 I'm the chair of the board, and I'd like to introduce our board members. Quinn Mann, Frank Koepman, Stephanie Weiman, Mark Bear. And on the remotely joining us is Dan Albrecht. And I don't think Jim is joining us tonight, is he? He's done. He's done. Jim is officially gone. OK, and we have a new board member named John Stern, who will be joining us at the meeting in June. And in attendance from the city of South Burlington, we have Marla Keane, the development review planner, and Delilah Hall, the zoning administrator. So welcome you. This meeting is being recorded. There's a couple of ways for you to participate or for anyone to participate in this meeting. One is to attend, as you are doing now in person, or you can attend virtually online. It's also possible to call in. And I'll talk a little bit more about what we expect for participants. Thank you for being here tonight. Let me just talk a little bit about emergency evacuation procedures. There are doors in the back of the auditorium on each side. In the event of an emergency, if we have to leave the room, go out those doors and either turn left or right to go to the outside. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items for tonight? Hearing none, item number three on the agenda, announcements and reminders. So again, welcome all of you. This meeting is being recorded. And if you want to participate in this meeting and be considered a participant for any future action, it's important that you sign in on the sign-in sheet with your contact information. The sign-up sheet is at the back of the room. For those of you who are attending virtually, you can sign in on the chat function with your contact information. And if you're participating by phone, you can sign in by sending an email to Marla. And that's M-Keen, K-E-E-N-E, at SouthBerlingtonVT.gov. That way you will be considered a participant. If you are attending online, we ask that you not use the chat function to talk amongst yourselves, because it's not part of the public record. And it can create a lot of confusion for us. And also, I lost my train of thought, something else I wanted to say about participating. Oh, I know. If you're not actually testifying or providing public comment, please turn your camera off and your audio off. And when you want to be recognized for making a comment, turn your camera on and raise your hand and we'll recognize you. So are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to tonight's agenda? OK. Hearing none, we'll move on to item five on the agenda. And OK, an important announcement. Sue Allenick, our diligent recorder, had a birthday last night. So on behalf of all of us, Sue, happy birthday. May babies are the best. Thank you very much. OK, item number five. Thanks for the reminder, Mark. Site plan application SB 22023 of the city of SouthBerlington to construct a stormwater treatment facility partially within a wetland and wetland buffer at 95 Swift Street. Who is here for the applicant? Hi, Christine. Christine, I think your mic's off. Christine Jingerst from the city of SouthBerlington. Thank you. Could you please give us, this is a site plan application and this is the first time we've seen you. So could you please give us a very brief overview of the project and do we have any recusals or disclosures? Thank you. Can I make a disclosure? Yes. So my company does work for the city of SouthBerlington. OK. But I don't think that it will affect my ability to be. OK, sure. All right. I'm going to swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. OK, thanks. Tell us a little bit about your project and then we'll move through the staff comments. OK, this project was identified as part of the Potash Brook Flo Restoration Plan in 2016 to collect the stormwater from the drainage area is part of Burr Park Road and part of Lindenwood Drive. Bring the mic closer to you, please. And that's good. In the fall of 2018, the city applied for a grant funding to design and construct some stormwater retention on the Farrell Street Park parcel and in some of the city's easements, which include putting in a new collection system on Lindenwood Drive and then taking the collection system that exists on Burr Park and redirecting it from its existing outfall into a new dry pond. So the pond that we're proposing is a dry detention pond to reduce the flows going to Potash Brook and to help with erosion downstream water quality. What's a dry pond? It will fill up when it's raining or not fill up. The water collects when it's raining and then it's really slowly over the next 24 hours. So when it hasn't rained recently, there'll be no water in it. I see. OK, thanks for clarifying that. Sure. Anything else you'd like to tell us before we start looking at the comments? No, I didn't know. I'll just wait for the comments. OK, thanks. All right, so let's let's move through the comments. OK, the first comment on page five, is this project the minimum size, so the comment relates to, is this project the minimum size to achieve the treatment of the tributary runoff? Yes. And it might be helpful, the exhibit that I sent you, Marla, today with the kind of showed some scenarios where we tried to shrink it a little bit, the footprint of it. It has like a pink shading on it. So what's really kind of the constraint with the design of this is the elevation. It's a very flat. The new collection system on Lindenwood Drive is very flat. So the furthest catch basin that we're putting in, about halfway down the road there, is only about two feet below the surface, which is the minimum you can start with depth. And then it's at a half a percent slope up the road, which is about the minimum. So by the time that line gets to the pond, it's about six feet down. So we really can't make the bottom of the pond any shallower than that. So that's the first constraint. And then as you can see on this exhibit, on the far right, actually down from where you can see right now, there's a highlighted yellow, the catch basin elevation there. That's the backyard of a residence of Brewer Parkway. It's an existing catch basin, and the rim is 220.83. So that was kind of when we were designing the elevation in the pond, whenever the water, well, whenever the peak flow exceeds that, there's going to be pooling in the yard around the rim of the catch basin. So I mean, the answer to your question is yes, it is the minimum size and mostly because we're dealing with those elevation constraints. And when we made the footprint smaller and the design elevation in the pond higher, then for our plan to reach the flow reduction, you only need to design for the one-year storm. But when we designed it down to the one-year storm, the larger events would be backing up. And that would be not meeting the goals of the project either. OK. I'm not sure if that was correct. I'm going to ask you to bring the mic a little closer to you so that we all can hear. Is that mic moveable? OK. Let's try. Questions from the board about the response? My question goes to the other half of the criterion. We're supposed to be weighing here. So what is the detriment to the Habitat Block? That's specifically what we're supposed to be considering. What is the detriment? Can you describe that? Are you asking me? I'm asking Marla, who wrote the comment. So. Or anybody who will. So yeah, right. If there's anybody here who wants to speak to it, they will want to get a chance. That's a great question. So this is sort of a detailed question. Development within Habitat Blocks is allowed as a restriction infrastructure encroachment, as long as the encroachment does not have an undue adverse effect, as determined by criteria A, B, and C here. And so the facility shall be strictly limited to the minimums with necessary. We've interpreted that in this case to be size. The clearing is limited to the minimum necessary and appropriate measures to promote safe wildlife pastures, which is the next staff comment. And that is sort of how it defines how you interpret whether it has an undue adverse effect. And another response to that is a lot of our stormwater ponds do not have a detrimental effect on habitat. Some habitat benefit comes from them. I know the issue specifically with the design we submitted here has a fence around it. I don't know if that's the next comment, if I should wait until we get to that, or if we want to just be on the size. Well, the second comment is very much related to this. How you can promote safe wildlife passage. And we'd love to hear more about that. OK, and we proposed a fence that I can tell you if you want to see the detail. But the fence is on the design totally around it and it was to keep children out. So it does not meet the wildlife passage criteria, because this is in a backyard. It's right adjacent to the rec path in the neighborhood. But if that needed to be removed, that wouldn't be put that in for safety. But I think. Sure, which makes sense to me. And we definitely, I mean, there is a real sharp right hand turn coming from the bike path. So we felt like, at a minimum, some kind of barrier near the rec path would be good. Like I said, the way it's designed was to really keep it child-proof. And that was our response to that. Thanks. Frank, thoughts? I don't know. It strikes me as sort of loaded against the habitat. But I'm having trouble perceiving any real. That's what I'm getting at. I'm really coming from the other end. I'm having trouble perceiving the real impairment or which aspect of the habitat is being potentially harmed or diminished or degraded in any way. That was really my question. As we try to prevent erosion and as we try to prevent erosion or as they try to prevent erosion. So the habitat blocks are defined by areas that are good for animals to live in. I'm not a wildlife scientist. So I don't really understand it that well. But I do understand that one of the prohibitive activities is clearing of vegetation. And so what they're proposing to do is clear vegetation, which is allowed under Restructured Infrastructure Encouragement if the purpose is such and such and that it is minimized and it allows for a wildlife passage. So in staff comment number two, where it talks about how does this being fenced all the way around continue to allow for wildlife passage? I might direct the board's attention to page 10 of the packet just because that's the one I'm kind of used to looking at. You can kind of see that the existing conditions, half of the gray area is where there's trees and almost the entire area or the entire area except for a very small area on the left is habitat blocks. So if we're trying to allow wildlife passage, maybe the idea is that the fence isn't continuous. It's just continuous along the bike path. As Christine suggested, it's there for safety of residents and of people using the bike path. But if you wanted to sort of try and balance those two things that might be an option that's on the table. Or I think that someone had mentioned that one thing that came up when this LDR was written is the idea that fences could have not go all the way to the ground. So it could allow animal passage underneath. And I've also seen agricultural type fences used as well for solar facilities. And so what they do is they kind of flip that upside down so they've got the larger openings at the bottom which allow bunnies and smaller wildlife to pass through but it keeps out your larger animals. And children? Yeah, yeah, okay. Well, here it's three inches which doesn't seem to allow much to be admitted. Right, so we're saying revise the design slightly. Is that possible to revise the design of the fence to have a little bit more space? Or to leave an additional opening, a couple of openings, one at each end maybe. So that the... I would support having fencing anywhere there might be interaction with the bike path so it's from a safety standpoint. And then larger openings along the bottom just to, well, the question is how much of any opening is needed on the bottom? And what's the purpose of the fence is if it's purely to stop a bike from a kid from going down into the pond then it can have lots of openings for animals. And there's no, unlike the fences around other stormwater ponds and private developments, is there a liability requirement that this has to be fenced 100%? I think there is not. There is some documentation in our project folder that was investigated I think before and that was not a need for the city law rules. Right, so I would just say keep the fence, personally keep the fencing as to a minimum as possible just from a safety standpoint. And then make the openings as wide as possible but still enough to stop somebody from falling into the pond and breaking their leg and then suing the city. So would you suggest removing the wire mesh altogether and just keeping the through three? Yeah, I don't see a purpose for the wire mesh at all. Is there a purpose for the wire mesh? Well, we were going for the kind of full childproof safety but I agree if once there's so many gaps in it that it's not really totally keeping them. So could we just say the simplest solution is remove the wire mesh, right? Oh, do we need the fence at all then? The split, it's not split row, right? It's four by four with pressure treated two by sixes or something? Yes, on page 13 of the packet is the detail but yeah, it's got the split rail. Yeah, on the top right there. Yeah, no, take out the wire mesh. It's just gonna catch the birds anyway. And then I mean, at that point, we could also only do it on the one half, I think if that was what, I mean, Well, Mark, I mean, as far as I can read the design, I defer to you, remove the wire mesh, it'll still work for keeping a bike from going in, right? Yeah, I mean, I guess part of me is kind of wondering keeping a bike from going in, how often do bikes careen off a bike path? You know, I don't see it that often and it's not, this seems to be a relatively gradual slope. It's not like it's a steep slope, correct? Well, it's like a three to one from the bank down to the bottom of the pond and it is really a sharp 90 degree turn on the path. So, I mean, you know, my experience on the board, I rarely argue against safety, you know, in terms of anything that comes before the board logically, which says I won't argue against safety. So I hear kids, I hear retaining ponds and I wanna say we need to protect it, but so I kind of have trouble saying this, but it's a dry pond, you know, it's meant to be dry, it's not gonna be wet year round, you know, so I think that, you know, it's the kind of thing where if it does fill up with a storm, it's gonna be receding within 24 hours. That's correct, yes. And I think, you know, just putting the, and I would do a split rail. I went to the four by four with two by six pressure treat, I would actually do a split rail so it has more of a, you know, an aesthetic feel to it and I would do it just along the bike path, you know, without any mesh. Okay, I think that was, because that also would allow it to be as less of an impediment for wildlife travel as possible. They're not even gonna pay attention to the split rail. So in terms of child safety, I guess the assumption is that children, especially young children, are going to have adult supervision when they're around to anybody of water, but for the homes, is it Brewer Parkway? Yes, Brewer Parkway. It's in the backyard of that little section. Does that pose a threat to the children in that neighborhood or is that really the responsibility of the adults they live with too? I think several of those houses have their own fence back there. Okay, all right. But I'm, yeah. Yeah, I think a lot of people that live adjacent to public parks choose to put fences. Okay, all right, okay. So are we good with this compromise? I like the split rail. Is that what we're talking about? Yeah, yeah. The split rail along, just to make sure I understand fully so I can write it, split rail along the bike path only. Right, without any wire mesh. Yeah, no wire mesh. Yeah, I mean, I'm certainly, like I said, I'm not one to abdicate responsibility, but I just don't think it's warranted here, especially since it's a dry pond and it further enhances the wildlife, you know, pass through activity, yeah. Good. Okay, great. Let's move on to number three. I'm gonna read this. Staff recommends the board consider waiver of the requirement to provide fencing along the wetland buffer. And as a separate issue, discuss with the applicant how wildlife passage will be accommodated. I think we've addressed that slightly different. So the wetland buffer and the habitat block are different things. And Delilah in the supplemental, the first page. So one of the comments was that