 Thank you. Good evening and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for January 3rd, 2024. Happy New Year everyone. This meeting is being recorded. My name is Don Filibird. I'm chair of the board and I'd like to introduce other board members. Stephanie Wyman, Mark Baer, Frank Koepman, Charlie Johnson, John Muscatelli, Quinn Mann, and our staff Marty Gillis and Betsy Brown. Thank you for coming. There are a number of ways to participate in tonight's hearing, one of which is to attend as many of you are doing. The other way is to attend virtually online and if you're doing that, please make sure you and if you're here in person, please make sure you sign in and the sign-in sheet out back to register your participation. You can do so if you're online by signing into the chat room and providing your contact information. If you're phoning in, which is the third way to participate, please send an email with your contact information to M-K-E-E-N-E from Marlekeen at SouthBurlingtonDT.gov. Okay, let's go ahead and get started. First, emergency evacuation procedures. In the event of an emergency, you would exit one of the two doors in the back corners of the auditorium and turn left or turn right and you'll be outside. Hopefully that will not be an issue ever. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? All right, thank you. Moving on to any announcements. Announcements, anyway? Okay, good. It's a new year. Number four on the agenda. Are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Hearing none, we'll move on to agenda item number five. Let me read this item to you. Continued master plan sketch plan application, SD 2312 of Eric Ferrell for an existing approximately 105-acre lot development with two single-family homes and six unoccupied or accessory structures. The master plan consists of placing approximately 74 acres into permanent conservation, conveying approximately one acre to a betters and constructing 124 additional homes in buildings ranging from single-family to 12 units on 28.25 acres at 1,195 Shelburne Road. The applicant has requested a continuation and so we will vote on that but we need to have a date for that continuation. I believe Jeff Hodgson's online and maybe he's he's probably here to speak to that. Hey Jeff, are you there? Hi, yeah, I'm here for the beta project. Okay. Oh sure. Are you are you here to speak for continuation of the Eric Ferrell continued master plan sketch? Nope, I'm not not involved in that project. Okay, thanks Jeff. So do we have a recommended continuation date? Yes, I have an email thread between Marla and Mike Busher from the applicant. They have they did not finalize the email thread but they had discussed the date of February 20th. I guess Marla's on vacation this week and they didn't wrap it up before she left but they had both said the 20th worked and then the final question was one would staff new materials by and that was not resolved but I assume that's probably not an issue or at the very least we can continue to the 20th and then if that's an issue we can bump it further. We'll figure it out. But they both parties have expressed that the 20th is okay. So I would entertain a motion to continue SD 2312 to February 20th 2024. So moved. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? I'm gonna need to abstain. Okay, thanks. I'm abstaining as well. Okay, thank you. So all in favor of continuing SD 2312 to February 20th say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No, abstentions? Okay, we will see them back here on February 20th. Okay, item number six on the agenda. Oh, yeah come on up. I always forget to ask if there are any conflicts and thank you for declaring. Are there any conflicts for item number six? Okay, thanks Stephanie. Stephanie is recused. All right, site plan application SB 24002 of Beta Technologies, Inc. to amend a previously approved planned unit development of 344,000 square feet manufacturing and office building, a 30,800 square foot office and retail building, a 15,600 commercial square foot commercial building and an 85,000 square foot flight instruction and airport use building on 40.43 acres. The amendment consists of after the fact approval to modify the approval approved landscaping, pardon me, adjacent to the manufacturing and office building, provide placement for improperly removed vegetation along Williston Road, modify the driveway configuration for the existing building at 355 Valley Road in Marist site improvements at 154 Defensive Drive. Who is here for the applicant? Hi, this is Art Clugo, Beta Technologies. Hi Art, happy new year. Happy new year. So as you know, we go through the staff report and focus on those highlighted red comments or bolded red comments. Should we see if anyone is online with Art's team? Yes, that would be a good thing to do. Thank you. Art, do you have any other members of your team online? We do. Okay. We have Cynthia and Jeff from Wagner. Oh, there they are. Jeff and Cynthia. Okay. I'm going to swear you. And then Chris Gendron as well from Stanfax. Okay. Raise your right hand please. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Okay. Thank you. Art, before we kind of launch into the staff report, are there any introductory comments that you want to make briefly? I'd just like to echo the thoughts about having a great new year. It's been a while since we've been back. There's been some fantastic things happening out on the project site with Beta where we open the building. We're in the process of producing airplanes and I think since we last met, we're up to over 600 employees, team members, and looking to hire an additional 125 to 150 this year. So everything seems to be trending in the right direction and certainly is a facility that we came to permit. Some years ago, I get this at this point in front of this board is part of that success. So, you know, everybody on here should hopefully take some pride in that and we keep an open door for any visits that you might want to have to come out and see the project. Great. Okay. Let's go through the staff report. Let's see the first comment. I'm going to read this on page five. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide plantings between the two buildings to mitigate abrupt contrast in scale. But before we get into that, could you please, why were all the trees removed? I know you were waiting for that. What happened? So the trees weren't actually removed. The trees were relocated. There was a section of Da Vinci Drive, which is the new private drive that was installed between Wilson Road and Eagle Drive adjacent to wetlands that were without trees. The area in between the building, as you may or may not have seen, I'm not sure whether the airport director's email has made it around to the board, but there is a portion of that area between the buildings where the airport won't allow trees to be planted. And so there's some reduction for, yeah, for a variety of reasons. Security, safety, trees attract birds, birds and airplanes aren't real good together. So there's a variety of reasons for that. And there was a sketch that was developed either the beginning of this week or the end of last week with some input from Marla and between the director that came through as an email. And maybe Marty, if you have that sketch, it wasn't the other email that I sent earlier today, we can bring that up just for the board's benefit to see where those limits are. And so with that input between, we didn't want to remove the trees because the trees were part of the overall landscape master plan. So we simply relocated them to a part of the project where they seemed to fit better with the overall intent of the master plan. There were some of the trees that were kept, but not all of them in that same location. So it was an unanticipated glitch. Yes, as projects like this typically have, there are field changes that happen. You try not to have that happen. This is one of the instances where a field change was needed. And we felt like we were being consistent with what the master plan intent was by not deleting the trees, keeping the trees, and simply moving them to a place that was more public and better utilized around the driveway and the wetlands. Okay. All right. Are we waiting? Hold on. We're waiting. I have a hard copy for, if I'm happy to give this to the board. Oh, there it is. Great. Yes. So you can see the red line there that was drawn by the director, Nick