stormwater features that are labeled F that you see here. I think a mode walking path around that. And kind of a mode relaxation lawn right here. If you don't have any particular questions for me at the moment I can hand this over to Dan and Peter. Anybody any members of the board have any questions for Kelly. Dan do you just want to speak a little bit to where we are in the eco and cap process for the brownfield site. I'd be happy to. This is Dan Bosian with stone environmental. We are the environmental consultants on the project and also performing the civil design for the stormwater and site civil site improvements for the project. As folks are aware, I just wanted to recap a little bit about, you know, what the site really has going for it in terms of brownfield issues. The site is adjacent as we know the pine tree canal super fund and has had some impacts to the site from that past use. There are limited presence of coal tar waste within portions of the subsurface at the site. And really, as the site is developed, we need to be very conscious of how that development occurs in light of the work that's been done to remediate the super fund site. So our design and one of our primary goals of the site is to not harm the remedy as it's produced that hasn't been produced to date. As a way to limit ongoing liability to the user to the to the owners and just impacts to the lake and the rest of the environments that are to the west of 453 pine. The site itself has surface soil contamination related to the past use. It's been heavily modified over the years. This area of Burlington was formerly a wetland that was infilled in the later half of the 1800s to support the pine, the lumber industry, the long pine street. And the nature of that fill has extremely heterogeneous. Some of it is contained contaminants but by and large a lot of the field that was brought into this site is relatively clean. Surface soil at the site, on the other hand, does contain pH and metal above non residential standard. So it does present direct contact risk to users in its current state. The, and we believe that the reason for that to be the case is that a lot of these neighboring industry that sprang up along pine street. Were some busted fossil fuels. And so we have aerial deposition to the site. We had direct discharges of waste to the site from the coal gas vacation plant and other releases that were resulted in these problems to surface soil. So, a lot of what we're, what we're looking at here in the improvements of the site is to manage soil to both. Limit exposure to contaminated soil, but also not to increase height of soil or weights of of the soil or site improvements on the soil that are below the site. The soils being wetland soils contain quite a bit of peat and very, very plastic soft clays. That if you were to load them under traditional construction methodologies, they would compress and revolt in problems through the remedy adjacent to site. That. So we have a number of features that are kind of been designed with that in mind, one of which is to try to do a relatively low loading of improvements to the site. So we have a very, one of soil that's brought into the site or rather material is brought into the site to build a parking lot. For instance, we need to compensate by taking away soil that is in place now. Similarly, on the construction of the bathhouse itself and the commercial building. The conditions cannot be just standard for other footing type foundations. We need to have those be supported using various techniques that would prohibit the loading of those susceptible soil, the soil that is susceptible to compression. The things that we are dealing with on the site would have soil gas or that's the interstitial air within soil that's above the water table does have some volatile organic compounds related to some of the cold gas vacation waste. We are afraid that if we did not mitigate that the building themselves could be impacted to vapor intrusion. And there is a small dissolve phase groundwater plume. And the northeast corner of the site and another related to a feature that's known as the south slip, which was a former split connected to the canal that extends onto the western portion of the site. Where we are in the process is we've been going through the evaluation of corrective action alternatives. We've done quite a bit of assessment on the on the site over the past 10 years. And even before that. And some very recent assessment to just kind of fill in some remaining data gaps. This is important this redevelopment. And now we are trying to develop the remedial alternatives to put the site back together again. And that will be developed in various stages to address each of the remedial issues that we just outlined the biggest ones that we have a provided a soil management figures to Scott. And you want me to open that up. Yeah, that'd be great. If you want to provide that, you're probably some of the more pertinent issues with this figure set. This is the second one. If you could open the first one Kelly. So what this figure represents is management practices related to soil at the site. The pink being areas of the site where we need to remove soil to a depth of at least half of a foot. No, I'm sorry, that's different. That's this is a one foot. I'm reading the wrong one. And those soils would need to be removed to allow for an adequate engineer barrier between those soils and the public and the users of the site, the workers at the site. Those soils would be disposed of as development soil at a most likely as alternative daily cover at the Coventry landfill. The soil within the orange polygon contains what we call urban soil. So these are soils that do not exceed the urban background values that has been established by DC. And these soils can be managed within an urban area. As designated by the and our Atlas, which shows us where we might be able to manage these without having to take them to a landfill. The next figure is related to deeper excavations that are planned. And this kind of showed a little bit more about some of these more clean soils that we're seeing on site the yellow. Our soils that are actually uncontaminated as we've seen through the past investigation. So those deeper excavations to support the parking lot and the walkways and the greenhouse, et cetera, as they're shown here. They're actually can be managed as clean fill. So they do not have restrictions on how they need to be managed. The areas within the red polygon on the other hand contain soils that would need to be managed as development soil. So those would also be have to be managed as alternative daily cover that Coventry. We are looking at disturbing at least 1200 cubic yards of soil at the site. Of that, we are hoping we can reuse nearly half of that onsite through either