the, yeah, page one of the supplemental. One of the comments was that their plan didn't show 100 foot buffer, they showed a 50 foot buffer, which was my mistake. I just like lost this plan. So the wetland buffer you can see on this page is sort of where the edge of that hatch is. And so the regulation is that when there are impacts to wetlands and wetland buffers, the applicant should, landscaping and or fencing shall be installed along the outside perimeter of the wetland buffer to clearly identify and protect the wetland buffer. DRB may waive this requirement. If petitioned by the applicant, if there's existing forest and or landscaping along the border of the wetland buffer or other clear existing demarcation. It's clearly silly if they were to put a fence through the middle of their pond. Staff's position here is that the demarcation of the wetland buffer is the tree line on the far, of the functional wetland buffer is the tree line on the far side of the rec path. So our suggestion is to waive the requirement to put a fence. I would agree with that, especially since typically we demarcate the wetland buffer to prevent any landscaping, mowing or anything like that from taking place within it. And you're putting, you have a existing bike path and then you're having the split rail fence onto the dry retention bed. So it's almost like self-created. Anyone disagree? Okay, sounds like we have a agreement. I think that is it for the staff report and comments, let me just, I do have something. So the very last comment, which is not in red caught my eye, it says the applicant is proposing to remove one tree which is located outside the habitat block and replace it with a tree of the same genus of 2.5 to three inch caliper. Staff considers this, okay, so you're okay with that. Is it shown where it's going? Okay, we're good then. Then thank you. And I think what we'll do is take some public comment now if there's any. Thank you very much. Thank you. You probably want to stick around. And I think we do have some public comment. Okay. How many people in the audience would like to comment? Members of the public? Yes. We have someone online. Okay. Sir in the red vest, would you state your name please? Yes, my name, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, yeah, I'm Steve Marriott and this is my wife, Loretta. And we own the property immediately adjacent to the project, to the dry wells. Okay. For the ponds, okay. And what we wanted to make sure that- Can you identify your property address for us? Yes, 23 Lindenwood Drive. Okay, thank you. We live at 13 Mills Avenue over by the airport. Yes. So, two things that we wanted to cover. Number one is that since the beginning, since back in 2016, we've talked to, I think three or four different project managers on this. Our basement is right there. This is going to go from 220 feet above sea level down to 215 feet, which is basically where our basement space is. And we just want to make sure that we're on record is saying we don't want a wet basement. Sure. Yeah, yeah. The other thing we wanted to say was, I guess it's mute now because you're not going to have fencing on our side of the project. So we wanted to make sure that the attractive side of the fence went to our property rather than on attractive side. Sure. Okay. Not an issue anymore. That's correct. Now you'll see deer and bunnies. Oh yeah. So what other, what else did you? And there's one other, and that is that I want to tell you that we are solidly behind the relatively new change to regrade the 150 feet of the road, Lyndon would drive where the puddle problem has occurred. Okay. Are you clear with what that is? Do you have any questions to me about that? So the boards, sorry, this is Marla. The board's authority does not extend to projects in the right of way, which is why the staff report didn't discuss it. But if the board has questions, they're certainly welcome to ask questions. I don't even know what they're referring to in terms of this regrading project because it wasn't part of this application. Christine can explain it in a couple sentences. Yes. To get the flow on Lyndon would add into this new collection system, we're doing some regrading of the road. Okay. And there's some bad pooling out there right now. So this should alleviate that and then the runoff will end up down in the pond. So that will be good. And it sounds like there's some support for that. Yeah. Okay. Can you provide these folks with any comfort about their basement concern? Sure, yes. I know they have been in contact with the managers of this project since the beginning, like they said. And we did add that page that was just up showing the pond. We did add a partial liner on the side near their house so that the flow path, if the flow to go towards their basement has a much longer path. Last year when we met with them, we offered to put a full lining in the pond. So there would be no way for it to seep out and they did not want that. So we went back to the part liner. The infiltration rate out there was tested to be zero. So usually we prefer these ponds to not be lined. So hopefully some water is going into the ground. This was not designed with that assumption to happen. Although, so that would not, that still could be done. But the soil borings that were done and the elevation hydraulics and the engineer, are aware of that concern and signed off on the design like this. Is there anybody who's prepared to render an opinion on behalf of the city that there will be no problem for their basement? Rights just flat make the flat statement. Probably. And who was that person? I mean, if I were them, I kind of wanna hear it just straight out, which I haven't heard from you for some reason. Your basement's not gonna get wet as a result of our project. End of sentence, no? Can't do it? Well, I'm not familiar enough with exactly the, and when we put the liner in there, like I said, we could put a full liner in if that is. Oh no, no, no, I'm sorry. I appreciate the position you're in, but you aren't talking around the question. So I guess the question is, who has the authority to say what Frank's asking someone to say? Dave Wheeler is on the computer now. I don't know if he wants to chime in, maybe I'm. And who is he? He is the stormwater superintendent. Oh, I just saw him. Dave, do you have anything to add about who from the city would have the authority? Yeah, can you guys hear me at all? Yes. Yeah. Yeah, so just a recap. Excuse me, Dave, I better square you in if you're testifying. I don't see you. Are you on the phone? I am on the computer, I apologize. My internet speed seems to be a little bit slow. I'm trying to get the video going in it. The video is not starting. Well, I'm going to trust that you're raising your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes. Oh, now I see you. Thank you. Go ahead. Yeah, so just to kind of reiterate what Christine was saying there, as part of any stormwater treatment practice, the Vermont has the state stormwater management manual. Excuse me, that is so garbled. Can anybody else? It's kind of a Dave problem. It's always like that. I apologize. I need to get an external microphone for my laptop. I wasn't anticipating speaking tonight. We'll give it your best shot. So for the development of this project, we looked at the infiltration capacity of this area. And our engineer did infiltration testing that showed there was zero inches per hour infiltration. So when this system fills up with water, the way that it's designed, it's going to flow out the orifice in the outlet structure. The water won't be in the detention basin for all that long. So even if some water were to seep in into the grounds, you could take that infiltration rate of, I think it was maybe 0.25 inches per hour at the beginning went down to zero, something like that. Even taking the quarter inch an hour over 24 hours of the water sitting there, you could figure out how far that water's going to spread. We also did encounter groundwater during our soil boring. So I don't personally know if the residents to the south of this project or sorry, to the west of this project have ever had basement flooding in the past. But I would say that this process is not going to contribute to any additional flooding of their basement outside of anything that may have occurred in the past. And so again, we've put in this liner on the west side of the pond so that if water were to seep into the ground at that quarter inch per hour rate, there'd be a preferred flow path to the north and east and even south. And again, you're going to have a groundwater gradient sloping down to that stream area. So there's going to be a preference for that water to flow in a more easterly direction rather than westerly. And we've offered to completely line the pond if that would appease these residents so that way they could sleep peacefully at night when it's raining heavily. And again, they turned down that offer for the full liner. So if anybody would like, we can change the plan and include the full liner if desired. Mr. and Mrs. Marriott, does that address your concern adequately? Yes, it does. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, yes, we've talked to, like I said before, several of the project managers that's gone through an iteration and we've talked over this issue several times and the partial liner seemed like the best answer. It would allow infiltration away from our house easier than towards our house. And we felt that that partial liner is the best solution. Okay, great. Thank you. The partial liner is the, okay. Partial liner. That's what's in there right now. Yeah. Yeah, okay. Okay, any other public members who would like to comment? Turn off the video. Yeah. Do you see any on the line? Yep, okay. So, board, can we close this hearing? I would just ask Marla, is that what we're asking for, that's pretty clear enough for them to submit revised. We don't need to reseal it. Yeah, we're going with a three rail split rail. Just along the bike path. Along the bike path with no mesh lining. No. Okay. Okay, then I think we can. All right, maybe some money. Would anyone like to move closure of the hearing? I'll make a motion that we close site plan application SB 22023 of city of South Burlington. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you. Any discussion before we vote? All in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Any post? Okay, the motion's carried. Thank you very much. Okay, the next item on the agenda is appeal AO 2201 of Robert Cooper appealing the decision of the zoning administrative officer to issue a zoning permit for site improvements on a single family lot at 410 Golf Course Road. Do we have any recusals or disclosures? So this is a little different than we usually do. So I will ask Delilah Hall, our zoning administrator to give us an overview of, is that the appropriate thing to do? Ask you to, I didn't catch that Marla. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. So let me just start by kind of framing out the responsibility of the board in this matter. And it is limited to whether or not the zoning administrator, in this case Delilah Hall made the right decision in granting a permit for the work that was done. There are probably lots of other issues that could be discussed, but our focus will be on deciding whether or not the zoning administrator made the correct decision. So who is here and believes they have party status or would like to participate in the hearing? Do I get their names? This is kind of. Yep. So the first thing you're gonna do, so I guess it's not at the beginning of the staff report, I'm sorry. So it starts on, I'm gonna share my screen. So we can all read this. Here we go. Okay. So the first thing to do is to ask who's seeking interest in person status. There are three criteria that one has, one can meet one of three criteria in order to be considered an interested person. They could own the title. So they're up on the screen. Those are the three ways. Oh, four ways, sorry. Five ways, it keeps going, my goodness. Okay, so you should ask everyone who is interested in being a interested person to identify themselves, provide their contact information and demonstrate their ability using one of the above criteria. So if you could, we can just get everyone's name to start with and then we can call them up one by one. Okay, let's start at the back of the room. What is your name please? And have you signed in? So we have your contact information, thanks. And which of the five criteria do you believe you meet? I wonder if we could invite whoever's speaking to come up to the table. Okay, sure. Or the podium, so they can be heard a little better. So if you're looking for interested person status, you should have already read this and should have already done your homework to know which you are. But if you need me to keep them up on the screen, I can do so. So shall we go one by one rather than get everyone's name at the beginning? I would rather get everyone's name and then we'll call them up one at a time. Yeah, that's what we're gonna do. You can say for now. You can go first anyway. Which criteria do you think you meet? I believe that makes you a number three. Yeah, but that's okay. And are you the appellant? Yes. Yes, okay. Thank you. The gentleman back there, you raised your hand. P-R-O-U-T. Okay, have you signed in, Charlie? Okay, and do you know which of the five criteria you meet? Is that, is that count? Yeah, okay. Okay, who else? Did I see you raise your hand? Yes. Last name again, please. Thank you, Cynthia. And you've signed in. And what is your, what do you believe, which of the criteria do you believe you meet? Hey, Dawn, I cannot hear these people. Okay. Yeah, Sue, when people come up to testify, thank you for bringing that up. When people come up to testify, I will have me use the mic, but for right now I'm just writing it down because everybody's saying like three words. I'm running it down too, so okay, thank you. Who else? Tracy, would you spell your last name, please? Thank you. Who else would like to testify? And you're the property owner too. Okay. Anyone else in the audience who would like to testify? Bartolo. Okay, thank you. Are you related to Cecilia Bartolo, the great Italian soprano? Would that eliminate her? No, that would elevate her. Anyone else in the audience? I don't see anyone online, but I just want to make sure. Okay, checking for anyone online. I don't see anyone raising their hand online. Okay. So let's go through these in the order that you identified yourself. I'm going to invite you to come up to the front table. So, sorry, I don't know that you need to go any farther than that. So everyone has identified themselves. Everyone has identified why they believe they have interested person status. The next step is for the board to determine who of those requesting interested person status is in fact an interested person. Okay, all right. The board feel like they want to discuss any further, ask anyone any more questions or do they, does everyone feel like they can make up their minds on interested person status for everyone who's just going to take a peek at those again? You want us to make that determination? Yes. Well, I move that, I mean, the only things that I heard where we have an adjoiner and the directly affected property owner. So I'd say the people and their respective advisors and I'd say all the people who have sought to be recognized as interested persons ought to be, I so move. Okay. I defer to the attorney. Okay, all right. Do we need to take a vote on this? You do not. Okay, all right. So no objections to that? Anyone have any objections? Okay, so then we will start to entertain testimony and at this point we're going to invite people to come up to the microphones. We've set up sort of a station for each group of people. So zoning administrator Delilah Hall is on the board's left. The middle can be the appellant Robert Cooper and your representatives. And then the podium can be for the permit holders, the Crestas and their advisors. And there are, do not, there have not been any other interested persons. So we don't need a fourth station. Okay. So do we have them come up at the same time? Doesn't matter. I mean, once they get up there, they might as well stay there because they'll have to speak more than once. But you can start with Delilah's testimony. Delilah, tell us. I'm gonna, I guess I'll just show the pages you want me to show. And just to the other folks who will be speaking when you come to your table, make sure you press the button to have the light turn on for the microphone to work. Just a bit of advice. Good reminder. So in the