Longo, for the area where no trees would be permitted by the airport. And then you can see that to the left of that line, there's an area where there are four trees shown plus two in that nook right there, the square, if you come down, right? Those two are planted. Those are in. The other four were part of the group of trees that are shown there along the building that were relocated to Da Vinci Drive. And there was a drawing that was submitted as part of the packet that shows where those trees are. And that is in the packet, it's sheet L-025. What was the page number again? Sorry. L-025, sorry. Yeah, 205. Thanks, Betsy. You're welcome. And while you're pulling that up, I should note that in addition to relocating those trees, we actually, to make sure the trees were consistent with the other trees planted along Da Vinci Drive, the size of the tree was increased. And so our landscape budget actually increased. It was almost a two-for-one increase in the landscape budget as we relocated those trees to make sure that that drive was consistent with the trees that were permitted under the original approval. Thanks for that additional information. So here at the lower part of the plan there, you can see where the trees were moved to. And then the top part of the plan shows where the trees came from. Okay. Questions for? I don't, Frank. No, they do. So, yeah, great. So, yep, on the right hand side of the trees is the new production facility. On the left-hand side of the trees is a hangar, which the airport notes as the south hangar. It's the new location where the Burlington Technical Center will be going. There was a previous tenant that has moved out, and so the airport is working with the technical center, their consultants. There you go. Great. So that yellow building right there. Would you stick with that previous? Would you stick with the previous plan? So, do those buildings exist, in fact? They do. Both of them, the building to the right, the production facility, is recently completed and open. The building to the left was an existing building that is unoccupied as far as I know, but is going through a design phase for the relocated Burlington Technical Center aviation program. I'm not sure it matters, but I don't understand why they're not shown on the comparison plan as installed. Why are they disappeared on that plan? Because that is the current, that bottom plan is intended to represent the current condition after the trees were moved. So, the trees that are shown between the two buildings up above are the trees that were then relocated to the location in the bottom. So, are the buildings, are these buildings to be built, or are those buildings that are in fact there? The buildings are in fact there. In fact, there's a picture of one. Yeah, I have a picture. Betsy can show us. I assume, are these the buildings? Yes, they are. So, the building to the left of the yellow building is the existing hangar that will be renovated here sometime in the next couple of years for the Burlington Technical Center. The building to the right, which is the white building, is the building that was recently finished, which is Beta's production facility. And then in the foreground, you can see one of the two trees that was planted that we looked at in the first drawing that the director had provided. So, if I'm looking at it correctly, if I'm looking at the photo correctly, there's only a little bit of window to look out of. I don't, in the white building, I don't know where you'd be standing even to look out the window. Where would you be standing? Can you look out the window or is that just the white window that's not accessible? So, there are no windows in the in the foreground there on the first floor to look out of. There is a door halfway down in that shot, which is an aluminum frame and glass door, like a typical storefront door, like if you were walking into City Hall here. And then everything else is solid along that line for security reasons. The windows that you see up above are on the second floor and those are in the office and office support spaces. So, those windows look out over onto the hanger roof and then the the face on the first floor is intentionally kept mostly opaque. So, if I'm looking at it right, just really in support of your application here. The only people who are losing anything or who might even notice the absence of the trees between the buildings are the people who sit in those offices. Correct. I mean there's not the the other walls totally blank, the one across the way. Correct. However, when we move on to number two, it addresses that. So, Mark, did you have a question? Yeah. So, when you met with the airport director and he sort of put a line through it and said, thou shalt not plant beyond this line. Right. That's pretty much your plan, your current as approved landscaping plan has trees running the whole length of that sidewalk, like almost the length of the building. It does. There was an administrative change also that reduced the planting area. A couple of things are important to note in that photo, which is a really good one. Yeah. So, our lease line runs down the the edge of that transformer, which you can see about halfway down the picture, the gray green box. The sidewalk that you see on the right hand side of Jason, our building used to sit right along the edge of the building and it was moved away from the building four feet to allow for drip edge and rainwater stormwater management. That reduced some of the landscape area that was available for the plantings. And then you can see the on the left hand side in the yellow building, the white overhead door. If you were to draw a line perpendicular between the two buildings, that's where that red line is that's referenced on the director's email. It's about it where the overhead door is. Yeah. On our side. Yeah. Close in the foreground of the overhead door. Correct. So, and so what you basically did was you decide you, I say you decided that sounds kind of funny, but you decided to take all the trees rather than just the ones beyond the line he said to remove and you move them along Da Vinci Drive. Yeah, there were some conversations that happened some time ago that there was a potential that the buildings would be connected. So besides the utilities that run underground in that green space and the potential for a future connection to the building, we felt that the other four trees that would remain would be better served along Da Vinci Drive where they were relocated. Are there any current existing potential conflicts with the underground utilities and the root ball for the four trees that could ever remain beyond the line? There are. There are an underground utilities there. Yeah. Okay. Maybe I'm maybe I'm just missing something. I mean, I don't well, I have another issue, which is why you're here after the fact, which I don't quite understand, but come back to that later. But as far as on the merits, is there something in the foreground? I mean, this is from an aesthetic standpoint, this looks like a complete non-issue. What's a non-issue, Frank? Pardon? What's a non-issue? The removal of trees from between these buildings seems to be. This is a Larry from the airport. It's a great idea. Quite unimportant. Jeff, is that you? Now, this is Larry from the airport. It makes sense to where data put them from an aesthetic standpoint rather than here. I mean, even they're not even going to get sun here, so they wouldn't even grow very well. And they can't be here anyway because of the attracting of wildlife. So thank you. Larry Lackey from the airport. So let's, does anyone have any burning issues before we move on to two? Because two is kind of related. We'll just stick with one for one second. So I think staff's kind of point here was that there is no maybe out the window benefit for this landscaping. But staff, I guess just looking at the language of the LDRs, subsection C here, 1406C. Developments are supposed to minimize and mitigate abrupt contrast and scale. And so I guess staff's feeling was that in the initial application, one of the ways that the applicant had mitigated the abrupt contrast and scale between the existing yellow building and the new white building was through the provision of this landscaping that somehow softened the difference between the two. And so I think that's kind of where the comment comes from, unless from like a, what does it look