reuse as of the clean soils as engineered barriers with as the engineer barriers. Or divert it from the land through pill to alternative sites that are much closer to urban areas for urban fill sites. There will be approximately 6600 yards that would still need to go to Coventry as alternative daily cover. The areas that are obviously would under the building. Those would are planned to be. The soil management practice there is a little bit more nuanced. The plan for the foundation is to do what's called a ground improvement foundation to board structure. So columns basically would be created to a design depth. Every in a grid pattern every so so often call it empty in certain areas and 68 years in other areas, depending on the building loads where aggregate would be placed to a lower supportive layer within the strata. So the commercial building on the right, but those columns get installed down to 12 feet on the left side of the, or rather rather the south side of the site was underneath so bat house and it's kind of the pool and the private event building those would have to go quite a bit deeper. Due to some more extensive heat soils in those areas. So that's a little bit more tricky in terms of it's not just a bulldozer excavator kind of issue. It's a, it's a generating soil based on the foundation design. So we're like, like I said, we are in the evaluation of corrective action alternatives. This is the first step within the remedial planning process. Where we have developed a list, a laundry list of remedial service for each issue. We have proposed are proposing preferred alternatives. And we'll be presenting that to the Vermont DC site manager Graham Bradley, who I think on the call if not. And then also what those are available will be available once he's reviewed it will be available for the general public to review. The next step along the way is to take those recommended alternatives and to develop a corrective action plan that will provide detailed methodologies for achieving the remedial objectives. Thanks, Dan. Peter, could you just talk a little bit to storm water. Sure, I'd be happy to. This is Peter Lazar check with stone environmental and the preferred as Dan mentioned is very sensitive site so we really had to consider what storm water management practices we wanted to propose for the site. And where we landed was generally either bio retention cells or soils that corn sort of surround the site. Hydrology already flows sort of generally from fine street to the west and surrounding wetlands. So with the shallow bio retention cells, we're able to sort of maintain existing hydrology and also hydro geology by trying to infiltrate as much of the storm water into the ground as possible. Recognizing that the soils aren't extremely infiltrative we do have under drains placed in the stone below the bio retention media and those will will overflow as it fills up out into the buffer of the well and the other concept is for larger storms, the bio retentions will be graded and designed as a way to ensure that as it leaves the buyer retention cells, if they fill up, it will sort of sheet flow back across the landscape towards the wetlands. So that's that's the gist of the design. Happy to answer any questions. On this map that we're looking at just to point out where those are and it's not super easy to see on the on the plan or the F features. Yeah, thanks Kelly. Yep. I do have a question on that. I thought that you, it wasn't desirable to have soil that have a storm water infiltrate the soil. We're oftentimes for contaminated sites that is the case. In this particular site we are trying to maintain the existing conditions as much as possible so we don't want to we don't want to change the hydrogeology. And we're actually kind of working to plug all of all of this storm water design into a larger model as we move forward and in the corrective action plan. As Dan was describing, so the most construction pre construction infiltration would be about the same. That's the goal. Yeah. Okay. I have a question for possibly Daniel. What about soil management. As we connected to, you know, say excavation and so on. But I noticed that you have a fair amount, you know, underground infrastructure here. I saw drawing for a sewer pump station. I know you're proposing a closed geothermal system. I just want to make sure that those were going to be part of your evaluation and indoor corrective action. The, the deeper the figure 14 be a fairly pushed up was inclusive of all deep excavations that are that are exceed output. So there is a small, you can see a small polygon related to the one of one of the two sewer pump station. The second one is over on the south end of the site. The geothermal wells are not shown here because the layout of that system has not been established. We have taken a conceptual layout. We'll lay out drawing within our, our own soil calculations for the purpose of developing volumes that are going off site. And accounting that so that the anticipated soil produced from those features within a total soil budget. But it's just not going on the map because we don't know where they're going to go. All subsurface infrastructure all all have water lines. Like you said, that you thermal lines. So tree wells, the every every day landscaping plans for water features are all incorporated incorporated within our soil management plan calculation. Okay, thanks. And then the traffic. Everybody on the applicant team got. Is there somebody here to talk about your traffic report. We do not have Roger Dickinson on the line. Are there specific questions that. Yes. So, if I look at Roger's report. This indicates that during the 2024 build. Howard Street westbound goes from an LOS D to an LOS E. And we have a similar problem in 2029. Well, 2029 as it maintains F to F, but in particular the 2024 build no build Howard Street westbound up, you know, jumps from a D to an E. And part of the analysis recommends the addition of a, what I think is the third lane on the mall text driveway. He just said, we're not adding the third lane on the driveway. And I wanted to talk to Roger about what he thinks the overall intersection operations would be. I know very well when V trans LOS D applies or doesn't apply and very well aware of the 40th Burlington decision about how, you know, these can be integrated in urban area. But I wanted to understand what he thinks the overall intersection operations would be. And, you know, talk to him about the impacts on Howard Street. I can speak for Roger, but I can speak from our meetings with Corey and that the Champlain Parkway engineers reviewed our proposal and did not find it a good reason to add a third lane. And I can't recall the reasons why and I don't know if Peter recalls at this point. I don't remember Corey in particular I don't know