packet is the memo that I provided to the board, which provides the background. I can read it or if there are specific questions I will specifically read that Robert Cooper of Six Park Road, the appellant has filed an appeal of the administrative officer's decision for my issuance of zoning permit CP 22071. The applicant has cited section 1411 of the land development regulations as the applicable standard. So just to give the board some background, initially in March, on March 8th of 2021, zoning permit was issued for work at 410 Golf Course Road. In October of same year, 2021, I began receiving calls and emails from the neighbor, Mr. Cooper, regarding the work at 410 Golf Course Road. In November of 2021, I was able to visit the site and was able to take some photographs of the work. So I don't know if you wanna show some of those photographs right now, Marla. What you're looking at there is clearly the work at 410 Golf Course Road is on your right, or it's on my right side of the screen. And then the neighbor's yard, which is addressed on Park Road, is on the left. And then we wanna scroll down to another view of the work at the site. And so Golf Course Road in this picture is sort of up in the far background. Correct. After viewing, after visiting the site and looking at the permit that I issued, that was issued in March, I realized that the work that was going on was much more extensive than what was described in the application for the permit. So I did reach out to the Crestas at 410 Golf Course Road with a letter if you wanna bring up the letter. I don't know if we wanna read it all. But the letter basically states that I needed more information about the work that was going on at the property that I had visited the site and that it clearly wasn't much more than what had been originally permitted and that it advised them to stop the work that they were doing and take any action just to button up the site as we were sort of nearing, you know, snow was gonna fly. So to prevent erosion. And they immediately contacted me upon receipt of this letter and were agreeable to doing that. And then they started to work to provide the information that I asked for. They provided me information in January of the new year, 2022 and broke the work out into two types of work. There was one an application for exterior hardscape and the other was for the home renovations. And after taking much time with their information and asking follow-up questions and having internal discussions, I issued zoning permits for the exterior hardscape work and for the home renovations in, excuse me, in March of 2022. Part of the reason, if you wanna go to the picture that's the first picture there, that's Exhibit D. The first picture of Exhibit D? Yeah, kinda pull out so you can see better what was going on. These were, one of the things that I asked for was to share with me images of what the yard looked like prior to their work beginning because clearly when I was out there there was a lot of work that had already occurred and I wasn't able to see it in the previous state but they had a lot of pictures and these are some of the pictures. So prior to the work, what the home had was this sort of mounted, bolder wall fountain fix feature in the yard and that was being changed to a more terraced patio at different levels going down into the yard for which they were doing some birming work with a seated built-in area. So when I left the yard, I had a lot of work that had already been done so the day that they were redoing their patios, they were putting in some retaining walls, rebuilding their decks. On the day that I was there on November 17th, I did see a lot of boulders around and yard moving so that their pictures put it into context for me. So after the review and internal discussions, I used section 1411 F1 of the regulations which were adopted in February of 2022. They were warned in November of 2021 as the basis for issuing the permit for the exterior hardscape work. This section of the regulations was previously referenced in section three, but the language was unchanged and it reads as follows. Alteration of existing grade approval required. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil or other similar material and amount equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot shall require the approval of the development review board. The development review board may grant such approval or such modification is requested in connection with the approval of a site plan, planned unit development or subdivision plan. This section does not apply to the removal of earth products and so on. I applied the part of 1411, which was the except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot in making my determination that I could issue the permit for their exterior hardscape work. And that's my testimony. Thank you, Delilah. Maybe Mr. Cooper, if you would come up and provide us with your testimony and your advisor. If you would please state your names again so Sue has them for the record. Robert Cooper. Charlie Prout. Thank you. What is your testimony, please? Okay. Well, that's down, I think it will. Well, I am the landowner at Six Park Road, which is the neighboring property to 410 Golf Course Road. And in March, 2021, 410 Golf Course Road was sold and the crest has moved in. Immediately, we noticed extensive work being done at the home, including major exterior remodeling. Now, my wife and I were unhappy about this, but cooperative until we found out from Delilah Hall that none of the exterior work had been permitted prior to being completed. That's something she neglected to mention that all of the work by the time she showed up in November had been basically been constructed. Maybe not completed, but the actual construction of the project, moving of dirt, et cetera, had been completed of the structures that she is referencing. So when we talk about exterior work, this included new roofing, new siding, regrading and extensive construction of patios, decks, retaining walls, and a cement staircase. Which apparently now I'm thinking is part of a structure per Delilah, in which case, based on her testimony, like to go off script a little bit and kind of work on that. And like to refer to page nine of the testimony packet. Is that the staff report? That should be the site plan. This one? Yes. Now, I'm assuming that everything behind the house to the right of the picture outlined in blue is basically everything that Delilah and I had discussed where all the fill, the compacted aggregate fill was being used, which is what I was objecting to. Now, she is claiming that all is in conjunction with a structure or multiple structures. And if so, are we governed by the laws and the LDRs that pertain to structures? Mr. Cooper, could you guide the driver of the laptop to show us where your house is in relation on this drawing? Where are you here? We are at the top of this picture. Okay. And so their actual home is not? So basically, their home is 13 feet from the property line. Our home is 10 feet from the property line. So our homes are actually fairly close together at the top of the hill. Okay. All right, thank you. And the entire property slopes downward towards the golf course. Okay. And where's the golf course? To the right of everything on this picture. All right. Would you like to continue? Well, if it's the case that this is considered a structure where this compacted fill was being used, which is her basis of granting the permit, then I believe this falls under the general provisions, article 3.06, section three item F, entitled structures requiring setbacks, which states, except as specifically provided elsewhere in these regulations, front, side, and rear setback provision shall apply to all structures except for fences. Additionally, there is a setback provision stated in the LDRs under section 3.10, entitled accessory structures and uses. And I'm referring to section A, item three, which states accessory structures shall be located a minimum of five feet from all side and rear lot lines. If this is the case, then this will satisfy my request for having a setback from the construction that currently lies directly on, is about a four and a half foot wall of compacted fill that sits directly on our property line. It's causing issues with runoff and will likely cause issues with erosion. We have testimony from professionals, namely Charlie and one other that we'll get into in a little bit. But so there are definitely some issues with that. However, if all of the compacted fill is used to create the structure that Delilah has referenced, it appears that we are due a setback of five feet from that structure. You're, I think, is that it? Is that the essence of your complaint? Absolutely not. Oh, I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt you. This is just, I would like to make this point that if the board determines that Delilah's statement is referencing a structure, then I believe we are allowed a five foot setback from that structure. Okay, I will try to deal with it serially rather than gather it all at once. Sure. I don't think the fill, the exception for allowing the fill is in connection with or incidental to a structure. It doesn't make the fill a structure. I disagree with you that the fill constitutes a structure. I don't believe it does. I'm not insinuating that. So where's the- Asking the question to the board, I'm saying if it does, and there are certain areas where it appears that the fill is supporting the structure, then that may be concerned. It's kind of like a foundation for a house while the foundation supports the house. This is sort of the same situation. So I think someone would need to actually be on site to actually make that determination. No, I don't think so. I would give you the same response. Okay. The structure has a definition in the land development records. I think you'll see it is not within what you're complaining about. Okay. But I'm sorry, you had more, so go ahead. Absolutely. Okay, so I noticed in some of the defendant's testimony that there was a lot of discussion around supporting, I'm sorry, can we put up my supporting exhibits, three, four, and five, please? Do you know off-ten what page number that is? Well, I sent it to you separately. Today? They would be likely pages three, four, and five. Of the stuff you sent me today, though? Yes. Okay, yep, no problem. So in the permit itself, there are statements that state existing alterations include replacement of existing retaining walls, replacement of existing stone patio, replacement of existing stairs. So there's a lot of replacement of existing here, stone walkways, et cetera. And I intend to show through these pictures starting with exhibit, this exhibit right here, that this new grading is certainly not a replacement of an existing structure or an existing grade. As you can see from this picture, you can actually see through the fence at the ground level, this is taken from the same vantage point just below this garden with the same row of plants on the right side of the garden. And with the roof line in the upper right of both pictures. So in the top picture, we can actually see across the yard at the ground level. And in the after picture, all we see is a regraded section that is approximately the same height as the old existing fence was. So that's definitely not replacement of existing. So that's just one of the issues I wanted to... It's not a replacement of an existing what? Fence. Existing anything, a walkway, I think they mentioned in here that the replacement of existing retaining walls, existing stone patio, stone stairs, they're all sort of behind what you can see. So all of the structures are sort of been raised and are not replacement of existing because they're not at the same grade. I see, but there's a fence. There was a fence where there is now a new fence, right? Except it's at a different grade, is that the idea? Well, the grade is the ground level. Now the grade is four and a half feet taller than the ground level. And it does not follow the property line, which previously sloped downward now. So again, your complaint is about the change in the grade which leads you to believe that it's not the new structures which are things like fences and walls can't be replacing an existing anything because they're not on the same grade. Is that the essence of what you're saying? Correct. Thank you for the clarification. So I'm having a real hard time envisioning this. I understand the fence is gone, but the trees aren't the same. So in the bottom picture, I see an evergreen. On the top picture, I see many different kinds of trees. And so why is that different? I think that these daylilies on the right are the same daylilies. Right, I get that. And then I think they've just taken out the trees on the long time. They have taken out basically every tree on their lot. Oh, okay. All right, thanks. Okay, go ahead. In addition, page 23 of Delilah's testimony includes a photograph of the previous contour of the neighbor's yard. Again, showing this from a different angle where you can see the grade on both sides of the fence is approximately the same. Whereas now the grade, at least to the left of that birch tree, I believe it is, or the willow tree is at the height of, exceeds the height of the top of that fence that you're seeing in that picture. So it's certainly not, in terms of grading, certainly not replacement of existing. We assume, sir, that the grading work was done and the movement of the fill was done incidentally, too, the construction of these structures would, Right. And none of these changes in grade are in and of themselves structures. Would you agree that? Delilah is basing her testimony on the fact that these are structures. No, I think. I don't believe that patios are considered structures, at least according to the LDRs, but so they're either structures or they're not structures. And if they're not structures, I don't think that, I think that the fill that's there should not be included in the fill that she's referencing. So your premise is the patio is not a structure? I don't believe that a lot of these are structures. What is it exactly you don't believe is a structure? The part that is on our property line. Part of what? That is part of a walkway. And I believe that fill should not be considered part of a structure unless she deems all of it to be part of one structure, which confuses me. It doesn't say part of it. I believe the exception is incidental too. Would you read the, do you have the exception handy one? Yes. The removal from land or the placing on land of fill, gravel, sand, loam, topsoil or other similar material in an amount equal to or greater than 20 cubic yards, except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot shall require the approval of the development review board. Yeah, all right. Now, I know, I've heard it, but I'm not sure we're on the same page. Okay, so I do have more background. Can I jump in there for quickly? Quickly. Thanks. Can we get a definition of structures? Go ahead, Dan. Yeah. Can we get a definition of structures? Yeah, let me just pull that up real quick. Good question, yeah. Let's see, definitions. If I might add, in my discussions with the applicant and with the information that they provided, much of that fill was reworked. They did bring in some, was reworked from that mound and the boulders that were on their lot. So here's the definition of structure, construction, erection, assemblage, or other combination of materials upon the land. I would note that it doesn't just say structure. It says in conjunction with the DRB approval for fill is only required when it's not conjunction with the structure on the same lot. It doesn't stop at the word structure. Does that make sense? No. I'll go back to it. I'm sorry, or not to me, I should say. Except when incidental to or in connection with the construction of a structure on the same lot. So it was this piece that I wanted to highlight more. So it's not just of a structure, it's of a structure on the same lot. Okay. Could you go back to the definition please? Or patios. That actually references paved surfaces. So. A paved surface is a structure. Structure shall not include paved surfaces, such as parking areas, sidewalks, and patios. Does that include patios? No, correct. Yeah, it does not. Did it exclude that specifically? Yes. Oh, I'm sorry. So the last sentence. Right. So is a deck a structure? It is. Okay. All right. Do you have more testimony? I absolutely do. Okay. So since we're, so we have a lot more background to this, but since our goal is to determine if the allowable 20 cubic yards was violated or not, I'm