like at your window standpoint, but more of the, you know, the softening of the transition. So that's kind of, I think the merit that we're debating and not so much whether anyone's going to get any visual enjoyment out of it, because I think we can all agree that that's pretty minimal. I keep coming back to the same thing, mitigate it for whose benefit. I mean, it looks totally obscure. Am I missing something about the view? Is there something in the foreground that people are in fact going to spend a lot of time looking down that channel? I suppose only if you were going up and down to venture drive. Yeah, and maybe at this point, Marty, it might be good to bring up those other two photos that I sent earlier today. I wasn't sure whether we would need them, but it seems like a good reference point given where the conversation's at. I think one thing to keep in mind is that, you know, the as installed picture looks like something that we should have asked for, should have been put in first place as trees along DaVinci Drive. So the fact that they weren't and these approved trees were moved to there, I think is a is a fair compromise to get some, because I think those look better than some trees in between two industrial buildings. That's it. Yeah. And if you scroll to the bottom to your question, Frank, you can see that most of what happens, you know, is anybody going to walk down there? Is there some benefit or enjoyment? That is a completely utilitarian corridor. It's adjacent to the loading dock. There's you can see the four bays of the loading dock in there. And it really isn't. It's a different experience than what we're trying to create out in front of the building where you have all the open areas that we've talked about. And we're part of the master plan, which will eventually extend over to phase two. This design is not about art and it doesn't need to be. I think that net change is an improvement. I still don't know why you couldn't have come here first though. Any explanation for that? We were moving fast and you guys were busy. Other than that, I don't really have anything. I mean, it's one of those decisions you make in real time, Frank. And we felt like we were being consistent with, you know, what the intent was. So we felt like we were doing what was right for the project and for the master plan, which was approved by this board in good faith. Fortunately, you know, we've got a 40 acre development here. We've built 200,000 square feet, roughly $150 million. And we have three after the fact things that we're coming back for on the project. You don't like to come back for any, but all in all, given the approach that we took and how we, you know, tried to look at it through the lens of the development review board, we feel good about the outcome and where those trees landed. I just don't like our rep for being pushovers, that's all. I don't think you have that rep, but that's... All right, let's move on to number two. This is about the need for additional landscaping between the hangar and the building. So, what are your thoughts about this comment? I completely, first of all, I completely agree with this comment when you're dealing with incompatible uses. What we have here is an airport where we have two hangars next to each other in an area which is really beachfront. There is not a lot of land available at the airport and really from a highest and best use perspective, any square foot that we can use at the, that faces the apron and then has access to the taxi way should be utilized in that capacity. So, as we talked, there are some areas where the airport won't allow us to continue to build between the buildings. There are some other areas as we come back to the foreground towards the loading dock where there is some opportunity. So, with that in mind, I would suggest that the the finished condition that we have up there is the appropriate condition. So, board, the staff comment is calling for additional landscaping between the buildings. I'm sorry, forgive me for not having it friendly enough in mind. We're still talking about the same building? Yes. Thank you. So, is there any landscaping that could be put in that would not attract wildlife and compromise safety? No. I'm sorry, Marty. It makes no sense to put trees between two buildings. I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. Larry. Yeah, I'm sorry. Yeah. In the airport, it doesn't make any sense to put trees between those two buildings. Is there any other kind of landscaping other than trees that could be put there? For what? I mean, nobody, I mean, barely for who? I mean, makes no sense. I mean, this is a corridor that's barely seen. Yeah, even even low spreading shrubs attract ground nesting birds. So, there really aren't, you know, there's not much you could do between there and no one would see it if it was low anyway. Okay, thank you. Board, do you agree with that? Are you testimony? Yeah, are you okay with there? I am okay. I really do think that I think it's a net improvement, as Frank said, to move the trees that were proposed to a long DaVinci drive. Okay. Because ultimately, that's going to have a much nicer aesthetic feel for the whole project than keeping those, even if they had put those trees in between the buildings, regardless of, you know, getting comment from, you know, the airport director and all that. I think that the net improvement to the overall site is much better. Okay. Anyone disagree with that? Okay. So let's move on to number three. Staff recommends the board require adjustments to the proposed driveway modification if recommended by the Department of Public Works. And so previously it said staff has requested that DPW review the revised driveway for, as it pertains to safety and site distances and anticipates having an update at the time of the hearing. Do we have an update? We do. Erica, the Deputy Director of Capital Projects reviewed this and she said, I don't love adding the curve, particularly from a site distance point of view, but I think it would be okay since it's a low volume road and there's no crosswalk across the drive. Any questions or comments about that? We're okay with that? Okay, good. Thank you, Marty. Because perhaps a little testimony as to why. Why that has to be done? Why do you want to move the drive? Or why was the driveway moved, I guess, since we're coming in after the fact? That is a good question. Yeah, fair question. And that is shown on sheet C-200A. And then the previous drive, perhaps we should start on C-200A unmodified. So the first one. If you go up one more sheet. There you go. So in the upper left-hand corner, Marty, if you could just kind of put the cursor over that drive area, right up, come back towards the, there you go, right there, right there. So that was the original as approved location for that driveway. That driveway essentially cut the Vermont Flight Academy's parking in half and made it very difficult for them to use. It was no longer contiguous, and they lost parking spaces. Additionally, even though it was designed to code, it was steeper than what they wanted. We actually installed the driveway per the drawings. And then after review by the user, by the tenant, Vermont Flight Academy, they requested that the driveway be moved to its current location so that it worked with their flight operations and their training. So if you come back to the next sheet, you can see that that location was the location that was requested by the tenant and coordinated with the airport. It's less steep and does return the parking lot to the previous configuration. Any questions about that or comments? Okay, let's move on to number four. Number four relates to the tree replacement plan and a comment that we need acceptance by the City Arborist. Yeah, so the syntax, this is a little bit weird, but the comment from the Arborist is right above comment five. So I think this comment is supposed to say like we staff approves of the tree replacement plan pending boards enforcement of comment five below. Okay, comment five is staff recommends the board include a condition that sugar maples are not permitted as species for the proposed replacement plantings near the Williston Road entrance. Why is that? Do we know they just don't do well by salt? It might be worth having Jeff Hodgson or Cynthia. So either Jeff or Cynthia respond there. Cynthia, if you want to take this one, you're more involved. Yeah, so the