 Good evening everyone and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for June 20th 2023 My name is Don Filbert. I'm the chair of the board and I'd like to introduce and welcome other members of the board Quinn Mann Stephanie Wyman Frank Cokman and Staff Marty Gillies and Marleke Thank you for for attending and this meeting is being recorded There's a couple of ways to participate in this meeting those of you who are here in the auditorium is one way in person and also you can participate virtually online and By phone if you are online Please make sure you send your contact information to Marleke at K-E-E-N-E at SouthBurlington V-T gov and If you're here in the auditorium, please make sure you sign in on the sign-in sheet so that You're considered a participant in case you want to take any action at a later point in time And if you're on the phone, you can send your contact information to Marleke as well Okay Let's start with emergency evacuation procedures There are doors in the back of each corner of the auditorium in the event of an emergency You would simply exit the door and go either right or left to get to the outside Are there any additions deletions or changes in the order of agenda items tonight? Nope Hearing none. We'll move on to Agenda item number three any announcements Where were we with recruiting another member? I have not heard an update Okay. All right. Thank you Are there any item number four? Are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Hearing none. We'll move on to Our first application review agenda item number five Pardon me Final plat application SD 2309 of the Snyder Braverman development company LLC to subdivide an existing 5.86 acre lot development with a stormwater treatment pond into three lots of 3.71 acres lot and one 1.79 acres lot and two and point three six acres lot three For the purpose of developing three mixed-use buildings containing a total of 213 residential units and 27,000 square feet Non-residential space on lot and one and a future city street on lot and three to be reviewed under separate administrative site plan application at 225 market Street and 267 market Street and 113 Garden Street Before we dive in to talk with the applicant, let me ask if anyone has any Disclosures or conflicts of interest they would like to raise hearing none Who is here for the applicant? Good evening everyone Ken Braverman Beautiful summer night. So thank you for coming out. Yeah, Andy. Roe. Thank you Andy anyone else online or anything? No Oh, hi mark. Thank you for joining us Okay, I This we don't have a traditional staff report on this because staff have written kind of a draft decision and Usually we go through these and if there are any highlighted areas we ask the applicant to Respond to them or we get clarity on issues, but I don't see any In this report. Do you have any comments to make about this report either of you? We don't have any comments now, okay? all right So I think what we'll do is take public comment and Then close the hearing or take a vote to close the hearing Are there any members of the public who would like to provide? comments about application SD 2309 okay other any online Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the hearing on SD 2309 So moved. Thank you Quinn a second Thanks Frank Any discussion all in favor of closing the hearing say aye Hi Hi, and the The hearing is closed. Thank you very much. Thank you We the board as you probably know the board will be reviewing this at a future deliberation date Thank you The next application is final plat application SD 2308 of Rivers Edge Building Development LLC for the 3.6 acre park road area phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450 acre golf course and a 354 unit residential development the plan unit development consists of Consolidating three existing lots for the purpose of constructing four dwelling units and two family homes on two private roads at 1100 170 and 1100 180 Dorset Street Who is here for the applicant? You want to make sure we hear you Thank you so what as you as you know what we do is go through the staff report and Items that are highlighted by the staff are things that we want to discuss with you So before we get started. Is there anything you would like to say by way of introduction? I can give a brief overview if Very brief. Yeah, so We're in for final plat tonight having gone through sketch and preliminary It's a 14 unit PUD proposed on two private roads on the south corner of Park Road and Dorset Street This is part of the settlement agreement with Vermont National in the city of South Brownlington 15 units were allocated to this Parcel so we're here to propose 14 Okay, thank you All right, let's jump into the staff report First groups the first comment I'm going to read this Staff recommends that the board asked the applicant to demonstrate that the adjustment of pre-construction grade will not cause proposed units 9 through 10 to look out of place in relation to Brookfield Drive or Park Road Yep So the height requirement from the 2003 regulations that were being reviewed under is 40 feet for this district It's taken from the peak of the roof to a pre-construction grade elevation That's determined by the average grade of the existing ground prior to construction So for units 9 and 10, which is a duplex on the most northeast corner of the site adjacent to Park Road We're asking for an 18 inch Change from the pre-construction grade elevation We've asked for this numerous times in the past the DRB is granted it knowing that It will be in relation to a new road The private road Brookfield Drive is at elevation 414 in front of this unit the garage elevation up to unit is 414.5 So it's being built in relation to a new road It will fit in with the other units on that road We thought asking for a slight deviation from