going to jump right to supporting exhibit number one. Marla? Okay. Okay. So with regard to permit ZP 22-071, there are multiple instances of actual regrading where quantities of filler topsoil violate 20 cubic yards. And by multiple instances, I mean there are multiple sections that may or may not be used in conjunction with structures or are not structures. But the easiest for me to explain would probably be directly in the zoning permit application which is on the screen right now or under section one, it describes all of the alterations requested and then start talking about various planning beds that have nothing to do with any structures. And then at the very end, it says final grading. So she is allowing, they're requesting final grading of the lot with eight to 12 inches of new topsoil to match neighboring lawn elevations. Now to me is my contention that this has nothing to do with any of the previously mentioned structures and that this is referencing grading of the lot to match neighboring lawn elevations. Because obviously near the structures, the lawn elevations are quite different. So I wouldn't reference that because their yard is four to five feet taller than ours. So that's not obviously the area that's being requested. It sounds like they're requesting the lower level of their lot that slope down significantly, whereas the two side yards had higher elevations at the lower levels. So based on some quick calculations, if we took the lowest 15 feet from the golf course, from the property line closest to the golf course, 15 feet up, we would end up with approximately 35 cubic yards. If we, I know what the permit mentioned, eight to 12 inches. If we go with the eight inches minimum, times 94 feet wide, and that would be on, I believe supporting exhibit number two, which is the next page down. So you've got a lot line to the very right of that picture of this 94 feet wide. So if we take that and we assume, we don't assume it actually happened. They actually filled that area with eight to 12 inches of new topsoil, which comes out to 34 cubic yards. Now is my contention that that lowest 15 feet has nothing to do with the structures outlined in blue, assuming that some of them or all of them are structures, which is still unclear to me, but moving away from there, there has been fill placed 7A. Tell me if I'm on the right track. Keep going, there's 7A. So 7A shows that this is after all the structures were completed. There's still quite a large amount of topsoil sitting at the lower end of the lot that appears to be about 15 feet wide by probably 50 feet long by about 10 feet tall. Now 20 cubic yards is only supposed to be 12 by 16 by three feet tall. That would be 20 cubic yards. This represents quite a bit more than that. And as you can see from the next image, the 7B next page down, it appears all that was used to create a convex shape to their lawn, which was previously sloping directly down into the ditch where you can see the drainage pipe on the left side about halfway up, which is now buried. So that appears to be laying on the previous grade which is now covered by the new topsoil. So if we just take 15 feet of that, we assume that there's eight inches and no more. We still come out with 35 cubic yards which exceeds the 20 cubic yards that's allowable. Therefore, it appears that this is reviewable by the Development Review Board and should not have been issued. So this is very complicated. The 20 cubic yards exceeding 20, correct me if I'm wrong, exceeding 20 cubic yards only applies, let me see how to phrase this, exceeding 20 cubic yards doesn't apply if it's incidental to the structure. Well, I highlighted it. So when you say it exceeds 20 cubic yards, that's not really an issue, is it? Because... Well... No, then we need to review it as a DRB site plan. Not really relevant to the conversation at hand but it would be reviewed as a miscellaneous. Hang on a minute. I mean, I think the gentleman's raising an issue that we haven't touched on yet. I think we've disposed of any fill that's incidental to the construction. My question, I guess, to the Lila is whether she... Well, first of all, is it accurate that all this fill along the 94 foot border was... Is the 35 square feet that distance from the building accurate? 35, excuse me, 35 cubic yards. I haven't measured it. You're following... I follow what you're saying. I haven't measured the area. I was basing my testimony on the appellant statement that I incorrectly applied 1411 F1. And I stand on the fact that I believe that the work that was undertaken at the property was incidental to or in connection with the construction of the structure on the lot. If on the diagram, that's one, two, three, four pages up. There was work all around hardscape work going on, all around the property that they were retaining walls that they were replacing in other areas of that yard. So the work that they were doing seemed applicable to the work that they were doing. And that's where I fell back on. He just showed the picture of where the fill was. Yes. That he was talking about with the last photograph. You consider that incidental to the construction? I consider it incidental to the work that was going on in the property that they applied for the permit for. Not just that upper corner, but to the entire... I have a quick question. Go ahead, Dan. Yeah, it's Dan Albrecht, DRB, remember. The question for Delilah, what is the structure that you were considering applicable? In other words, what's... So there's incidental work to the structure. What's the structure that you were considering? This shows the preexisting condition when they had the mounded boulder... Right. And then it's the other one there, Marla. And then they built this sort of terraced patio landscape structure, and then towards the south side, those blue structures, those walls on the south side of the house, go down the new retaining walls on that side. And they were doing this new techno block border edge that they had to dig out and put in. So all of the work that was going on and the earth moving that they were doing was connected to these improvements. Wait a minute. So the permit... I guess I'm trying to like... Part of this is about the definition of a structure. So we just read that the patio is not the structure. The walls might be a structure, but the patio doesn't count as a structure. The patio has... It's sort of enclosed. It's not completely flat. It's stepped into the grating going up towards the house. So there are retaining walls in that patio that are also sort of a seating and I think planting, planter beds. Right, no, I'm just trying to clarify that the walls would be considered structure, but the actual flat surface that people walk on is a patio and that's not a structure. That's all. Correct. At least that's my interpretation. So here's my thinking. In the interest of time, we still have a lot of testimony. I wanna give everybody a chance to testify before we get into back and forth. We've got a long agenda tonight. We've got other people who have been very patient. So if you could please finish your testimony and then we will hear from the Crestas and then if we have to continue this hearing to allow us to deliberate, we will do that. But I wanna make sure that everybody gets a chance to talk tonight. So how much longer is your testimony? Depends if it's relevant to the proceedings. I have a lot of background about how we were led to believe that everything that was going on was above board when in fact it wasn't permitted. We got requests by the Crestas to raise the grade of our yard to match theirs. They agreed, they offered to pay for that. They offered to pay for a retaining wall on our property and put vegetation on our property. This was all while it was unpermitted until we learned from Delilah that we were subject to being fined if we allowed them to put structures on our property. So there was a lot of underhanded goings on throughout this whole process. So that's sort of the background. I don't think it's germane to determining whether the 20 cubic yards is incidental at the bottom of the yard is incidental to a structure 50 feet away. Okay. So that, I mean, I can go on with things of that nature. Would it be fair for you to ask you to finish up within five minutes so that we can move on to the Crestas? Yeah. Knowing that you will, if we continue this, you'll have another bite at the end. I'm willing to relinquish my time now. Okay, thank you. Thank you. You can stay there if you'd like. Oh, I'm sorry, I actually have more. Just quickly, another thing that I believe is relevant here is the degree of the slope that's been causing water runoff and that our experts agree causes water runoff. If you can please go to my testimony at page 40. Page 40, sorry, 51. This shows where the fill was brought in and then go up a page to page 50, which shows the- Could you back up for a second, please? So Mr. Cooper is looking at the picture. Is the green area on the left your property? Our property line falls directly at the bottom of where you see the grade. Okay, thank you for clarifying. And it touches our property. And- Pink flags are- The pink flags are our property. The pink flags are actually where our irrigation is. So there was fill pushed up onto our property that basically covered up our irrigation. Okay, thank you. And I'm sorry, I interrupted. I just needed to understand that. So because all this fill was compacted, the experts that we brought in determined that due to the compacting of this fill and the grade that slopes directly down onto our property that covers a culvert where the water runs through that we are the recipients of our neighbor's runoff now because our culvert still exists, part of it, and the water, it still runs down to the bottom of the hill except instead of running down the hill on their yard, it runs down the hill on our yard. So we have expert testimony on pages starting on page 61. Did you want me to- Can you flip to 61, please? And just keep in mind the board has had this as long as you have, so they've had the opportunity to review it. Yep, this is testimony from Ashley Robinson. She's the president of the Vermont Nursery and Landscape Association, the same association that Knopf Landscaping, the involved party here is a member of. In her opinion, there are three concerns. The primary concern is erosion from that slope. These are pictures that she took at our yard and believes that this will result in poor drainage causing significant erosions onto my property. The next concern is the water runoff, running down a slope of greater than 50 degrees, pushing the rainwater again intentionally onto my property rather than staying on their property and the work basically negatively impacts my land and that this may not have been or was likely not considered in the construction design. The third concern is the aesthetic in this neighborhood where the grade changes so significantly that she believes this is a concern and looks out of place in the context of our two yards. I've read a lot about where Ms. Knopf has said that she likes to create seamless environments. I appeal to every one of you to think of this as a seamless environment. In fact, I see exactly the opposite. I see a giant discrepancy between one and the other and no connection between the two. So where she says seamless, I disagree with that. So our first expert is Ashley Robinson, landscape designer from Charlotte, the president of the Vermont. We've already heard that, thank you. The second expert we brought in was Charlie Prout and he is with distinctive landscaping. They work out of Horstford's nursery in Charlotte. He visited our property and had two concerns. One was regarding drainage, same as the previous expert we brought in and he noted that previous to construction we shared a drainage channel to deal with the runoff situation because we're on such a steep slope. And because of a steep buildup on the south end of our property, that's 410 Golf Course Road, that all of the shared runoff is now entirely borne by the swale on our property. The next is encroachment of the wall itself which has the effect of being a retaining wall which should be set back. If it is a wall, it's as high as, we showed you it's as high as the fence used to be. And if that in itself can be considered a wall or retaining a type of wall, then we should be allowed some type of setback from that wall. I don't know if Charlie can address the concerns about runoff. I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm getting concerned about the amount of time. I think that we've heard, we get the themes, we understand that. I want to be fair to everyone, the night is moving along. So if we could just... I can wrap there for now. Okay, good. Thank you. Thank you. So, Mr. and Mrs. Krusta, would you like to step up or sit down and provide your testimony? Along with... You do need to speak into the microphone, please. You know what? I overlooked swearing you all in. So if Delilah, Robert Cooper, Chuck, Prout, Cynthia, Tracy and Fernando and Gillian, Gillian Gillian, if you would all raise your right hands, please, I'm sorry I didn't do this earlier. I swear the testimony I am about to give or I have just given is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. Thank you. Okay. For the record, identify yourselves please and Tracy Krusta, I am the owner of 410 Golf Course Road. You need to move that in so we can hear you. Please. Tracy Krusta, I am the owner of the home at 410 Golf Course Road. Okay. Introduce yourself please. Cynthia Knopf, licensed landscape architect, owner of Knopf Landscape Architecture. Thank you. Is that microphone on? Is it working now? Better. Fernando Krusta, 410 Golf Course Road. Thank you. Gillian Bartolo, I work at Peregrine Design Build and I was the general contractor for the Krustas. Okay, good, thank you. Okay. Well, I know that you have received the information of our testimony. I think maybe just to give Cynthia just a very brief moment here just to review and clarify the intentions. Tracy, can you move the mic closer? We wanna make sure we hear you. Okay. Thank you. I just thought maybe Cynthia could just go first just to clarify and reiterate briefly what our intentions were originally when we contracted with Peregrine and Cynthia Knopf to do our remodel. Okay. Can I interrupt for one second, sorry. And I just wanna make sure that everybody's focus remains on the purpose is to determine whether the ZA issued a permit in error. So to whatever extent anyone's testimony can focus on that, though I understand and agree that the background makes sense. Okay. Well, I'll just reiterate the main objectives that for why I was hired and that is that the Krustas wanted to update and restore the existing landscape that had deteriorated and become unsafe. And they wanted to create a sustainable and lasting landscape by creating the proper bases for the replaced patio and the retaining wall and stairs replacements because there was no well-drained base beneath them. So we needed to get that beneath them. And then the other objective was to create a beautiful, you've seen what the before pictures were and we wanted to create a beautiful environment and safe environment for them that really does blend in with the rest of this well cared for golf course community. So those were the three main intentions. Thanks. And maybe you can briefly, in our testimony, because we wanted to stay within the same lock coverage and elevation, we didn't want to make significant changes. Cynthia provided in our testimony an elevation breakdown of the before and after. There's some yellow highlighted blocks on a similar. On that plan. Plan. Do you know which page it is in the packet? I don't, I'm not sorry, organized regarding the page numbers, but it would have been very in the early part. In our testimony, right, I think it's the first, after our initial letter of our testimony, it would be the first diagram. Yeah, the first plan after the written. Okay, so this is your testimony. So you're saying the first plan after here. There it is. Yes. So we had a topographical survey done first because you wanted to stay within the existing elevations and within the existing grades. And in this diagram, the top in yellow, that shows where to be placed, I'm gonna call them structures for now. Those are the replacement structures. The top elevation represents the, let's say the bottom elevation represents the preexisting elevation. The top elevation represents the new elevation. And you'll see that the elevations have not changed from the preexisting except for that the bottom left corner where we did go, there's about 16 square