choice of avoiding sugar maples next to roads that are salted and sanded is a very good one. I mean, we observe that most of the time anyway. So yes, despite the fact that two of the trees that were inadvertently removed were sugar maples, we would not put sugar maples back in proximity to the roadways or the sidewalks. The plan schedule that we submitted locating the sort of proposed replacement trees calls for sort of general maples. So that was intended to give the installer, the landscape contractor a little bit of flexibility in finding those trees in case it had to be done in a hurry. But generally they would be probably Freeman maples, which are urban tolerant. Okay, thank you. Questions from the board? Same question as last time. How did we accidentally remove two three foot diameter trees? This is when we wish that the contractor was here to help illuminate the situation. We were informed after the fact. Yeah, I think PC construction could give the kind of the most complete review of exactly what happened. It happened during rough grading. So presumably the grades as drawn sort of excavation allowance for actually creating them interfered with the root systems of those trees. And that is all the information we were given. We were just asked to figure out how to fix it afterward. Were there bad words uttered? There were not. It was very amicable. I was nice about it at least. I can't speak for art. We were very surprised. We were all very surprised. Yes. Well, one of the difficulties here, I mean the trees that we moved were really big trees that matured 34 inches. Yeah, that's a heck of a tree. Yeah, exactly. And that is really what drove the extent of the proposed replacements that the arborist looked at is we wanted to replace inch for inch to make sure that we felt like we were again in good faith and being consistent with what we set out to do here over on the master plan that we were being consistent. So but the short so help me out. The short term effect of whatever you're going to plant will be what? I mean, what is the diameter of the replacements that are going in? 34 inches. Well, if you bring this. Yeah, the typical thing to do is replace the total inches with smaller trees. Yeah. Typical compared to what? Because inch per inch really doesn't tell you much. Well, that's down 1866 square inches a tree. That's why you're given six inch replacements because they're four to six assuming the 14 trees are six inches you're replacing 396 square inches. This is the common practice that this is the common practice that South Burlington requires when you remove a large tree. Okay, but when you remove them improperly. What's the common practice then? It's the same, you know, you really have the interest for that that says it's the same. Like if we remove a tree that's been permitted on a previous old plan and it's now 12 inches, you know, we will replace, you know, three, four inch. And not to sidestep the issue here, Frank, but when we and this is strange that it actually works out this way. But for those that are familiar with carbon sequestration and trying to deal with embodied carbon and how, you know, what it is that we're doing the younger tree, given the age of those trees that came down, it was unfortunate that they came down. But from a benefit, an environmental benefit, what we're doing here outweighs what was existing on the site previously. Young trees store more carbon for a longer period of time. And I'll let Jeff correct me. No, you're correct. And, you know, while it sounds like these trees were big, they didn't have big canopies. I mean, they were big trunks. They were growing in kind of a confined space previously. So. But it looks like, John, you have some thoughts. I can pull some articles. My wife is way deep into this. And in fact, she gave me an article and suggested I bring it, which I didn't. So of course, she was right, as she usually is, that I should have that larger trees are actually sequester a lot more. This idea that you can cut down large trees and those small ones that grow or somehow doing more is not correct from anything that I've seen. But we can have a scholarly paper exchange and see what the case is. My question for Marty is, is there anything in the LDRs about this inch for inch replacement, given that it's really a square inch thing, not a linear inch? Yeah, I don't believe the LDRs get specific enough to differentiate between volume and linear width. And our typical practice has been, in those situations, just to do linear width with the assumption that the trees will, I guess, grow back to some amount of volume. But yeah, removal of trees with a caliber of greater than five inches requires DRB review. So that's why they're, that's one of the reasons why they're here. But yeah, inch for inches, historically, by our department, been defined as linear, as opposed to volume. And I would like to point, I don't know quite how this all works technically, it's been a while since I've been on the board, is that staff did administratively approve the replacement plan. What we're supposed to be focused on here tonight is the type of trees that are being installed and the proximity to the road to make sure that the remediation plan that we're proposing that was accepted by staff succeeds in the long term, that we're not short circuiting that by planting the wrong plants. I don't think so. I think we haven't approved, the board will approve the replacement plan, but I think staff just, the comment here is that staff considers it to be acceptable. So our recommendation is that the board approve, but we haven't approved it. We don't have the authority to do that. Yeah, thanks for that clarification, Marty. Thank you. Okay, that's the last staff comment. Does anyone have any final questions or comments before we vote to close this hearing? I'm with John. Well, do we have anyone here who could come forward with what it would take to more nearly approximate the total loss that was suffered by the removal of the large trees? From like, from, I guess, how do you want to quantify that volume of wood or? Well, John had a measure. I don't have a better one. I don't have an alternative. What about the City Arborist? I mean, yeah, I could definitely ask the City Arborist to do a little bit of research or provide some testimony, but just, I guess, I want to be specific and what I'm asking him to do. I guess what I would add to this is obviously something that's a bit of a hot button for me, but a policy like we have encourages developers to take trees down. Sure. Because there's a big tree you can get rid of and you can replace it cheap. There's really, they don't ask permission before or later. They're doing it after the fact, but there's no penalty. It's a policy that's designed to encourage the removal of large trees, which from an urban forestry standpoint is just insane. The benefit that we get from urban trees is just huge. So, you know, if that's the way it's been done, then it has and perhaps we need to talk to Planning or City Council or something to take a harder look at that, but it's just, it's a reverse incentive. It's not at all what we should be encouraging. Yeah, I don't disagree. I guess one. And I would also point out that I would hope that whatever cost you incur from this, you're going to go back after whoever took the trees down and knock that off their contract. But that's your between you and your sub. But you know, if it was a mistake, then somebody needs to pony up and the cost of 14, 4 to 6 inch trees is nothing compared to the trees that were removed. Yeah. And so I think to that point, I don't, I'm not familiar with the details of this landscaping budget, but it is possible for developers to get landscaping like the budget credit for preserving trees of significant value. So if they had preserved this tree and that had been worth 30 grand on their landscaping budget, then they would be required to kind of replace 30 grand worth of trees or at least they have to maintain their, you know, our landscaping budget requires that a certain percentage of your development costs be reflected in the landscaping. And so if you use preservation of existing trees towards that budget, and then you remove the trees, presumably your budget would be under what was approved and you would have to go dollar for dollar to get back up to that. I think that you guys were pretty far over your minimum landscaping