about the rest of the design team but he was concerned with pedestrian and bicycle conflicts having the third lane as we'll have that new shared use path going across mall text so I think that was the gist of it and also they're, you know, very long far along in the planning design of that project and actually looking to move to construction. I believe later this summer so I think it was just a combination of the timing and concern about those conflicts. You know, LOS is not something we like to see. It's not something that generally is. This board is generally accepted, which is why I was trying to figure out what the overall intersection operations would be as opposed to simply one movement. Roger's not here so Roger's not here. Okay. I have some questions about the overall use of the facility. When you were here in December, we talked about some other spaces on the site plan if you could scroll up to left there. So a private rental building, you may have covered this in your entry but it's red X sort of on this site plan. What is that about. I meant to clarify that earlier when I was doing the intro. In the memo, it said that it was not included in the application but I want to I want to clarify is that we are including this portion and it's actually shown on C3 and there's a three checking sheets. We had these on C4 and a three show this one building on the application. This was as a future phase that would be submitted under a separate application if pursued. And that private rental building is basically just like its own private sauna. Yeah, it's for the first floor is for groups of eight to 10 and the second floor for two to four and it's just like if you had a small party that was coming to use the whole facility that they had their own space whether it was a bridal shower, you know, it's just kind of its own little private party space and the greenhouses. Are they crop growing greenhouses or just so the industrial hoop house which is up here. Yeah, that that is an actual growing greenhouse for vegetables. This one that's labeled down here is more of a multifunction space it's it'll more of a relaxation zone that will have plants in it and it's more of kind of a habit of space for relaxation. When you say multifunction is that like rentable for parties and events. That's not how we've been programming it. It's more for use of anybody within the facility. And there be other, I mean, are you contemplating other outdoor events, things like that as part of this application concerts weddings, food truck parks, things like that. I know I don't believe so. Is the board have any more questions for the applicant. I know there's some more people who are interested in speaking on this I think probably some members of the audience, but I can follow up on your question AJ. Yeah, in terms of any, any sound outside in the outdoor areas is there any amplification sound out there. No, if anything we're trying to mitigate sound from coming in between traffic and the railway. It's really intended to be a quiet space of respite. So there will not be much noise. Okay, that was just my question. I think that's a good answer. In terms of a notice the application mentioned fencing and I see some fencing on the by the parking lot and then just off kind of the southern, like I said, the eastern structure. So fencing around the greater property and what will that be what material that be okay I see that. Thank you. I couldn't see it on the drawings or the kind of the visualizations. You have a sense yet about material that will be. So at the time I think this proposed perimeter fencing, not only is it for kind of privacy but also security to the entire property, especially without having pools within it. The location, you know as we're getting further into the site exploration and the cap, you know this might adjust a bit depending on soils and what's being removed what's staying. At the time we do not have a design of what that would be, but it would be a solid fence that you could not see through. The soil management figures also depicted a fence on the west side of the parking lot. And that was intended to be that of a remedial barrier, we haven't gone forward as much with Kelly and the landscape architects to figure out what that might look like, but we're not envisioning chain length or awful like that. So, but it is intended to prevent access to areas that where soils will remain and not be taken out. Obviously problematic to excavate for any purpose within a wetland buffer. We're not intending to do that. One of the questions. There's no signage shown on this. Is that something you see as a later application. Yes, we would be doing a separate signage application for the entire site. I had just one question. So I saw, I know the parking spaces is pretty close to the maximum but I didn't see in the proposal, what is the actual capacity of the project. How many people would be able to use this space simultaneously. So for the bathhouse at one time, it's 450 occupants during higher seasons that might grow slightly, but that's kind of been the project's goal in their performa. And, but whenever we do parking calculations are all based on the condition space of the buildings and not the programmed outdoor space. And then the 24 bike spaces so it looks like most of them were on the kind of that center island south of the pedestrian plaza. And then the other one is, I'm guessing employee because it was on kind of that side of the building is what it looked like. Yes, that's right. Okay. And so those are just open air bike racks I'm guessing. Yeah, we could see the advantage of maybe exploring having covered bike parking, but budget is obviously a concern. So we didn't want to show that this time. Yep, I just wanted clarification. I guess I just had to comment any plane with this many curvy lines and it's sort of wonderful to see after we see our rectilinear projects. Okay. That's a nice, it's a nice differential and design group that is a board of any more questions. The applicant before you open it up to the audience. So, I'd like to hear from the audience if that's okay. And I don't know how many people we have for this. And whether or not people are speaking together or independently or whatnot. I don't want to see who's here to speak on this one. I guess if you're, if you're here to speak on this application, I'm here to speak on this application, can you raise your hand, and we'll call on them as they come up here. If the swear people in AJ. Oh yeah, right. I should have sworn the applicant into sorry applicant all can you raise your right hand. If you and anyone else raising their hand who wants to speak on this swear that the testimony you're about to give or have given is true under and correct under the pains and penalties of perjury. Do. Yeah. So I see three hands