feet where we did end up being 10 inches above the preexisting grade. And for those of you who, well, so you'll see the survey is underneath. You can see the contours that were surveyed of the preexisting conditions. And so you can, it's, if you look at those, you can see that the elevations of the replacement features match the preexisting elevations, if that makes any sense. Okay. Thank you. And I don't know if I'm, oh, sorry. We have a question. Could we move to the left? Could we see the golf course border, please? Yeah, I think your neighbor was complaining about Phil along the golf course border, was he not? Is that the same elevation as it was beforehand? Yes, it is. I, if I can address that in our permit, we did, in our permit state that we did want to at the end of this updating of our hardscape landscape area that the neighbors to the north and south of us do have nice flat raised grass areas where this home has an area where we have some flat grass and then it grades down to the golf course. So when we first purchased the house, we were thinking that it would be nice if we had an extended flat grass lawn like the neighbors to the north and south of us. So we did include that in our permit. None of that Phil to change that grade has currently been brought in. And because we've been going through this renovation process now for so long and we just wanna complete it, get this wrapped up and get our landscape planted that we're probably at this point gonna just omit bringing in any additional soil to raise the grade and extend it like our neighbors, even though it was, we felt it was an important part of what we wanted to do for our backyard. But because of going, this is just going through this process and having to delay our landscaping and the completion of our house based on the appeal process. At this point, we just wanna be able to move into our house and complete it and enjoy it. So that part of the permit, that last section, we're probably gonna, we're, I've made a decision, we're just gonna admit that at this point and just deal with the lawn as graded and just bring in enough topsoil to put sod down and grow grass and call it a day that we're no longer gonna be looking at extending our lawn and changing that elevation. So it is as was. So I'm not sure this is relevant to what the board has, what our task is, but so that I understand it and have an orientation to this when Mr. Cooper showed the higher section. Yes. Where, where on this diagram is that? So that is directly above the stairs. So I don't, so the stairs, the old stairs were bluestone falling down stairs and we have now rebuilt the stairs so that, I mean, the direction of the stairs is slightly different than the previous bluestone stairs which you have seen in the other pictures. And to get to the top of the stairs across the patio, that one section on that corner, the grade is higher there, but it's a planting bed, it's landscape which I don't believe would have really any setbacks or any permitting based on having garden soil brought in on that area that's to the east of the staircase going down where the retaining wall is on the patio. I don't know if you know where I'm coming from, but I've lost track of which way is north. So north is. North is down. So where, so if I use my cursor, my big red dot here. Where your cursor is right now is where that image. Right, so that is on the top of the stairs right there is the area that he is saying is a wall, which is right now, it's not even a berm, it's garden soil that we've placed down that area. It looked like it was brown gravel on the picture. No, well, it's straw that we've put on top of the soil for the wind, that was our winterization and aesthetically, so our neighbors weren't all just looking at a bunch of dirt, we placed straw there for the winter. Excuse me, we're talking about the same picture, the one with the very sharp, with the 90 degree wall. Yes, or edge, I would call it. Or edge facing the appellant's land, correct? Right, so if you could stick with me for just a minute. I apologize, I'm having difficulty. I know it is hard. Was, are you saying that you have not raised the differential in grade between your land and his land? Is that your testimony? Yes, except for that 10 inches, which is higher than previous. So let's assume, I'm sure this is not the dimensions, let's assume that that black wall of earth or whatever it was, material, that we looked at on the picture is four feet high. You're saying if that's so, then before then it was three feet, two inches high? Yes. So it was never flat. No. And those photos that you're looking at before that were 90 degrees, that was during construction. We would never leave a slope that is 90 degrees. That was during construction. Now the slope is a slope, not 90 degrees. And how does it vary right next to his property from what it was before? Before there were boulders, there was earth that sloped down to the swale, but they're also boulders in the five foot setback and those boulders were removed and replaced with soil. So there could be, that could all be garden all along that North property line. I think you can see in the pictures that we provide in our testimony, Cynthia provided some pages that gave you a before and after look of, that was maybe answers visually some of your... Those are the blue stone stairs on the left. That was a patio. That was like a boulder wall. That was there before. I think the cooper's, they're trying to make it sound like there was no steps there before or patios. That's a lie. That's just not true. Well, I just think you can see in the picture the previous staircase that had the white railing, those were blue stone steps which had to be replaced because they were all falling down, which we've now replaced with those new steps that we built out of that unilock material. It was all dry laid. There's no footings foundation poured or anything like that. And then you can sew that brown area, which is the hay now on top of the garden soil that we put there will now eventually be a garden. We're planting plants in a garden bed there. And previously that's where the boulders were. Yes. Okay. So going down that slope, is that the edge that we saw in that previous photo? I think so. Okay. All right. Yeah, yes. Okay, I see it now. Okay, I mean, it's hard not knowing before and after, but we tried to do the best we could in the picture so that you could get a clear understanding. This little green transformer here, that must be on the other side of that fence. Right, okay. So you can't see the slope very well in the before photo because there was a fence there. Now that the fence has been removed, you can see the slope better. But it is the same slope, which is defined by that grading plan that shows that the existing grades and the new grades, which are the same. Okay. Well, it's a slightly steeper slope because you added this foot of topsoil, right? It's a little steeper because the stairs, the direction of the stairs is a little bit different than the direction of the blue stone stairs that were falling down when we rebuilt them. There's probably two risers on the higher elevation. I guess you could call the stairs our structure. I don't know. So what the soil coming down off the top of the stairs is what we added, which like we said, it's landscaping. It's not a wall. It's gonna be a garden. So, if my understanding, there's no setbacks for garden bed landscaping. Okay. I know his big concern. Go ahead, you have one more thing. But I just wanted to be clear that what was brought in, what we did need to bring in drainage stone to put underneath the patios, the stairs, and the boulder retaining wall, when we pulled those apart, it didn't have any base. There were no bases at all. So proper construction for dry-laid hardscape would be to bring in well-drained base. I'm aware of the time, and I wanna be fair to everyone, but do you have any other key testimony you'd like to provide before we close this hearing or ask for any other public comment, close the hearing or continue the hearing? Well, I guess. Meaning we would stop tonight and continue it at a later date. Well, the only other I know that what he has brought in expert advice on and a concern of his is the runoff flooding that he said is persisting on his property. We have now with what we have with the hay on the soil that we have there, we have gone through fall, winter, spring, heavy rains, as you know, we just had yesterday. I provided some testimony of some other periods where we've had over an inch of rain in less than a day where there's no signs of puddling, pooling, flooding. And I guess I would just ask if that is an accusation he's making, why has he not provided any photos of that evidence? There's absolutely no evidence of any flooding or debris or soil or anything of that nature happening on his property because the swale that we've never changed is still intact and working, so. And again, our job is not to determine which one of you is more accurate than the other. It's to determine if Delilah Hall, the zoning administrator, was correct in issuing the zoning permit that she issued. Just to clarify Tracy, that testimony you just mentioned about flooding, is that in the stuff Fernando sent me today? Okay, I'm only sure the, so you sent it to me today. It's part of the record. They don't need to walk through it, but I'll make sure the board members do have it and have the opportunity to read it. All right, and it does explain, oops, sorry, that we have installed six inch gutters. We have gravel drip edge around the house. We have drainage pipes that go through the patio that extends out to the middle of our property. So there's, you know, we've done above and beyond, there'd be no runoff and in fact very little compared to the mound of boulders and earth that were just crumbling down before, so. Okay, Dan, did you wanna say something? Very quick, just a couple of quick questions just for the record, because I'm not seeing it or I haven't measured. What is the distance from the edge of the wooden deck to the property line? 10 feet. 10 feet exactly, 10.1, 10.2. It's between 10 and 11 feet. I think it's 10 foot six, so that's the most edge of the deck. And is any of the dirt or gravel or mesh that's holding everything in place, extending on to the other person's property? No, no, there is absolutely no, none of our land that we've altered is everything is within our property line. There's absolutely nothing we've not touched or changed any part of their property. I assume you're Mrs. Cooper? Thank you. You're not sworn in and you'll have an opportunity to speak at another time. Okay, any other closing comments to your testimony you'd like to make before we take a vote on whether to continue this hearing? Is the accusation of unpermitted work relevant that we should be speaking to, or is that irrelevant at this point? Because if it's irrelevant, then we won't bring it up, but if it is relevant. Go ahead, Frank. I think it's not relevant tonight. Let me expand on that a little bit. I'm in doubt because, and I agree with Don and I'm sorry for the time I've taken, but I don't fully understand the scope of all the fill that was gonna use, nor do I understand, well, we decided not to do X as a correction for a permit that might have allowed X because it sounds like if it did allow X, then it wasn't a proper permit. And if it wasn't a proper permit and you needed a site plan and can't have to come here in the first instance for a site plan, then all the work you're actually doing would be relevant to that site plan, but you're not here for a site plan, so it's not relevant to get the drift of what I'm saying. It may become so later, but that would be in another proceeding. Okay. Any other questions from the board before we entertain a motion to conclude for tonight and continue this hearing at a later date? I just have one question for Delilah. There's been this discussion of unpermitted work, and so was that rectified with the issuance of the second permit or is that still? So when I went out there in November of 2021, I did note that they were doing a lot more work than the original permit that I issued in March of 2021, and I told them to stop the work and to get me an accounting for all of the work that they were doing. And that is what they submitted to me in January of 2022. They divided the work into two permits that they submitted for as after the fact permits, and they split them into exterior hardscape and the home renovation work. And those were issued as after the fact permits for the work that accounted for that they had not originally, that they had already begun and undertaken previously. Okay, so at this point, is your opinion that all the work that is either proposed to be done or has been done has been permitted, whether it's an after the fact permit or was the previous original permit? Correct. Thank you, I'm glad you, I was gonna ask that, so thank you, Mark. Any other questions or comments from the board before we entertain a motion? Frank, go ahead. Like what Mark said, you, sir, are appealing the totality of the permits, is that correct? I'll ask in front of the, I can hear you. Well, I'll ask, I'll ask in front of the board. In this forum, I am appealing the legality of the permit because it... No, no, I don't wanna know about because we're out of time. Oh, sure, no. I'm just trying to get, how many permits are you appealing, both of them? One, the exterior permit that includes the allowance of them to regrade their yard with eight to 12 inches of topsoil. Is that the first permit or the second permit? Second, second. Second. Okay, thank you. But as I noted for the record, that we are not going to go forth with that portion of the permit. Because of the... If that permit were disallowed, it would be no harm, no fail, right? Correct, but our feeling is if we, well, I won't go there. If I may address the board. Oftentimes people come in and apply for permits for a number of improvements. And then they end up only doing part of that work for whatever personal reasons they might have. It's not unusual for somebody to come in and I'll say they're putting on an addition and I'll look up the record and they'll have applied before for that same addition. And they're like, yeah, we ended up not doing it. If something happened, we didn't do it. So they apply again. So often the project's descriptions are aspirational on permits and they are good for a year and they expire after a year if they don't start the work. I just want to follow one. I'm not sure who's going to be addressed to, but one of the exhibits that Mr. Cooper showed was the large pile of stockpiled dirt and then the before and then the after which showed the straw protection with the drainage pipe coming out. Where is that? If someone could pull up the site plan and show me where that is on the site plan, please. Because that drainage pipe was always, that's a foundation drainage pipe. I'm just asking where that drainage pipe is on the site plan. It's about in the middle of our property. East in the middle. I would say it's in the middle. It's pretty much in the middle of our yard where it exits out on the swale between us and the golf course. To the right, keep going. Yeah, a little further. It's right about there. That's what that drainage pipe is in the center. Okay. And that's the bike path right there. Yep. That's the golf course. That's part of the golf course. That's the golf cart path. Oh, a cart path. Okay. Yeah. And that exhibit is, we have that exhibit in our packet. Yeah. I was going to request. What's on the screen is in the packet. No, no. I submitted this evening showing that. It's not in the packet. I got things from everybody today. Okay, so it is a matter of public record at this point? It's public record. It's going to be in the packet on the website tomorrow. Okay, then I'm good. But what, I mean, weren't we supposed to have everything in by noon today? Yep, and I will post them tomorrow. Okay. Okay. Any other questions from the board members? I don't know the validity or need to continue this. I think this personally I think is a deliberative. I would like to continue. I still don't understand how much Phil went in a great distance from the house. And if that was, let me be succinct, maybe we close it out. If more than 20 cubic yards went in, a great distance from the house, in other words, a distance that in my view was not reasonably incidental to the construction of the structure, then it ought to be disallowed. And it sounds, at first I thought that would require them to apply for a site plan, you know, disallow this permit and apply for a new site plan. It