budget. And so it's a non factor here, but I'm not certain if you're entirely correct, Marty, we've, yeah, we exceeded, I don't want to say significantly, but it was significant just given the scale of the project that we're at on the landscape budget. So even the situation, no benefit, but another one is John, there would be an incentive for a developer to either retain the tree or they'd have to, there'd be a tens of thousands of dollars worth of remediation. Just an example, the trees we put along Da Vinci Drive were $20,000 more than the trees we took out of between the two buildings. So we doubled what we spent there. Yeah. And for those of you that I worked with on the DRB, I believe in responsible development. I understand completely what you're saying, John. And unfortunately, there are developers that will take the easy way out. I think, and I hope that the board's opinion of the project that we constructed is that we did go above and beyond and we walked the walk and talked the talk here that we have a very, very, very good development plan. This is not an ad hominem objection. It goes to the substance. No one's suggesting that it is not overall a good development. But we have a very, this is very much unlike the removal of the trees between the buildings. Fair enough. This is a real detriment to the project. And the replacement is inadequate. Seems to be inadequate. And before I even rule and order, I'd like to hear from a wider variety of sources what the potential fixes are. And not just accept this as a yes-no. Just hold it open and get a little more imagination thrown into the mix. Mark, did you want to say something too? I mean, I think one thing to keep in mind is that the trees were existing. Removing them has got a financial hit to the applicant because they do have to replace them with 14 trees. You can go through the calculation and the logical and ecological discussion of whether that's an equal for equal match. But the trees were existing and they were removed. So they've got a financial hit to replace them. And I can only speak to the fact that historically, and again, I would love, I think, you know, we, I've certainly said historically and been proven wrong, Frank, that, you know, we have historically always done inch French, you know, when a project does remove a tree that was meant to be part of the approval, the requirement has been inch French. You're talking caliper. Yes. Caliper. Not volume, you know, square inch to square inch. That might be something that we need to go to the planning department, you know, the planning commission and say change the regulations. But I think, and unless there's something in the regulations that says otherwise, historically, we've always done caliper for caliper inch French, you know. So for the purpose of this project review, do is your pleasure to continue this hearing and invite in the city arborist and any other appropriate expert to answer our questions about this. Personally, I don't feel we need to continue this. I think this is more of a down the road issue that we take up as a city policy. Because like I said, I can only speak to what we have always done in the past. And that is, if the developer removes the tree that was part of the approved plan, they replace it caliper to caliper, you know. I think that, you know, they are, whether this you can argue or discuss whether the benefits of the carbon footprint is being comparably replaced. Ultimately, they will because, you know, you have 14 trees that are going to grow to maturity. But for now, I don't feel we need to continue this for further information. What do others think? I disagree. Okay. Others? I'm looking at you, John. Does sound like we have a long history of doing it that way. Disagree with the policy and I agree it's a longer term issue for this one. I'm not sure that it's worth nailing them to the crossover it to do it. But I think we ought to make a little noise and suggest that we look at it again. And again, to clarify my comments, I'm not casting aspersions on your project. It's just I know from experience in previous municipalities that you'll have a tree that you tell them to keep and it's in an inconvenient area. And the next thing you know, oh my, somebody accidentally took it down. Sorry. And they'll offer to plant a couple of trees. And suddenly their project is all the better for it. And it's just amazing how those tree companies just take stuff down that's so inconvenient when nobody tells them to. So I have seen it many times in the past. I am not at all implying that this is something that that beta has done on this project. But I think it's an area that the city might want to tighten up the regulations on a little bit to at least discourage people who do these things without prior consent, because getting approval to do it and coming back later is different in my mind. Quinn and Charlie, do you have any additional thoughts? Okay. So I think what we should do is entertain a motion to close the hearing. And yes, did you say something? You should probably ask if there's any public comment. Yes, that's a good point. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment either online or in the auditorium? Hearing none. Any online that you see? No. Thank you for reminding me. Okay. I would entertain a motion to close this hearing. I'll make a motion. We close type of an application SB2402 of Beta Herring. All right. I'll see. I second. Thank you. Any discussion? Okay. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Thank you, Frank. Okay. Art, you'll be hearing from us. Thank you. Again, appreciate the time. Happy New Year. Come on out. Check out what you were part of. It's awesome. If we wanted a tour, could that be arranged? Absolutely. You bet. I'd love it to. I'd love to go see what you got. Should we do that sometimes? Even if we warn it? Let me talk tomorrow about it. That would be a problem, right? It'd be better one at a time. All right. There you go. Be given them. All right. Well, we'll be in touch individually. I'd love to have a tour. Thank you. Okay. I am going to make an executive decision to have a bio break. Three to five minutes. Thank you. Site plan application SP2401 of Champlain Water District to amend a previously approved plan for municipal water treatment plant. The amendment consists of replacing an existing one million gallon water tank with a new one million gallon water tank and associated site work and storm water system modifications at 403 Queen City Park. Who is here for the applicant, please? Joe Duncan, General Manager of Champlain Water District. Nate Pion, Director of Engineering, Champlain Water District. Thank you. And is there anyone online? No, just us. Thank you for joining us. Have you been before us before? We have. The most recent one, I think, was when we did the South Burlington West tank tree removal project. Okay. So you have a staff report that we've sent you. There are comments that are highlighted that we're going to go through. But first, let me swear you in. Where is your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. I do. Thank you. Okay. Before we launch into the staff report, are there any comments you want to make? Brief comments you want to make? I think the summary provides a pretty good explanation as to what we're doing so we can dive right into it. Okay. Good. Let's move on to the first. Is there anyone who is recused or conflicted? No. Okay. First comment. We need to know the height of the communications building. It's a nice cube building. It's eight by eight by eight. Okay. Thank you. And number two, this is regarding the lightning rod. The question is, does the board consider the lightning rod a large or a minor rooftop appendage? Could we get a little description? Sure. Tell us about the lightning rod. So the lightning rod will be mounted on the top of the communication tower. It is just a small diameter rod. I don't know the exact dimension, but I would say it's a couple inches in diameter and it's just up at the top to deter lightning strikes from hitting the equipment. And I said appendage and what I meant was an apparatus. Sorry. Questions for the applicant? I grew up in a very old Victorian farmhouse in New Hampshire with lightning rods all over the place. So to me, they're just kind of part of the, part of the rooftop. But what do you think, board? Pardon? It's up on the screen is the rendering elevation. So there's, I