currently up. And the first one on my list is Andy Simon. Mr Simon, do you want to speak on this. Yes, yes, I do. All right. Thank you for hearing me I, I have a lot of questions about the, the wisdom and the impact of this large new construction on the barge canal. I do work with a group called a group of local volunteers called friends of the barge canal. We've been concerned about the primarily conservation and protection of the wildland at the barge canal. So those concerns I have shared with in, in continuing discussions with jovial king and other people involved in in the project so there has been a dialogue. And I think a lot of those environmental ecological concerns will also be addressed by the ECA process that I'm looking forward to. And Vosin mentioned that we'll have access to that to those reports apparently by the end of next month. I want to thank the developers for their stated intention to convey the other parcels that they are buying besides 453 to the city for conservation. I want to thank them also for their stated intention not to use herbicides for control of non native species. That was sort of intimated in the, in the original report but I've had very strong assurances that they won't be doing that. I just want to point out and I know this is not necessarily completely germane but that the highly disturbed land which is often mentioned in the staff report is highly disturbed because of economic activities in Burlington that have been going on for 170 years and largely contributed to the prosperity of the city of Burlington. So this highly disturbed land didn't come out of nowhere it actually came out of the various industries that have mentioned including manufactured gas lumber railroad etc. But I have specific concerns about the staff report within the the points of the of the comprehensive development agreement or organ ordinance. One was the safety considered the traffic and safety that you brought up. AJ and I thank you for for questioning about that because it seemed like that's a real problem in terms of I live two blocks away from this development. And in terms of Pine Street, Howard Street and the shared use path that's proposed for the Champlain Parkway. I see lots of problems there that really haven't yet been addressed in the plan as it sits right now as a as a biker and a walker I I see a pinch point at the mall techs. Howard Street, Pine Street intersection that not just because of the LOS degradation to to an E categorization, but just as a walker and a biker I see lots of potential conflicts with the shared use path and I'd like those to be addressed before this this project gets approved. The recent events of the last week in terms of the flooding and the rainfall make me question, or wonder though I really respect the expert for for stone and other people who've addressed the stormwater questions, make me wonder whether the the retention the bio retention swales are adequate for the intensity of the storms that we're expecting as we as we go forward into this era of climate disruption. So I really want to have, I would like to have both stone and and the DRB take a much closer look at that. It's mentioned in the staff report that construction activities will be limited to certain time but that that shouldn't be a problem because we're in the enterprise light manufacturing district but in fact, within that are right on the street from 453 pine street 500 pine street is the Jackson terrace apartments which are very much impacted by any construction activities that will be going on on pine street and and just down the street so I want to just mention that as a something to take into consideration. Finally, I, I want to address the characterization of the wildlife impact on the of this project as that 453 does not contain significant wildlife features that that was stated in the in the report. And I think that that's inaccurate. Despite the fact that there's going to be a perimeter fence. I think that the, the interaction between 453 and the rest of the barge canal land, the other 24 acres of the barge canal land is significant and we've already recognized in the report and elsewhere that that it the the barge canal itself is a significant natural feature with lots of wildlife habitat that will be interacting with 453. The, the Metcalf and Eddie report in 1992 identified 51 bird species and 20 mammals and 10 reptiles and amphibians living on the land and 30 years later, after the land has really been left alone because of the decision and night the record of decision in 1998 to leave it alone. And that's got to be a lot more might go evolve, which has been conducting community science inventory since last year have documented 216 species of plants and animals. And the bat study that was submitted to the DRB by the applicant recorded 9000 bat passes and 35 nights that's a lot of bats for an area that doesn't contain significant wildlife features. So I want to draw your attention of the into the impact of this project on the land water, the creatures including humans house and on the house and the plants of the barge canal and the surrounding areas. I think, even within a limited criteria of the comprehensive development ordinance, the DRB needs to give full and careful consideration to the consequences of all aspects of the applicant's proposal. The conditions that I found cited in the affirmative findings from permitting and inspection and leave from my point of view too many areas that haven't been adequately addressed. Thank you. AJ, can I just respond to one item. Sure. The one item I want to respond to was the Champlain Parkway plans and when this application was submitted that that all design was just happened before our project and did not include this project. And we've tried to work on, you know, looking at traffic patterns and that intersection, but we're told it was just too late at this time and that it's something we could look at again once that project is complete and once this project is complete. So I just want to address that we, you know, we're trying to work with the city on doing that but unfortunately the timing is just not working out right. Okay. Thank you. So Andy, can we get your mailing address I should have asked for that for notification. Before you speak, if you would just raise your, let us know where you live. That would be helpful. So I see one other hand up and that's Ruby Ruby would you like to be heard. Yes, please. I guess my first and thank you. Where do you live Ruby. Oh, sorry. I live on Locust, Locust Street corner of Locust Street and Locust Terrace. Okay, what's your, what's your just give us your whole name, if you don't mind. Give us what do you want. We need your name for the record, Ruby Perry. Okay, thank you, Ruby. My first question is, you mentioned at the beginning that this had