could be, we just disallowed that permit. Ms. Cresta seems to be fine with not completing that work, in which case everybody goes home. I don't think that's entirely accurate. So the permit that includes that work also includes the work that's already been done on the deck and the stairs. So it's, you couldn't just allow the entire permit. The line item of works often gets done or not done until the final project's done, you never really know. In that case, I think we need a continuance because I don't think we'll met with tonight. Okay. I mean, just to be clear, I guess to answer your question, we did not bring any Phil into the remainder of the back of exterior of our property. The only material we bought in was to do the replacement on the patio and the stairs structure. But the issue here is not what you've done but what the permit authorized you to do. Marla, can you talk to each time? But you said that a lot of people apply for permits and but don't complete everything on the permit for one reason or another. So Stephanie, you want to see what? I just wanted to see this figure and ask what has been constructed in terms of grading that's shown on this figure today and what were you planning on not grading that? Actually, that's an old site plan. So it's everything on this, everything that was on that original grade, if you can bring that up again that had the before and after with the yellow. But this was the application, right? This was what was submitted along with your application to Delilah. Yes. So I mean, I feel like we're making our basis on what was applied for to Delilah, not necessarily the as-builds that have been since the fact, after the fact. My point, yes. So that my question is what is being shown on this plan is what Delilah made her determination off of. Is that correct? So if I understand you correctly because that shows revised contours to the right, the earliest intention was to ask to be able to bring in Phil to extend the lawn, but now that is not a request. But that, yeah, that was the part of the original. That was part of the permit. Yeah, so I guess I was just saying that from my standpoint of what we're being asked to do is that Delilah made a determination based on plans that were submitted to her. And so for me, I wanna look at the plans that were submitted, not necessarily just what was constructed because what has been constructed, even if it doesn't match exactly what was submitted isn't really our judgment call at this point. Our point is to make a determination on if Delilah was correct in issuing the permit based on the plans that were submitted to her. Thank you, Stephanie. That's what you're doing. Thank you, my summary, which, yeah, got it. All right, any other questions before we entertain a motion to continue? Go ahead, Mark. Yeah. Delilah, your previous testimony was that that eight to 12 inches of new topsoil that you wasn't supposed to, and I'll say supposed to because I'm still not convinced it wasn't done, at the whole back, bottom of the property along the golf course was allowable because it was in connection with the rest of the project. Correct. Okay, was there anything submitted as an application as an exhibit to show where that eight to 12 inches would go or is it just the one line final grading with eight to 12 inches new topsoil to match neighboring lawn elevations? It was that. That's just that one line? Okay. And then, Okay. Can we just pull up that one exhibit that Mr. Cooper showed that shows the stockpile of earth and then the one little green drainage pipe stub? Yeah. It's in my supporting documents. Thank you. Oh, it's right here. Yeah, I know, but I want to see the stockpile photo. All right, okay. Yeah, there you go. Okay. So I assume that the green drainage, which is the, by the way, footing drain from the house, I assume, is that the one that's right sort of to the bottom left of the photo? Yeah. Is there another one that's further behind the stockpile? That's the same drain. Okay, can now can we go to the next photo? Okay, so the angle is a little odd because it looked to me like that drainage pipe was like literally right next to the... Yeah, absolutely it did. Next to what? No, it's pretty much in the middle. It looked like it was literally right next to the fire pit patio. Like two feet. Right. Yeah, no. It's, okay. So I mean, okay. And just to be clear on that previous photo, if you can go back to that other photo, that dirt was not brought in, that dirt was moved around on site. Doesn't matter to me in terms of how final grading on a site goes. So that dirt was all then just spread where the next photo is and how much elevation change occurred because of that. I mean, it was spread across that 95... I understand that what I'm saying is that... There's been no change to me. I would say less than an inch. That's not a realistic answer to that stockpile of dirt being spread over that amount of land saying that there was no grade change. Clearly there was grade change. But you can see that there's a couple inches. I mean, a lot of it, some of it was large stumps. Some of it was some boulders and stumps in that pile that was unused. That was pulled down. That had to be removed. So I don't know when they spread that across the backyard. Well, there was like 40 cubic yards of boulders removed from the site and taken away and that dirt was all like on the site. And so then that dirt was manipulated and moved around to keep the contours where they were. Okay. The boulders were removed. The boulders were removed prior to this picture. All of them. They were removed. We took a portion of them and the other portion was removed by truck. So I guess my asking this line of questions is more going to ask Frank if you think we're gonna get any more additional testimony if we continue this other than what we've just discussed in terms of that. I'm not sure how we're gonna get any more than that. What I want is more information from the staff that I think is better dealt with between now and then. Okay. So in deliberation. And make note because he's saying he wants to continue it. Okay. Oh, right. Okay. Yeah, but we can still deliberate. Chair. Yes, Dan. Frank, I hear what you're saying, but I don't know if we can get a, hate to say a water from a stone. I think we've got enough information with regarding dealing with the issue of whether or not the permit was issued correctly. So if there's a motion to continue the hearing, I'll be voting no. I'm not gonna agree with Dan on this. I think we're splitting hairs. I have a question. With further information. That may be relevant. Is it possible to estimate the amount of dirt that's in that pile and whether that exceeds 20 cubic yards? Because to me, I've done some, you know, preliminary calculations and it well exceeds 20 cubic yards. No, because the question is more whether Delilah was right in issuing the permit or not. And so we need to discuss that as a board. And I'm just not sure if we're gonna get any. Yeah, I'll bring up a larger issue. So here's a question. If this were to come, if it turns out it was 21 yards and this had, this would come back to the DRB as a, what? A miscellaneous application to do 21 cubic yards of dirt. Only if it's not incidental to the construction of a structure on the same lot. And that's my question. Right, and so some portion of this dirt came from areas underneath the stone walls. So some portion of that dirt is excused. But I'm wondering is if, in other words, if this, let's say it was 21 cubic yards. And so, ah, it should have gone to the DRB. The question is for me, is there anything here that's being constructed that would not be allowed under our LDRs had it had to come to the DRB? That's a moot point for what we're doing tonight. Right, I'm just trying to point that out. I know what you're trying, I totally get where you're going. That's all. I'm just saying from what we're doing tonight, it's a moot point. Because I was kind of going there earlier as well. I'm going to make a motion that we close the hearing. Do we have a second? I would second that. Okay, any discussion about the motion? I opposed the motion for reasons I stated. We'll get to that. Okay, any other discussion before we have a vote? Well, one thing we should do, and I'm not sure with an appeal, do we open it to public comment or is it just the? No, there's there can, if there are clarifying questions, the board may entertain a limited amount of clarifying questions, but it's not testimony and does not enter into the board's decision. Okay, are we ready for a vote? I have a question. If we continue it and we determine deliberation, we don't need additional information. Would we just bring it and be able to? It's not a draft decision, but be able to just, would have to close it in public session. Yeah, okay. Yeah, but you understand how harmless that is because they've done everything they said they're going to do, right? The work is not in any way dependent on what we do, unless somehow they were required to undo it, which it doesn't sound like is likely. The question is what remained, I've said enough. Okay, are we ready for a vote? All those in favor of the motion to close the hearing, say aye. Aye. Aye. Sorry, who was the other third person, Stephanie? Aye. Opposed? Opposed. Okay. Thank you. The motion, you have to vote. I said aye. To which? The first one. You said aye. So the motion is carried. And so the next step is for the board to deliberate. And thank you for your time tonight and all the information, this was complicated. Thank you for your time. What decision from this board? Yeah, really, okay. Thank you again. Thank you. Okay. The next. I'm sorry, the one. That's all right. All right. Thank you all for your patience. I know it's been a long night. The next agenda item is continued site plan application, SP 22003 of our HTL partners LLC to modify a previously approved plan for a 10,000 square foot automotive sales service and repair building on an existing 2.61 acre lot. The amendment consists of constructing a 3,155 square foot building expansion at 1795 Shelburne Road. Are there any recusals or disclosures? I bought a must from you and I have, you do my servicing but I don't think that will interfere with my ability to be impartial. Okay. Any other? No. Okay. Who is here for the applicant? Please. Go ahead. People told me. Jeff first, I made an executive decision. Jeff Alasky with Catamount Consulting Engineers, the civil engineer for the project. Okay. Who else? Kyle Sipples for, I'm an employee of the auto saver group. Kyle? Yeah. Kyle KYLA Sipples S-I-P-P-L-E-S. Okay. Anyone else? I see a bunch of people here. Are they going to be testifying? No. Dan Ray here with Jua Construction and a few other partners here at Jua Construction, supporting the applicant as well. Okay. And I'm Sarah Butler. I'm with Praxis Three Architects. Okay, thank you. So would you all raise your right hand please? You solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury. I do. Thank you. I'm sorry, the gentleman on my left. What was your name? Abel Toll, A-B-E-L. I'm sorry, I completely miss that. We recognize you from the television. Oh, I guess I don't watch that much. Okay. So thank you for your patience. Could you just give us a three minute overview of what you think we need to know before we start going through the staff report? I'd like to defer to Jeff. Yeah, and I'll give a brief overview. And I certainly appreciate everybody's time. I realize it's late and there's a couple of other agenda items. So I'll, as you pointed out, I'll just briefly go down a list of site plan and changes and visions that we've made since the last review, which was back in March and then turn it over to the board to run through the staff comments and items. So item number one was there was a request initially to add a front entry door, a double front entry door has been added to the East or Shubham Road side facing portion of the building underneath the existing overhang or proposed overhang rather. Could you, I know the hour is late, but could you just slow down a little bit, please, so we can understand you? Yeah, and I apologize if the volume's not great. I will slow down. I was intentionally speeding up to try to get through this. I know, we're giving you mixed messages. Fair enough. So yeah, our front entry door was included in the proposed building layout and on the East side are Shubham Road facing portion of the proposed building addition or modification. Commensurately, the sidewalk, a 10 foot wide sidewalk with a variety of patio pavers was added to gain access to that new door location at the request of city staff and the board last time we met. And additionally, the whole Northeast corner of the patio and sidewalk area where if you recall in the initial review, we had included a picnic table, a bike rack parking location that was redone to emphasize that front Northeast corner of the building at a inviting, aesthetically pleasing access from really both the parking lot side and the sidewalk side of the building to gain entry into both the predominant location, which will be on the North side or the parking lot side of the building as well as the road facing new entry on the East side of the building. Moving on to the comment regarding the cornice or the coping on the proposed top of the building. I believe a coping or a cornice was added around and I'll let the architect talk about that when we get to that item. But why is added around the new building addition and front perimeter of the proposed building? We have also added trash recycling dumpster location, formalize that with a new screened in fence and gates at the Southwest portion of the building. We have revised the landscaping and drainage to accommodate this new layout in the new front door location and supplemented the landscaping significantly to not only address the new layout but also address some comments from initially from staff with regards to some of the items that we were previously counting towards or landscaping budget, not being deemed appropriate to include. So we've revised the landscaping, the probable cost summary and the budget accordingly. Lastly, we added an easement at the request of city staff to the Southwest corner of the building a 30 by 20 access easement for future consideration as well as some draft language associated with that easement for a potential future connection between our property and the property to the South. There's a few other detailed items but I think that's a general synopsis summary of the proposed changes. So I'll turn it over to the board to go through the agenda item, the staff comment items. Thank you. Now it's kind of hard to take what you just said and figure out which comments have been addressed. So let's go through them and if they've been addressed and everybody's happy, we'll move right on. So the first comment was about modifying the front entryway and you have done that? No. Yes, we added a double front door about at the midpoint of the existing east or Chauvin Road facing the spot of the building. So if you're looking at either the 3D views, you can see it, yeah. Thank you, Marla, circling it there in blue. We've added double doors underneath the cover of the new building facade on the east side and that is the Chauvin Road side facing. Fortunately, that 3D rendering does not include the sidewalk and landscaping, but if you would go to a proposed site plan or the landscaping plan there is also efficient. Or maybe go down to L2, Marla, I'm not sure who's running this ship right now, but... So Delilah's running the screen and so just to clarify, there's a couple of things at play here. There's the packet and then I got from Jeff, today or yesterday, I apologize, don't quite remember, sort of a supplemental packet that attempted to respond to some of the staff comments. So Jeff, when you're talking about these things, it'd be helpful if you could clarify, whether you're looking at the new stuff or the old stuff, not old stuff, but the stuff that was in the packet or the stuff that you just submitted. Sure, and unless I guess otherwise commented, Marla or Delilah, I'll be referencing the most updated revised material that was submitted yesterday. Okay, so just for the board's sake, so you understand that hasn't been incorporated into the staff report at all. This is their attempt to address some of the staff comments and present their proposal to you. Okay. So I think that L2, that planning plan here does a good job of showing that dark kind of square area is a brick paver inlay of the sidewalk entrance into the new door location at the east or front side of the building. And so we've added a sidewalk that directly connects to the existing and proposed sidewalk along the north side of the building, as well as extended a set of eight foot wide stairs up to the sidewalk at the most convenient location to access both doors of the proposed building and modifications. So you're addressing comment number one and two, simultaneously it looks like. In some fashion, yes, yeah. And Marla, when I asked if they've modified the front entry, did I see you shaking red, no? I mean, they may have, but it's not, I guess they haven't presented it. So if what Jeff is saying is this new plan shows a modified entry, I guess I'm a little confused. No, Marla clarified that the building elevations and the door entry were not modified from the original supplemental material. Got it. So the packet elevations haven't been changed, but they've changed the landscaping and patio around it a little bit from what was in the packet. Okay. And I apologize, I was not here when you did your original presentation in March. So are we ready to move on to number three? Does anyone have it? No, we are. Okay. No, no, no, we're not ready to move on. I have issues. Oh, okay, good. Go ahead, Mark. Do you want me to go to a specific thing? This one's fine. I think to me the issue I have is that just by putting a double door in the middle of a glass wall on the front of the building does not make it a focal point. You know, it still reads to me and functions as a side entrance to the building that no one's ever gonna use because you have to walk past the main entrance to the building. You know, you're, I assume that the main entrance to the showroom and to the sales floor is facing the parking lot in the glass two-story patreon space. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. No worries. So if I can draw on this because I think this doesn't show it quite as clearly as some other views that I've seen. Sorry, Linda. No, just keep this one, I think. This guy is the front door. Yes. This guy, I don't know what the purpose of that door is. Jeff, maybe you can- That's to load cars into the showroom. So people use this door. This door is locked and this is the door that faces Shelburne Road. That's right. So the door that you're pointing at right now, it's obviously just my opinion, you know, but it's never gonna be used. I don't think how anyone would even know that it's there since it's just a ribbon of storefront double doors in a ribbon of storefront windows. You know, there's nothing on the building which says there's an entrance, there's no portico, there's no differentiation in the building facade that says it's the front door. Cause clearly it's not supposed to be the front door. Your front door, you put it in because the zoning regulations require you to have the building frontage face, you know, Shelburne Road. And it's just not doing it for me. You know, I think at the last meeting, my suggestion was that you make the main entrance to the building into the two-story space and face it on Shelburne Road, then even your landscape plaza, your set of stairs up there, everything would actually work. And if that was your main entrance, people would use it just cause they have to walk around the corner, but it's right at the corner of Shelburne Road and your parking lot. And it would say to the public that that's your front door, you know, that's probably just my take. Mr. Bairk, can I reply to that on a couple levels? And I certainly understand and appreciate your thoughts on that and the intent of the zoning regulations. You know, a couple of things I wanna point out to the board members, and some of them are obvious to understand, but you know, we're certainly dealing with an existing building and location and grade here and parking lot layout where we don't have the ability to necessarily make the front entrance on Shelburne Road, the primary entrance that customers are gonna utilize, given the existing layout of the site and the steep slope along Shelburne Road. Secondarily, you know, I think they refer to it as the jewel box, but this two leveled glass patio or glass area, a corner on the building is kind of a showroom feature and where they have vehicle display at that corner. So even though there's a door there to get the vehicles in and out, having any specific egress or in or out on that corner is difficult to accommodate from an internal layout standpoint and still be able to display their vehicles in the way that they intend to do. And you know, and then three, realistically, you know, unfortunately, the way this site is operated and laid out, 99% people are gonna be using that door on the north side of the building because most users of this facility are gonna be driving in, whether it's service or purchase customers in parking their vehicles there and not obviously have that desired means to walk the extra 50 to 75 feet to get to that door on the east face. So what we've tried to do is accommodate the intent, have that door at a location where it's underneath an overhang is functional from that standpoint, has some patio features, some landscaping features that make it attractive for the people that do utilize it but still make it functional from a pedestrian access point as far as gaining access up to Shelburne Road via the stairs and the main entrance on the north side of the building as well. So I just wanna point a few of those things out even if they were kind of obvious. And if I may as well, I'm assuming the intent of this rule is for aesthetic purposes, is that fair to say? This building is I think very unique as far as buildings that are situated along Shelburne Road in that you really can't see that portion of the building from Shelburne Road because there's such a steep embankment. Yeah, I get that. Okay. So I guess I'm just trying to figure out how we balance the actual language of the LDRs with the reality of an existing building with difficult site constraints because I see where they are in conflict. Yeah. I don't wanna say conflict because that means the regulations were written incorrectly but the application. The building was designed prior to this requirement and that's the reality of yeah. Is the regulations say entries, building on subject property shall have at least one entry facing the primary road in the corridor, any entry shall and shall means that we have to do it. And unless there's a variant. I don't know. And sometimes there is and sometimes there isn't. Yeah. Be an operable entrance as defining these regulations. It is an operable entrance. I see that I get it. But the next one, which is far longer and far more detailed, serve architecturally has a principal entry. Front entry shall be the focal point of the front facade and shall be easily recognizable feature of the building. It's not, obviously. Possibilities include accenting front entries with features such as awnings, porticoes, overhangs, recesses, projections, decorative front doors and side lights or emphasis through varied color or special materials. Now that's what tells what you need to do but the reality is of how you wanna function with the building. This requirement does not preclude additional entry doors into the building. So that means yes, I understand it might be considered a waste to make it a more focal feature that won't be seen, that won't be this, won't be that, won't be used. But in this district, it's saying they want a focal front door to the building for this area. You can still be using the main one from the parking lot. And I'm just saying it doesn't meet the regulations just by putting a set of double doors into an exhibit or not the proposed storefront ribbon. I don't have the regulation in front of me. Can you read the part again where it talks about the focal point in the front that sentence there? Be serve architecturally as principal entry, front entry shall be a focal point of the front facade and shall be easily recognizable feature of the building. Possibilities include accenting front entries with features such as awnings, porticoes, overhangs, recessed as projections. And I know you'll say it's a recessed and it has a projection, but it's not distinguishable from the rest of the facade. So we'll, well, if we're gonna, the last sentence of that section is nonsense. It's this, this requirement shall not preclude additional principal entry doors. You can't have additional principal entry doors. You can only have one principal entry door. I get you, I see it's a language thing, but I know the rest of it. So if it's willing to be, well, my point in support of the applicant is if it's willing to be that incoherent in the last sentence of the subsection, you know, what's the minimum he could do? You don't want to tear the building apart, right? We'll went on and do the trick. Will a two foot overhang additional do the trick? What will do the trick? I think to, because get understanding that I get that it's not gonna be the principal entry. So I'm not asking you to redesign the building just to meet the intent given how difficult this site is and the existing building constraints you have to work with. For the reason now that we wouldn't like it to be, but we can't change human behavior. Right, right, the parking lot where it is. And I'm not trying to be the difficult board member holding up this project. I totally get that as well. You know, I've been doing this long enough to know that this isn't gonna be the make or break, but you gotta make sure that everything is done as well as you can. Sure. I would note that, you know, I think that we're making, you're making an assumption that this site, I mean, in the staff notes, it says if more than 50% of the facade is proposed to be altered, then these regulations apply. They're altering more than 50% of the facade and they have, the world is their oyster for that 50% of the facade. Right, they could create a principal entry at the corner. Their corporate says you can't, but that doesn't mean that some other car dealership couldn't or some other use couldn't. I don't know that this is an impossible, this is a, we're making the assumption that the applicant's desire dictates what is possible. No, I get that, that's why I said, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you Frank. Well, I was just gonna say, but I thought the reason why they quote couldn't was compelling. I mean, it's a car dealership, right? What it's about is the cars, you know? Right. And so you're aware. Bring that, the, thank you. So you're aware, the corner where we suggested maybe putting a door, where it's actually called the jewel box, there's actually a car on a lift. Yeah. Right. On the second floor. Right. So you can't have a customer walking in underneath the car on a lift because that would just, that could be a disaster. So we, so it can't go there. Well, but it could. You could have your car on a lift somewhere else is what I'm saying. I'm not saying that's what you want. I'm just saying the word can't and the word want or don't want are two different words. And that's where we as a board work with you guys to try to come up with a compromise that still meets the intent of the regulations or recognizes that you're trying to do business. I think I would come back to the fact though that the intent of the regulations is when you're driving down Shelburne Road, there's a certain aesthetic and again, you can't even see this area when you're driving down Shelburne Road. Would it be possible to do something on the Shelburne Road side? And I understand it's down, but and maybe Delilah, you can correct me. You have the, right now you're proposing to put the Mazda logo on the north side of the building. Could you put that on the Shelburne, create some doors and put that above with some fancy, you're the architect, Mark. But have the logo be there. Sometimes. I'll let Jeff weigh in on that or the architect, one or the other. I think Marla touched on it that we are limited by Mazda's design program. So they do have signage and we could ask them if we could rearrange it. So it looked a little bit more corresponding with the entrance, but that's part of the reason that we were sort of saying we can't because they have a very programmatic relationship with how the sales occur within that showroom. So if we start moving those pieces and parts around, it's a pretty small building. It doesn't fit in it as well. So when you say corporate or someone says corporate, you mean like corporate, not in Vermont. It's not able tolls decision. No, no, no. Okay. Mazda, yes. And if you're, there you go. Yeah. And I don't think that photo really shows the elevation change. No, but you are seeing it from Shelburne Road. Yes. It's not as hidden as we're, you're sort of saying, you know, you're driving down Shelburne Road. It's not like the building is, you know, hidden behind it. The building is not what you really can't see are the first however many feet from ground level. I could tell you what color shirt the salespeople wear on my way home. Yeah. I think it was the case that the door will be visible. I mean, you will see it as part of that storefront. But it's not a focal point or indistinguishable from the rest of the facade. It's just a ribbon of storefront in a six by seven or eight, you know, pattern. There's nothing else that tells you it's a door. I think if maybe I could help us work through this that as Mr. Cokman pointed out, there's an at best an ambiguity in the rule as to what is the primary entrance that the rule allows for a primary entrance on the side. And certainly if there is any ambiguity in the rule that's to be interpreted in favor of the applicant. So I think if we can overcome the fact that in reality if it's human nature, if they're gonna be parking on the side that more people may tend to use the side door that the rules actually allow for that. So I think we're just coming down to Mr. Perez. You've been saying you want a little more pop essentially or distinction. For the front of the building. For the, for that entrance. It's meant to be front facing on Shelburne Road even if it's functionally side, you know. It is front facing. I think you're focusing on the. The entrance components. The aesthetics of the entryway itself. Right. An awning doesn't do it for you. But I don't see an awning. I'm saying is there's nothing right now. But that's what I was holding that an awning to you. Right. You go down the Middlebury, you know, for 1500 bucks, you get an awning. A nice one too, right? I think if there was. Okay, 35 bucks. So I guess the question is for the architect, is there some additional feature that could be placed upon that doorway that would make the board happen? Yes, and which is exactly what the regulations allow for and require you to do. Some combination of, you know, it's such as awnings, protocols, overhangs or a distinct difference in the actual front door. You know, do something that's not, you know, just the standard three, but double three by six, you know, Connie or Trifab, you know, storefront, you know, double swing doors, something that differentiates it with an awning and maybe see if Mazda let you put up the Mazda above that front door. Since you already have on the old building in Google Street view, the auto saver, you know, was on that location. So Sarah, what is your opinion as to that concern? What concern? Yeah, I mean, I don't think we, we would have to take this back to Mazda and ask them what they would allow us to do to make that entrance a focal point. That's not part of their image. So they might allow us to, you know, put some legs down by the side of the door. So at least it kind of points your eye to the door. But, you know, we just don't know what Mazda will let us do. Can I put it one-off in two? And again, I don't like stating the obvious. Maybe it's moot because it's relevant on some level. But I'm looking at these elevations right here. And I'm also seeing that the proposed front door that we're calling the primary door and then the east facing door that's facing Chauvin Road are essentially the exact same. So are we, I guess, you know, we're saying it needs to be further accented or does that not apply to the fact that the actual primary door that's gonna get used has the exact same aesthetic to it or does that not really factor into what we're calling the east facing door? By the regulations, it doesn't factor into it because it's not primary road in the corridor. So your side entry, even if that's the main entry, by the way, I read the regulations could be as bland as you want it to be. Yeah, right, right. Sarah, what if we considered some form of an accent film at that front facing door just to give it some more contrast with the glazing adjacent to it? Yeah, we