personally would consider it a minor rooftop apparatus. That would be my thought too. Does anyone object to that? Okay. Great. Moving on. I'm going to read this comment number three. Staff recommends that the board ask the applicant to describe the history of 503 Queen City Park Road of the parcel there and its status today. Yeah. So the 503 Queen City Park Road is formally a GMP owned parcel. There was a large land swap back in the day between Howard Center GMP and Champlain Water District when CWD first came on board. CWD had first writer refusal for 503 Queen City Park Road with GMP in 2016. We took advantage of that first writer refusal to purchase it. And we use that land to build the first tank that we were here for in 2016. That's a pre-stress concrete tank that you see right at the intersection of Pine Street. Looking through our files, I was involved as the engineer at that time. My recollection is that we had, we purchased that in 2016. So CWD owned that lot. In order to do the tank that was constructed in 2016, we merged into one big lot so that 503 no longer existed in the boundaries or from the pot ash to the GMP transformer station and substation. And so I think that looking at some of the files, there appears to be a gap that 503 Queen City Park Road is still in existence. When it's my understanding it's been merged. I apologize I was out on vacation prior to this so I didn't have a chance to talk with Nate about it. But if for some reason it hasn't been merged, the intent is that it should be because that tank that got constructed pretty much sat right on the property line back when it was put in the tank closest to Queen City Park Road that you see there. So my understanding is that it's been merged and perhaps the land ruckers haven't caught up with that. And if you learn differently you'll come back to us? Yes. Okay. One way or the other we will make sure that it is merged into one lot because that's what we're basing everything off for for setbacks. Okay. Does it in fact does the structure in fact sit on the line? The existing one does and the proposed one also would. You see it also will. Yes. You can see on the drawing that they have now in the hand the existing tank which is the north tank. It goes almost right through the center of it and then the south filter water tank which we're meeting on today would be almost fully on that 503 Queen City Park Road property. Would be only on the 503 did you say? Pretty much. There's a small sliver on the northwest corner from the drawing that would be on the 403 which we is where the plant originally was. Yeah. Jill mentioned we'll look to resolve that if we can find the existing documentation or be back in front of the the DRB to get that resolved. You are not taxed right? Correct. How would we memorialize in some official way the consolidation of the lots? Through a land record through a deed in the land record of documentation of merging into one. It would be from us to one big parcel. Yes. I think you would need a straw deed for that. There is something to that. I would leave it to our our attorneys to tell us exactly how to do it but that would be the intent is to make it one large lot. And if that happened already your objection would be relieved? Yeah and I'm not sure that I have an objection now because we obviously permitted the the construction of the first water tank so I just in looking through the the records I was like I can't quite seem to find the like the subdivision application but I was like there must be some reason that it was okay to build the first one because you know we wouldn't have permitted that on my building line so I just wanted to see what kind of what the status was and we can go back and forth over email or whatever if you guys find something in your land records and we can talk to our legal team and and see what if anything we need from you but I'm not sure that I have an objection now I just didn't know what the status was but certainly clarification would be good. I recall Marty going through that process if we did not finish it I would want to finish it so because I think it's in our best interest to make sure it's one combined lot. Right okay any other questions or comments board? Okay number four the staircase is it being replaced or removed? Removed it was an error in the drawings it was discussed to be replaced at one point and then through some grading changes we decided to remove it so we will revise that on any drawing that still shows it as to be replaced. Okay thank you questions? All right number five where are the dumpsters and how will they be screened? So there are existing dumpsters on site Marty could you pull up the figure one? Figure one is up right now is this the right one? Yes if you scroll so if you look on the left hand side it's hard to see there's two tanks which we call the lake water tanks towards the GMP substation and then there's the existing maintenance garage on the left hand side of the screen right now and just below that you see three lines opened just to the south of the maintenance garage that is the dumpsters with the fence screening around it those are where the existing dumpsters are on site and those are to be maintained there we're not moving them or relocating them they're staying in their current location. Okay any questions board? Number six how will the landscaping requirements be met? This is a tough thing to figure out I would assume. Yeah so landscaping we've included three Arbavitas where the existing tank is to be removed which is shown on L101 so we've got three new Arbavitas shown right where the existing tank is to be demolished and we'll add that into our proposed project. So you're demolishing the Arbaviti? No the tank we're demolishing. I see okay thank you. The circle you see there is an existing tank that is failing and we will be demolishing that tank putting parking in that spot. I see. And then constructing the new tank in the location that you see with the white circle there so that is and we're not taking down any other trees to do that but we will be putting three Arbaviti in where the tank that is being removed is located. Okay questions board comments? Yeah I think I brought this one up so Marlon I kind of caught this late in the process but there are parking standards we didn't think about this on our initial meeting because adding parking wasn't a huge part of this project but we the LDRs do require one major deciduous shade tree for every five parking spaces. We understand this requirement to apply only to the added parking spaces in this case there are 10 additional parking spaces so that would require two major deciduous shade trees to be installed. Arbaviti wouldn't count as shade tree but you could you know replace the Arbaviti with there's no point to the Arbaviti besides just meeting a dollar requirement so you could replace them with shade trees if that worked for you or something like that but yeah Marlon I didn't see a way that this would this one could be modified so we just wanted to fly it for you here because we weren't able to do that earlier. Sure and thank you for bringing that to our attention Marty we would probably look to swap out those Arbavitas with two deciduous trees in the same location essentially. Sure. So you're committing to that? Yes. Okay thank you. Okay numbers any questions? Location of snow storage. So if you go back to the figure one on those five sorry let's go see one sorry at that same location where we were talking where some new parking was being added where the existing tank is to be demoed we have a hatching on the left side which shows no parking area that would be a location where we would do some snow and then also on the opposite side on the right the last parking spot has some open space we would use that for snow storage as well. Okay questions? Okay and the last staff comment is a long one and it's kind of a discussion issue. Let me read the beginning of it. Staff recommends the board discuss the future of landscaping at this and other CWD sites in South Burlington with the applicant. Staff recommends that this conversation include a discussion of the factors that limit the applicant's ability to provide landscaping on site and a discussion of the location and type of project improvements the board might accept as a substitute for online landscaping. So I ask both you and the board to comment about your thoughts. I guess before we get