become all of a all remote meeting because of some security issue but I mean I was third hand and getting that information and I know a lot of people couldn't didn't get that information. It seems like you, there is more information about that I'm a little bit shocked about it. Can you tell, let the public know what the security issue was because you said it had to do with the public. I'm not going to go further until it is because of the nature of it. I mean, I'm a citizen and I, I'm quite alarmed when citizen, when what is referred to as public interrupts the very important public meetings that are happening. I had reason to believe. Are you criticizing me for trying to protect the safety of the board. I had reason to believe that a member of the public posed a risk to the safe and efficient meeting process we tried to have to ameliorate that risk we converted the hybrid in remote. Okay. That sounds very serious of course I'm not questioning your decisions but I am making. I'm not I want to express my alarm at that, because I think I have a great amount of respect for public process in these meetings, and depend on it, and I think the public does. I guess I won't belabor that I have many questions. I guess I want to say first off that I just got back from visiting my brother and Barry, and I have another brother in Montpelier I don't know if people have been there recently but the impact of the floods has is tremendous. And so is in the interval here it was in the city of Burlington, and I haven't heard that mentioned or acknowledged, whereas everywhere else. It does get acknowledged so I want to know that members of this board are aware that the climate is more than changing it has become a crisis. To put it that one of the questions I want to ask, I suppose it's for Dan is Dan when you mentioned that the stormwater studies that were done in terms of the design that you that you created, and, and just to say also that I have great respect for your work as well. How far ahead. Did you project your calculations for how much stormwater would actually be flowing through this area. So, if you would direct your comments to us as the board. Then Dan or the members of the applicant team will respond when they're done. That's how we'd like to entertain our, our public process we don't typically like to get into a back and forth discussion between the applicant and members of the public directly because it creates a muddled record and we often get lost in that discussion. That's a good question, and I think a fair question, and I would invite the applicant to answer that when you've wrapped up. Okay. So another question that I have. It's the question I think the high school I've been, of course, involved in watching the high school process and the amount of contamination at that site and the large amount of contamination and disruption that that is called cause to the city to every family in the city, and point out that we are talking about contamination. Extreme contamination 56 contaminants of concern I didn't hear Dan mentioned that. Well, and I should mention that I am a part of the volunteer group friends of the barge canal which is really focused on conserving although we have recognized and meet with jovial that this four acre piece is not included in that but there are other areas surrounding it that is included and how water moves across this land we had a grand Bradley did a very thorough and important workshop on the flow of water across this this land and I'm sure you're aware of that. I want to mention, bring that up as a question. This is an addendum to the storm water in the coming years. I'm not saying 50 years from now I'm saying five years from now and 10 years from now. The increase in storm water that's flowing across this land which as they point out is a wetland serves a really important role in how wet how storm water gets gets managed and I am hoping that that question is related also to the continuation of that where that water is going which is Lake Champlain. And the impact on Lake Champlain. So I guess the question is whereas I know that of course their aim is that it not contaminate the lake, but what kind of ongoing monitoring, or is there. I'm assuming that there will be ongoing monitoring as a result of the development the removal of the trees the removal of the soil. What is that ongoing monitoring so that we do not further contaminate our lake and our drinking water source. I'm hoping you're taking account of these questions because I don't have the kind of memory that would come back to it. So one other thing that I wanted to mention is that there are around the perimeter, especially on the west side of this on the conserved what we hope will ultimately be conserved land. A growing encampment of unhoused people. And that's another phenomena that is going to continue to happen. And what will be the impact of that population on that on that soil, that superfund soil and on the business that is just feet away. We have spoken to the developer about this as well but it seems like at this stage. This might also be something that the DRB would would consider. I don't understand the question. The question is the impact taking that into consideration at up until now. And has been what I think is referred to as in many of the accounts as as basically empty land it it's not empty. And it's not going to be empty because it's one of the few open areas left in the south end. And it's somewhat wild and somewhat private and it will become and is already a home for people. I need to be thinking about that just as you're aware now and and the developers are aware of what happens with the soil and what happens with everything else that's going to happen is going to extend into the other 24 acres of this wetland. And that's about as clear as I can as I can make that I just want to plant that reality in your in your minds. So, I think that's, I guess I just wanted the avoid compression I heard Daniel mentioned that as is one of the important aspects of their design, and what the ongoing monitoring of that is. Past reports that we have read indicate that any weight on that soil. And I know he said that will they'll remove an equal amount of soil did cause the migration of those chemicals. And just to close and I'm so sorry for taking up so much time but we have so little opportunity to speak to these questions to you who have decision making possibility. I just wanted to mention that every time that we send soil to Coventry, that we are putting another community at risk contaminated soil. And right now in Coventry, the expand where the question of the expansion of the dump the dump is there, the waste treatment center is is being fought by a citizens group there because of the contamination to the Black River which drains directly directly into late