could try for that if that would satisfy the board as enough of a distinction. For my part, I'm not a board member but I don't know what that means. You're talking about something to just give the glazing a different film, a different texture, a different reflection of natural lighting, a different color distinction, something that just separates it and gives it contrast and distinction from the rest of the facade, the rest of the glazing around it, something that just draws your eye to it. Yeah, it needs to stand out, I think is the point. But nothing that's a sign. That would be the intent of the application. But nothing that's a sign or could be construed as a sign. Okay, so the Mazda logo would be considered a sign. The Mazda logo, the Mazda colors, anything that's trademark-y Mazda. Because we don't approve signage, so we can't use it as a component of the plan. Jeez. I think he's suggesting like a cross and a film on the glass, not signage. And I think an awning, something that brings your eye to that entry, even if you're not gonna end up using it. I think maybe if we can meet partway here that if we can differentiate the color, I don't think if you're looking at that front, there would be no doubt here's the entrance. Okay. The color of the framing of the door or the color of the glass? I think, Dan, you were suggesting the glass. The glass is an easy enough solution that I think we would all be amenable to it. And it would be more prominent in my opinion than changing the framing color and a little less disruptive to the specifications of the assembly as a whole. I think we could create a film application that got the intent of the regulations across without reinventing the wheel here. So this sounds to me like the sort of thing where the applicant has a lot of guidance and they should come back and propose what they think. I agree. Well, I think as we sit here right now, we are willing to say that we would modify the color of the glass on those doors so that it is more prominent than the remainder of the front. But I think we need to see an image of that. Could you guide us on what would be an acceptable image that we could conform to and agree to conform to? We're trying to avoid coming back from the center here for something like this. Well, so let's get through the other stuff. Put a pin in that, yeah. See if that's the only thing I agree with you on that. Okay, let's move on to number three. In response to FITHO, what happened to two? One more comment for Mazda. Ask Mazda how they feel about their image compared to another 3,000 square feet of car space. So I thought we had already addressed two because you talked about modifying the walkway. But you haven't had a chance to review what they proposed. Right, so my suggestion is that if they want to show something new that they show it, I don't know if the board followed what Jeff was saying. I felt like it went too fast for my understanding. If the board members all think that they understand and agree that it addresses the comment, then that's fine. I just didn't. I had a hard time following two. Marla, just to clarify briefly number two, there was no change as well to the proposed sidewalk or staircase or entryway. So here's one point, Jeff. This is probably more to you than anyone else as the civil engineer. If you were to just move that set of stairs and the sidewalk down so that it aligns with the front entry since so few people are actually going to be using it, but it will draw your eye as that is an entry and it is going to be a functional entry. And if people wanted to come off the sidewalk, come down it and get still going to the parking lot, you're only talking about a half a building length. To me, that would also be more indicative of a pedestrian friendly front entry. Then like I said, that entry that's supposed to be added in with the sidewalk going down to it, it feels like a side door. Whereas if you have the sidewalk coming off Shelburne Road with the steps down and the side going to it, that to me says a lot more that it's an actual front door than having it down a path. So those three trees, two on the right side of the sidewalk and one on the left side of the sidewalk, those are in the city right of way. Their property line is the line left of that third circle tree. That's the property line and the right tree would have to come down to extend that up and build stairs. So Mr. Berry, in response to that, I certainly understand that as well. It was actually something we did contemplate. There were a couple of reasons that we decided to put the stairs where they're proposed now. One is, as Marlop pointed out, there's existing vegetation there that we did not want to impact as part of that location. The grading there is not as smoother, transitional as it is. There's a pretty big steep drop off kind of right in front where that front door entrance is right now. And then, secondarily, understanding that the actual functional primary entrance to the building will be on the north side. We were trying to make the staircase as actually pedestrian accessible to the building as possible. Okay. That being said, if it's simply moving that. I get it. I'm trying to make something work that may not. What if they changed the scoring pattern or something along the entryway to kind of make that more decorative to lead you to here? Yeah, you see that with their supplemental. And for what that's worth, yeah. The dark or hatched areas where the picnic table are and right in front of the front door are a different paver material to separate itself from the standard sidewalk. So there was, I know the renderings and the building profile elevations don't actually show that, but the amount of landscaping and the pavers and everything that go into that whole east side of the building, we're done with some intent to make it visually appealing. Yeah. I'm gonna interrupt for a second. It's quarter of 10 and we generally don't go beyond 10 o'clock and I'm seeing some other applicants in the audience. And I'm wondering if, since we will not be getting into your projects tonight, I apologize, you've been very patient, but can we just put you out of your misery tonight? And we'll have to schedule another date for your application. I'm sorry. Oops, sorry. We do need to continue to a specific date. Right. So do you- Which means we have to open the hearing. Yeah. Okay. Make a motion to continue. Okay. All right. I mean, they don't have to be here for that, but I think it would be helpful for them to be able to confirm that they're able to make the date. And are the applicants, I know TMICU here, is there somebody from the Vermont Common School here? Okay. Thank you. Can we take a break and open those hearings and continue them and then come back to you for whatever time is remaining? I mean, that's a lot of work for 13 minutes of saving there. Do you think, I mean, it's a lot of work for letting them leave 13 minutes early. So what should we do? I think we just carry on, make sure we leave. Wrap this one up and then continue the other two. Continue. All right. Okay, thanks. So I'm sorry, it was a heavy, heavy agenda tonight. And people have to work in the morning. It's kind of our rule now. We don't go beyond 10, but so we'll have to continue this hearing, I'm afraid. I know, I'm sorry. Third time. Why don't we run through the comments and just make sure if there's anything else that we sort of want them open on. Number three was a question, and is the board satisfied with what the applicant has provided? Apparently at the last hearing, which I wasn't at, there was discussion by the board about the metal coping. And I think something was said about the coping earlier. Sure it was me. No, no, the applicant. Originally the facade just went straight up as a flat parapet. And so we added a bump out at the very top to function as a cornice. So it's still very simple, a box cornice, but it does provide some relief from the face of the wall. I am looking at the guy. There's no way we can get through these. Okay. I mean, there's just no way. I apologize. Can we at least do number four, since that's the main reason I'm here. Okay. I live an hour and a half away. Thanks. So this calls for the need to record a cross lot easement. And we did submit a proposed, we submitted an easement that was part of yesterday's packet. Okay. Yep. All right. So did you want to, I mean, they haven't seen that. So you're welcome to present it. Tell us about it. Tell us about questions you had. Yeah, the easement is the 30 foot recommendation across the back. I just want to ask that, oh, there you go. I'm sorry. We can't. I'm sorry, if you're looking for the plan or if you're looking for the language itself, but on the plan there, it's in the bottom left corner. Yeah, right there. Yep. Running through the back of the property is, I believe had been previously discussed. So it connects to the northerly, the driveway that's on the northerly or the property that goes to the traffic light. Okay. So it's where the dumpsters currently are. If it's ever used, the dumpsters will have to be relocated or something. Okay. Okay. And you'll be recording that? Yes. Okay. All right. Does that seem to be adequate, Marla? I mean, I haven't reviewed the draft document. Right. I understand from, the location is exactly what we talked about. Okay. Jeff had emailed me some questions. So I felt like there was more concern that you guys wanted to bring up. I think, I mean, if you're fine with what we've submitted. I have no idea. Right. I guess we'll see if you are. Since we're coming back anyway. Okay. And the board will get this stuff that was submitted yesterday. And I'll have plenty of opportunity to review before we talk to you again. So I guess knowing time is an issue here. How quickly can we get back? I believe you made every couple of weeks. Is that right? Every, every, twice a month. Yeah. First and third Tuesdays. Yeah. And can we not be after a neighbor dispute? I'm on the DRB for St. Johnsbury. So I feel your pain. Yeah. This will be the second time that it's, that we didn't get to finish. It'll be the second time we didn't get to finish. And then actually in between the two times, we were scheduled, we were pushed off because you had too much on your agenda. So this is pushing us and pushing us. You were pushed off because you didn't get the materials to us on time. That's not my understanding. Okay. Well, I'll have to check my- You're understanding? I think that's okay. Jeff? As far as the, I think there was a discrepancy on what was required in order to satisfy the need to get on the last agenda. So there was, I'll call it miscommunication for lack of a better term. Okay. So regardless, we'd like to get back as soon as we can. Sure. So, yeah, I can. So here's the thing. I have room on the next agenda but we also have two other applicants in the room. And so I already have three things scheduled for the next agenda. If we put, you know, all three of these folks on the next agenda, that's six agenda items, which is one more than I ever try to do. Right. Right. We have to do a better job of time management when it comes to projects. Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I feel comfortable putting two things, but that's not great to, I mean, how do you decide? We can be one of them. That would be greatly appreciated just because there've been so many continuances at this point. How do you pick your favorite child, right? I don't know what to say. I mean, it was a heavy, heavy agenda and... No, I guess what I'm asking is if you have three or four potential candidates to go on the next agenda, I would submit that it makes sense to put the one that has had to have been continued through no fault of our own at least a couple times. If we could get on that, we would appreciate that. Help me up, Gord. Well, there is sort of a first come, first serve logic to what he's saying, but I don't know how easy it is to determine. I mean, I would leave it up to... Yeah, this was originally heard before the other two things were heard, I guess, both of the next two things have not yet been heard, so... Could we move some... I'll chime in and just say that, you know, if we had 20 more minutes left, we could probably get it done, but we don't. So, even though it may make for a quote full agenda at an upcoming meeting soon, it shouldn't take that long. They know what they need to take, so... Okay. And I was gonna say, if we move them all to the next meeting, if there's space, then can we set time limitations ahead of time? So, each applicant gets the same amount of time, and if they don't use up their whole allotted time, then that can just get distributed and just let everyone know you all have this much amount of time to go through your items. Plus, the other items this evening, one's a sketch plan and one's sort of like a minor site plan, conditional use, I mean, reviewing them, I didn't think it was a huge block of time. Good. So, the suggestion is that we're gonna continue everything to the next hearing on June 7th, when we have, just keep in mind, one new member and two members aren't here. And a chair, the acting chair. I certainly would rather try. Sure. Then not try. Dan, since you're gonna be the one in charge in June, what do you think? Let's go for it. Okay. I'll keep on the check, it's clerk. I'll be bad cop and crack the whip. Okay. What are you guys whispering about? All right, so we will see you back. Is it June 7th? So you need to make a motion and a second to continue to June 7th, please. Who would like to move? I'll make a motion that we continue SP 22003, 1795, Shelburne Road to June 7th. I will second that. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion? All right. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. And we will see you in June. June 7th. Thanks. Thank you. All right. Come on up, Tim. Site plan application SP22019 and conditional use application CU2203. I'm sorry, that's the wrong one. Sketch plan application SD2206 to South Burlington City Center, LLC to subdivide a 5.86 acre parcel into three lots ranging in size from 0.36 to 3.62 acres for the purpose of subdividing the lands of a storm pond, a future city street and a development lot at Zero Market Street. Tim, is there anyone else here? Andy. What is your name, please? Andy Rowe, Lamarone Dickinson. Thank you. And Tim McKenzie. Kenzie, South Burlington Realty. Right. Okay, thanks. Thanks for your patience tonight. I'm sorry about this. You understand. So we open this and then... Have we opened it? No, it's a sketch plan. Oh, yeah. Sketch plan, we don't have to swear you in. So would someone like to move that we continue this hearing to June 6th? 7th. I'll make a motion that we continue the sketch plan application SD-2206 of South Burlington City Center LLC to June 7th. Second. Thanks, Dan. Any discussion? All in favor of continuing this? Signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, we'll see you back here on June 7th. I'm sorry. Thank you for your patience. Yeah, okay. All right. Now, site plan application SP-22019 conditional use application, CU-2203 of Vermont Common School to amend a previously approved plan for a general office building. The amendment consists of converting to educational facility as a use and a minor site modifications at 55 Green Mountain Drive. Who is here for the applicant, please? Hi, I'm Dexter Mahaffey. I'm head of school at Vermont Common School and Dave Marshall with Civil Engineering Associates is here with me. Thank you. Okay, thank you for your patience. I'm sorry about that tonight. Would someone like to move that we continue? I'll make a motion to... Can you make it on the June 7th date? Is that okay for you guys? Works for me. I don't know about that. We'll make it work. Okay, thanks. I know Dave's a busy man. I'll make a motion to continue the hearing for SP-22-019-CU-2203 at 55 Green Mountain Drive to June 7th. Do we have a second? A second. Okay, any discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, sorry. We'll see you back here in June. Very good. That's good, thank you. Thank you for your time. Thanks. All right. We have some minutes to approve. Minutes of March 25th and May 4th. Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said March 29th. 29th, okay, I didn't catch that. Okay. All in favor of approving the minutes of March 29th and May 4th, signify by saying aye. Just one comment. Yeah. Can you add that I was present on the May 4th meeting? Good, thank you. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Okay, the minutes are approved. Thank you. That's the end of tonight and we'll see you on June 7th. All right, thanks, sir. Thanks, everyone. Thanks.