jump into that and Marty correct me if I'm wrong our hope this evening was to separate the two. I realize it wound up in the document here. We're looking to make sure that we can move forward with the project that we are looking at for the tank. This second piece comes from we have some larger projects coming down the line with some big dollar value buildings of a chem building addition some other things that are at the plant and so at this site yes and so we you know one of the things that we just got talking with Marla and Marty about was is what's the recourse for meeting the landscaping requirements when our site is really meant to be a hard infrastructure as well as limited site locations to put stuff because we have a lot of infrastructure in the ground it's a world that's similar to BTV but it's a little bit apples and oranges but there is some similar stuff there and so we thought while we had the opportunity to be in front of you we would have that conversation. So on one hand I'm hoping that this discussion doesn't hinder our ability to to move the current project forward. So let me suggest this why don't we what do I ask the board if they feel they have enough information on all the items up till number eight to make a decision and vote on on close after we take public comment vote on closing the hearing do do we feel like we have enough information or do we need any more and then once we've heard public comment we'll vote and then we can have this discussion. Let me ask one question I understand the project it's basically switching out one million gallon tank for another period pretty much yes a couple more parking spaces and that's it in a radio tower in the building the eight by eight radio building yeah I've got enough okay anyone not have enough okay good are there any members in the public who would like to comment any online okay hearing none I would entertain a motion to close this hearing let me get the number of sp 24 001 I make a motion to close site plan application sp 24 01 of the Champlain Water District second second thank you any discussion all in favor right hi any opposed abstentions okay good thank you now let's turn to that last comment and why don't you share with us some of your thoughts yeah so like Joe said we've got some large projects in the master planning stage the chemical building addition some additional filters and clarifiers and you know our site is really dedicated towards water treatment processes we don't have a very large parcel everything that you see up on the upper plateau long Queen City Park Road is for the treatment our clarifiers our tanks our filters and then down below that is the quarry so we've got very limited space and trees are concerned for us on other parts of the the site just because of the potential for you know damage to the facility it's also not something that is seen from the roadway so we've tried to maximize all of the landscaping on the front side of the building along Queen City Park Road on one of the past three years we probably added somewhere around 40 trees in front of the fence as part of that that project so we really don't have much space for other landscaping on the facility in our opinion so trying to come up with an idea or a concept that when the chemical building addition comes into play which is you know total construction cost back in 2019 was 20 million dollars that's 40 now yeah exactly and I know it's just for the building it's not all the equipment and everything else that's included in that project cost but what would suffice for the the drb for an acceptable means of landscaping you know is there creative ways where we could find some landscaping that wouldn't necessarily maybe happen on site at our facility is there some partnership with the city on their projects we're open to discussion concepts can I ask you a question I mean I'm looking at the site what would I'm sorry oh thank you what what impediment is that the only exposed area have really from at least an aesthetic standpoint or a public exposure standpoint looks to be along Queen City Park Road is that true correct all right I mean are you is there some reason some some site utility reason never mind expense for the moment just site utility reason why you can't simply line Queen City Park Road with trees we currently have done that so when we lasted the the fence we put 40 something spring crab apple trees all those little sticks yeah but they're just starting those are a couple years old and we you know spread them out while trying to dodge our underground utilities the water mains also trying to keep valve boxes exposed so we can get wrenches on him if we need to operate them there's underground electric through there so we have had to be sort of mixed and matched them they're not in a perfect line they're not perfectly spaced but they're all along Queen City Park Road avoiding those underground utilities the other challenge with that area is putting in trees that satisfy GMP because we are in the majority of that frontage is within a the GMP right away for the high power transmission line that runs along Queen City Park so what what ultimate growth will we get out of those up they're going to be short anyway right they are going to be short non-fruitering yeah so your tanks are going to stick up way above them no matter what yes so it's sort of a little silly thanks yeah well we you know we definitely did we definitely one of the things we've tried to do is understanding that that is the the face of our facility we have tried to put decorative fence up front we've tried to put some herbivitis around the tank even though the tank is higher than anything that could possibly grow because even the herbivitis the majority of them in front of the existing tank are the tank is just barely within the I don't know I got some ill advised Norway spruces around my house so so yeah so there is there are some there are some challenges and then we've recently fenced in our facility so there it's not really a public access facility where people can can enjoy a walk around the quarry so but we want to make sure that we do the right thing with the city because we are a partner with the city we are your municipal water supplier or also your contracted operator for South Brownington what I'd like to avoid is and I think we ought to find some way to do it I don't know how much latitude we have I mean this is a this is a very as a site with a very specific and critical purpose and there's I mean that the image that pop pops to my mind is putting a skirt on a bull well I think you know one thing I think we could certainly consider is you're right you're not going to ever put enough enough landscaping to pretty up this facility and I don't think we should be trying to do that because it's not ugly now no it's not ugly now it's it's it's it's an infrastructure facility you know it's a needed infrastructure facility but you are putting a pretty large significant construction project that's going to have some pretty high value landscaping dollars that we can play with and I but in quotes play with and I'm wondering if this isn't a great opportunity to do something like sd ireland did out on duster lap do some public art installations which can be in the front yard which can be your your draw your eye to it and the facility you know it's kind of like the 1930s public works construction projects you know I think it's something where you it's a great opportunity to engage the public get some local artists involved and it'd be a great way to put in like I don't know what your landscaping dollars would be but you can blend some some landscaping with some hardscape with some some sculpture you know and and can the tanks be painted with art um we'd like to avoid that so they are painted routinely the every 10 years our current program it gets an exterior overcoat um so that would be uh a costly expense every 10 years to paint them besides the uh tank blue gray color that we currently okay all right they're concrete though right uh the two that work well the two filtered water tanks on the east side are concrete the two on the west side are welded steel so those have an epoxy coating on the exterior you know if you got really I I love that idea if you got really imagined that you know that I don't know what facility it is boston gas or something but when you go from boston to tape when you go down that road expressway I don't