Memphis may go. I think that that should be an awareness of this group as well. We're not operating in a vacuum. So thank you so much for your giving me this time. So, you know, one of the questions I would like the applicant to just quickly answer for us is in modeling the storm water how do you account for, you know, just it's one 1025 year storms and how those baseline numbers are updated. Yeah, good question. So, we are working to meet the standards of this, the state, 9050 general permit and the chapter 26 city ordinance for stormwater. In general, we're also working very carefully trying to mimic and even enhance existing conditions in terms of the way stormwater runs off of the site. The site is soils are not very infiltrative. So, most of that stormwater already runs off of the site in the fashion that it will post development. The buyer retention cells are very good at treating water quality. And we believe that the stormwater coming through and out of those systems will actually be cleaner than what's leaving the site now. I'm not sure if that answers your questions in terms of. Yeah, I'll just be sort of somewhat specific. Right. So, the baseline treatment is based on one, what do you have one year storm for water quality. And the one year storm numbers are a running updated average of the average one year storm in Chippin County every based on the last 30 year average is that right so it gets updated as rainfall numbers change. Right. Okay. And that's a state provided number. That's correct. You know, is untreated stormwater being discharged to Lake Champlain. Are you, is Pine Street in a flood in a FEMA flood hazard zone. It is not. Is there any increased flood risk from the development. No. Okay. So those, that's what I wanted to follow up on. If you have any other specific follow up questions to Ruby's comments. I do, I do not believe I have anything further to add other than we will be meeting state and local standards and, and on top of that we have a whole lot of other considerations that we are evaluating and modeling in terms of existing hydrogeology and how this project will impact that. So it's, it's a very complex site and we are really looking at things on all sorts of levels. I think one other question Ruby had that I think our team can address is the ongoing monitoring if Peter Dan want to answer that. Yes, I can do that. So we have been monitoring the site since 2016 for hydraulic head. Across both all of 453, but also portions of the Superfund site west of 453 and then to a limited extent 501 pine. That. So we, we have pressure transducer data, which is essentially 15 minute interval hydraulic head data that's also confirmed with manual measurements. You're also helping expanded on the existing monitoring that's going on in the canal itself to look and see whether or not there are bubbles passing up through the remedial cap that are bringing any contaminants to the surface. So we've expanded what the performing defendants are currently doing quite a bit north of where their agreement and to other portions of the canal during construction will be doing an increased frequency of monitoring, including daily observations of the canal as well as having an alarm set to the pressure transducer data to make sure we're not doing anything that will cause a problem. And then for some period of time after construction will be doing monitoring of the pressure transducer rather the hydraulic head data for at least two years to make sure that things have not changed when it comes to the hydraulic head. And then at the site. The design of the site is such that compression won't happen. That is the design. That's why we're, we're going forward with it. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for recognizing me. My name is Catherine Bach. I live at 175 a north prospect. And I'm also one of the volunteers for friends the barge canal. And I have a huge concern about which is, I mean, Andy and Ruby already mentioned a lot of things I was concerned about, but I'd like to reiterate my concern about the homeless people living there. Just because the effect that the development will have on them and the effect that they will have on the development. And I hope that there will be a plan to figure out how to how to make that be a good relationship and I'm not asking you to find homes for them. But it is a big problem and this development doesn't necessarily help with that problem. The other thing that worries me is the soil rebate remediation and I heard you saying that you're working on a proposing a remediation plan. I also heard you say that the first half a foot of soil would be removed. What I learned is that as the years have gone by from the toxins that came from the gasification plant and the other industries that that has sunken down and is up to a few feet under the top of the soil. I understand how moving removing half a foot of soil would be enough. And I also share the concern of, of shipping it off somewhere else and causing problems, wherever we ship it to. Thank you for hearing me. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. Do you want to respond to that anything. I could just offer a couple of things I just want to make sure it's clear that the land that we're talking about is not the Superfund site. And so quite a bit of the of the statements that were made about migration of contaminants the subsurface related to the Superfund site. The broad, which is brew of contaminants that exist on a Superfund site are relatively minor in its impact of 453 pine there are areas of the site where it does extend on 453 pine as I talked about in the south flip in the southwest corner. So I think that that's a little just making sure that there are there are distinguishes there and I just want to add one thing I mean I'm not I'm not going to talk about the height the housing issue per se. But just that, but for this development, the users of that property, be they recreation or for homeless are exposed to contaminants. And they are currently exposed to sufficient soils that exceed guidelines that are set forward by the state. And the design of the site is to remove that risk from users of the site. That, you know, I guess take that for what it's worth. Okay, I appreciate that. All right, well, with nobody else. Brad questions. Yeah, I guess I'm just trying to understand. And maybe this not the case here than we have the state door but don't we usually have TPW way in on stormwater review for project. And is that superseded here by the CAP and the EPSC review of the site. Am I missing something here. It's not superseded Brad there's there is city review of the stormwater and I think the site is probably big enough that I need state permanent as well. So that's not usually when that usually a condition of approval is to have that in the condition for the TPW more than. Yes, yes, that is conditioned. And city stormwater did look at it stormwater engineering program did comment on it. The condition should be that they need final approval from city stormwater. Thanks, I was just checking on that. Okay, well, I guess with that, anybody else have any questions for the applicant on the board. So with that, I will close the public hearing on this agenda item. And we will probably debate on it tonight. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. And I just lost my agenda is 1012 Oak Street the next one that's up. Thanks. So the next agenda item is ZP 23 dash 222 10 dash 12 Oak Street established dwelling unit within garage and reconfigure driveway. PUD for second attached dwelling unit. This was actually marked on our consent agenda item and I missed that I was going to ask to move this one up as well but I don't have a public hearing in general. I see one hand up already on this one. Wow, fast. Is the applicant here. Yes. And I suppose there's an individual in the audience would like to be heard on this is that what I'm understanding so let me get you to raise your right hand. Yes, I do. And so we have two people are they both the for the applicant moran and fellow mark is that right or that's right. Okay. Well, this was put on staff review for consent. It seems pretty narrow. Are there any questions you have about the staff's findings and recommendations or conditions of approval. My name is Anna told mark on the architect worth working with Harold and Juliet who are also here. And I can say that I don't have any questions we did upload a response to the concerns on the website so we have, we feel addressed them. And I don't know if Harold and Juliet have any questions for you. We do not. Maybe I'm missing it. Is there a additional information that I'm not seeing here. I think that covers everything basically is just because of the list of conditions on end of being a PUD that it was had the option of being a public hearing item. I'm guessing I'm asking when I look at the staff report. It says plans for pedestrian walkway submission of landscaping plan. Is that what they provided, you know, items one or D. Let me look real quick. Last I saw is that those still need to be reviewed. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. My staff approval. Yeah. I uploaded. Just so you know what it's called. I uploaded today. It's response to staff report. So I don't know that, that you had a chance to review it, but it should be in the. On the site. I'm not sure. I'm sorry. I'm not sure if I would ask you, because if we were to approve this for consent agenda, we would adopt staff findings and recommendations. And I'm concerned based on what you just said that you disagree with some of them and would like them to be changed. Could you tell me if there are any specific issues that you don't agree with. You're asking the applicants here. Yep. Yeah. No, I'm sorry. That was just, it was just meant to address the desire to have a walkway connecting the sidewalk. So we, we added that we listed the square footage. We, you know, we just revised the calculation. So it just addresses the concerns. That's all we, I don't think that we have any issue with what was requested. Okay. Yeah, it was just some simple lighting and we added that to eliminate the little walkway. All right. Okay. So, um, Anybody on the board have any questions for the applicant? Right. This was marked on a consent agenda item. And I guess I just do it this way. I'd make a motion that we approve. ZP 2322 to 1012 Oak Street and adopt staff findings and recommendations. Okay, one seconds. Further discussion. All those in favor. All right. Okay. That one's done. That's good. Thank you. Yeah, thank you so much. It's exciting. Thanks everybody. So we now have the joint institutional parking management plan. Continued review of 2023 2028 plan. And I'm assuming the applicants here with us. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Karen, it's you and Sandy, anyone else? Also with us this evening, though. I don't think she'll have a speaking role. Emily Adams, who is new to Katma. And, and is joining us this evening. I want to really focus the discussion here because we have another item on our agenda and. We've talked a lot about this project. Could you please let us know. What you updated or changed from the last from when we continued this. Thanks. Yep. Karen's on tough here. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sure that we've heard a lot about the plan supportive Katma and the institutions on this effort. And what we have updated as we put together by the request that we heard at the last hearing. A TDM metric. Matrix for each of the institutions. And have populated that with the metrics that are. Available for the 2019 and 2022 updates. And we've done that for each of the institutions. With the. Thinking that we would continue to populate this matrix of TDM metrics. With each annual update. To the board for. You know, tracking TDM. And, and the metrics that go along with it. Primarily the mode split. Across time so that we can see those trends in real time and the reflection of changes to TDM strategies, such as, you know, the bird bike share coming online. Very recently. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. Members of the board have any questions for the revised plan? Okay. I see a hand in the audience. Sharon busher. Floors yours. Thank you so much. I reviewed what was submitted and what, what the DRB asked for and what was submitted. I'm going to speak from a point of being a past employee of the medical center. And looking at the TDM. Matrix as you move forward to find out the effectiveness of, of that implementation and how it works. I'm aware that there are some services at the main campus that are about to, not about to, but we'll be moving off. And going to Tilly drive. And so what I don't really understand from this matrix is how, how that is going to be evaluated. If a service like ophthalmology, which is a very busy service moves to Tilly drive, taking all the physicians and all the patients that. Generate trips and demand parking. And then going to Tilly drive. That will leave a vacuum. And how will that be captured. So that it won't be interpreted as an effective TD. And approach, but really a change in numbers. So my question really to the DRB is, although this matrix is useful. I still feel that. the institution still have to figure out how they're going to figure out the effectiveness of any TDM plan they put in place, knowing that these shifts will occur. And to remove those shifts and understand if a strategy that was put in place has really been effective. And if that's really the goal and I think that is the goal of what TDM is, then not merely a relocation of cars, then I think that there's still some work to be done. So I wanted to mention that to all of you because I still feel like this falls short and I think it's complicated. I'm not trying to minimize how difficult it is, but I still think that we as a city need to and with the institutions need to come up with a way to figure out how to evaluate the effectiveness of TDM and I don't think we're there yet. Thank you. Okay. Well, unless the applicant would like to respond, then does the applicant have a want to respond to that or not? I will just to say that CATMA does plan to meet with UVM and the Office of Institutional Research to make sure that they are doing their due diligence in the survey that they put out to their membership every fall to make sure that they are to the best of their ability capturing issues that Sharon just raised or other issues like the primary mode split issue that has crept up as a result of telework. So they are actively engaged in those conversations and will be meeting again with the University to make sure that they're addressing those and updating the survey instrument appropriately to better capture that data in future annual updates. I actually did go for it. Cool. So I just had one question just primarily with the UVMMC TDM program metrics. So it looks like the the bus portion of the mode share is is very close between the institutions but the the actual number for the discount pass use is an order of magnitude smaller. The 241 versus 292,000 compared to UVM and 42,000 compared to Champlain. Is there is that just so I'm guessing the share came from the survey but is that like missing data? Are people not aware of the the discount plan? I'm just kind of curious about those numbers. I believe what you're pointing to here is a matter of slightly different units on those metrics. So UVM and the Champlain college metrics are around ridership and so folks that are utilizing transit they're able to track those passes and will be able to do so with new fare boxes once transit goes back to a fared system. Whereas with the medical center it's a the number of discounted passes that are provided to the membership at that institution. Okay that makes more sense. Thank you. I have a hand up. Oh I only see Sandy. Yeah go ahead. Yeah sorry I just wanted to kind of circle back your hand you're on the app because you're still okay. I just want to circle back to Sharon's comment and also about just reminding folks that the city of Burlington has hired Nelson Nicar to conduct a city-wide TDM study. In fact we Katma met with them last week and so I'm hoping that the outcomes of that study which I think are due in the spring 2024 or late spring will also help to inform the gyps and improvements and expansion of this TDM matrix. I just wanted to mention that as well. Okay thank you. All right well with that I'd like to close the public hearing on this we'll deliberate on it probably this evening soon. And so the next I guess it's certificate of appropriateness. So the next item on our agenda is the certificate of appropriateness, ZP 23276 52 Institute Road City School Department amendment to ZP 2456 for the reconstruction of Burlington High School and technical. This was marked to be on our consent agenda item but we didn't make it there. So I guess let me get the applicant to swear in here. Okay can you hear me? Raise your right hand and I guess anybody wants to be heard on this application raise the right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is true and correct under the pains and penalties of perjury? Yes. So I just make the point AJ said I was the one who sort of put the kibosh on the uh much more of a consent item here. I just think it is important to have this be there for the public to see if we need them to see it even though everything is sort of a simplification or tweaking of the plan that we already approved. I understand that it's not really smaller it's just refined. I don't know if they want to go through what yeah I was just going to ask them for a five-minute summary of what what changed. There are a number if they could just run through them quickly. Yeah sure we could do that. Yeah so the this application is an amendment correct to the to the plan that you approved or the zoning permit you approved the last November at that time we were at the end of the design development phase and then since then you know as as work on the construction documents progressed there was some fine tuning and which resulted in a number of minor changes to the plan so this this packages or this application packages all those different changes which were technically required to come back to the zoning board for or to the DRB for and so the changes are relatively minor they don't change the intent or the context of what you approved last December you know we do have Dave Marshall our civil engineer here who can describe those in more detail if you want to see him on a plane but basically the key changes are we revised the the grading around the the north parking lot we decided rather than doing a lot of blasting of ledge we're going to leave some you know some rock rock walls instead so there's reduced blasting we added a sidewalk to the front of the building to improve the ADA accessibility the the the size of the high school got a little bit bigger just due to some interior changes structural changes I think we increase it by about five thousand square feet I don't have it right here in front of me I think the greenhouse got a little bit bigger and you know those are just a few of the key changes I can I can think of offhand the the project narrative that we submitted with the application is pretty thorough and describes all of the you know minor changes that were made so you know we're happy to answer any other questions that you might have with this application um no I appreciate you walking through them I looked at them beforehand and I understand them it's project it's a large project and as you get through the construction phasing of it there are um you know changes to the design and operation many times people don't do those during the process they don't update the amendments during the process they just uh do it and deal with it later uh just anybody from the board have any questions for the applicant on this no okay are there members of the public here to speak on this application hands anybody no okay um well I guess with that I'll close the public hearing on this agenda item all right we'll deliberate on it so um that ends our public hearing portion of the day uh Scott do we typically do our other business in deliberative or any um yeah I would say typically you don't have to okay um well why don't we do that in deliberative um and we'll close the public hearing recording stopped so I have to step off camera for one second I'll be right back