know the names of the streets very well but there's some beautiful tanks yeah along there multicolor and now it it occurs to me I mean maybe you go elsewhere for if you could get artists now we're really flying here but you know get get artists have a competition get some alternative funding I mean is is there some is there some practical operational reason why a beautiful tank would wouldn't work in other words something with an imaginative multicolor why a rainbow tank wouldn't work well I think there's there's two things with that um one act 250 um I know we had to do some some things with the cold tester south tank that one actually is painted different color because it was supposed to match the sky blue that's up on water tower hillan oh yeah cold it's doing it's gray skies 99 of the time that's why majority of our tanks are gray except for that one yeah but you know for the the concrete tanks at caution you know those do have the opportunity to leach out calcium so it it causes the paint to dull and then you get some some blotching um so that would be one concern with painting the concrete tanks um and then the steel as I mentioned you know we have a long term maintenance contract with our tank contractor as part of that program it's every 10 years it received an overcoat that's built into the cost um and that would be I think quite an additional expense to have to do that every 10 years to to retouch up that part of part of where I'm sorry I strongly recommend not painting the concrete tanks thank you so what does boston gas do a lot of their stuff I think is welded steel which is a different okay there that is definitely a different material that does allow for different types of coatings to go on to it all right okay so not a good idea to have art on the tanks none of the tanks but I think the front yard get is a great opportunity to sort of explore some options yeah some public art installations you know the the burming and variations that was done in front of tech park you know in the under the right of way um you know really lends itself I mean I know you have underground utilities who've got you know tanks you've got everything else but you know I'm not talking about putting up an eight foot or 10 foot berm I'm talking some undulation with some selected plantings and maybe some art sculpture would be a nice way to I don't think we're trying to hide it I think we're trying to accentuate you know the site yeah I give what you're saying the other thing I guess I'll toss out too is from a connection standpoint we draw our water out of the lake at uh Red Rocks Park we have a pump station down on on there and someday we'll be doing work down on that building probably won't be a large uh building addition but there will be stuff down there and so if there's anything in connection with Red Rocks Park that's out there is something that we haven't fully vetted what it would be but it's looking for things that like you talk about would support the the mission and culture of Champlain Water District and kind of tell people who we are and what we do those are things that I think you know we would value cool sculpture of champ that doesn't get burned in effigy so so what do we need to do with this Marty uh this is just kind of open discussion I think they don't need to come there's there's no yeah there's no issue like we already closed the hearing because you have everything you need to make a decision on that one uh this was just kind of a what if instead of 20 000 dollars your radio tower was going to cost 20 million how on earth would they have fit yeah you know that much landscaping on this site and it just it would require some creative thinking and we've definitely heard some ideas and I don't know if you guys feel satisfied with I get it was just supposed to be an open discussion and talk about what kind of stuff is out there I know that Marla and I had talked in our staff report about the airport but it's kind of a different analogy because the airport owns a tunnel ad right next to the airport and it it's a lot easier to put landscaping under adjacent property where just you guys don't really have that opportunity so it's given this part of the city I don't think we're looking to say 20 million dollar building is I don't know how much that landscape thing I don't think we want to say taking stuff all that landscape in the front of the site just to try to hide it more I think that that would be a waste because we're not kidding ourselves that this is a wastewater treatment plant let's find a creative way of accentuating the look of it and then that's kind of what I would gather from the conversation is that it sounds like the board is willing to entertain different things I think Mark had some excellent ideas and you'd mentioned before you're partnering with the city if if your inclination was to hey let's donate some money to the city and let them do something else then I'm sure we could probably work something out I'm sure the city could use you know money for planting trees or recreation or whatever so I it sounds to me like the board is pretty open to any alternatives as opposed to like Mark said just trying to stuff more landscaping in front of the the facility I don't know if the city has the mechanism to know because I know like Williston I was on Williston Derby for many years and they did have a mechanism if a site was fully landscaped to say okay if it's a thousand dollars of landscaping we only need 200 dollars will you donate 800 to the playground fund I don't think South Burlington has that mechanism in place to do that you can confirm that we don't appear at first look to have that mechanism yeah right so we pretty much have to fit it all on the site and I think that that's I wish there was a way because there's plenty of areas where we kind of find a way then is that something that you're particularly with this coming down the pike that we know of it might be an opportunity you know we don't have the mechanism hasn't done yet not because it can't be done so if this is something that we want to fly up to planning board city council whatever and say hey you guys might want to think about making this possible it might have use in this case and it may well have use in other cases too yeah so it's probably worth it and if you're you've got a bit of a runway before you come at this you know nothing happens fast in city government so that would give them some time to I think you do have to have a specific thing it can go to it can't go to like a general fund to be used as you want you have to sort of have a plan thing for it I think that that concept would be advantageous for us and like Joe alluded to I mean we're we're years out for the next building expansion at the plant so it offers an opportunity in time to maybe discuss that with planning and zoning the city council as an opportunity for CWD kind of like a TDR for yes exactly yeah yeah well we appreciate the conversation because the idea was as Marty said was just toss it out there to hear what your your thoughts are to kind of get things in motion because we're a ways out but at the same time it was fresh in our minds knowing that we're bumping up against where we are and as I said earlier we are we're part of this community of our major infrastructures located here in South Burlington we want to make sure we do our part but we're at a point where you know we just don't know how that would happen right well I think this is a good discussion and appreciate your openness and your thoughts about this so likewise thank you thank you so um thank you and we will be in touch okay one last thought the city does have a public art committee doesn't it yes your wife was one of the maybe you could engage in some kind of repartee or conversation with the public art committee and see if because those are people who are concerned with with this kind of well with with beautifying spaces and maybe they'll have some ideas that are useful great and sources of money too okay thank you thank you we're moving on to item number eight and this is minutes of November 2nd 7th 21st and 5th I would entertain a motion to approve those minutes or offer and offer any amendments do do we motion to close yes we do okay we'll move to approve minutes as presented second any discussion okay all in favor hi hi thank you I think that's it for tonight any other business okay thank you and happy new year everyone