the pre-construction grade elevation Would be more uniform than changing say the roof peak by 18 inches When you just have one house where the roof peaks different than the other 14 You know mistakes can happen. So given that it's such a small variation. We just wanted to Ask the board for a slight relief on the height standard for that unit How How can we be convinced it's not going to look out of place in relation to Brookfield Drive or Park Road? Yeah so the elevations on Park Road where Brookfield Drive ties in to the existing road Varies from 418 at the high point down to 414 As you move slightly downhill your 412 410 40 sit 408 We're asking for the garage floor basically to be set at 414 and a half So not a huge difference really the only reason it's only this unit is because the existing grade drops off a little bit in this corner That that's the only difference in relation to Units 1112 and 1314 the finished floor elevation is within a foot of those units Thank you board does that give us what we need do you think? Talk to what the developer wants to do. I don't see Why I don't know what is even meant by out of place? Okay, I don't think uniformity is necessarily a virtue Okay, unless we have some Very prescriptive element of the LDR Okay, any other comments from the board I don't I'll just offer my comment comment go ahead mark Okay I think I mean, I don't think it's going to look out of place I think it's you know in it's kind of in keeping with this I would say neighborhood of development with the you know semi steep slope design elements where A lot of them are sort of kind of built into into a hillside with a walkout basement um The only thing that is of slight concern is the fact that it is right on the corner But I think the grades along that street Are such that it's going to you know, it's going to kind of feel in line with other Houses in that area That have a walkout basement with the you know Relatively steep road running alongside the development. So I'm okay with the proposal. Thanks Any other comments before we move on? Okay comment number two I'm going to read this one as well staff recommends the board require the applicant to update their plans to include periodic signs indicating Wetland buffer along the wetland buffer as per condition 3.0 of a preliminary plat approval SD 2203 are you okay with that? Yes, erecting some signage. There's not a problem Great. Thank you Number three This is regarding the water and waste system We what we need a confirmation Given how let me read given how different the water and wastewater flows Our staff recommends the board asked the applicant to confirm these numbers are correct Yep, so we've submitted the required allocation forms for both wastewater and water and We know that water is approximately double here and it uh, mostly is due to uh, south perlington uses the old wastewater rules They were updated in 2017 to get the numbers a little closer Municipal served home is 210 gallons per day for greater than two bedrooms for water It's 360 gallons a day the old rules were basically double the wastewater So we are confident that these are the correct flows. Okay. Thank you Number four, this is about addressing the Water department's comments Yep, so we'll address those prior to closing the hearing So we received all the department comments last wednesday knowing that we wouldn't get Plan changes turned around to the department heads and received comments back prior to today We knew that we would have some follow-up So we will be continuing the hearing tonight, I guess that's our expectation. Yes, it makes sense. Yeah. All right. Thank you Number five staff recommends the board require the applicant to update This epsc plan to incorporate the comments from the city stormwater section referenced below Yep, that's fine Okay, any questions from the board All right number six Um six and seven both relate to ledge removal Um and the ledge removal plan Number six the applicant has provided a ledge removal plan that indicates that no ledge Removal will be necessary for foundation excavation of units 9 through 14 in their currently proposed location. There is no explicit Indication that's swapping these proposed homes and brookfield drive would result Pardon me in an increased amount of ledge removal Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to demonstrate that the swapping of these two elements Would indeed result in increased ledge removal requirements since that is not clear from the provided ledge removal plan Yep, so my understanding is this was discussed at the preliminary. There were privacy concerns that were brought up but specifically in regards to ledge removal the reason that 9 through 14 don't show up on the ledge ledge removal plan is because they are located on the low side of the site As soon as we flop the units in the roadway We'll be having the blast for foundations on the high side of the road Make sense Make sense board Okay and seven Uh, no narrative has been provided Board's preliminary plot decision require provision of a ledge removal plan Blah blah blah no narrative has been provided Staff recommends the board consider whether to require the applicant to provide a robust ledge removal plan To include proposed blast durations hours and mitigation What do you think board should we is that necessary? Is that something we want to ask the applicant for? Well, I have a question about the Can you turn on your mic? I'm sorry What goes around comes around Who's in who's in the proximity in other words who was affected? Well, I assume you mean something more extraordinary than merely normal working hours This is somewhat isolated. You've got Folsom Hollow Road that has about five six single family And they're within the normal zone. Those would have to be monitored Um, we can make this easy on you. There is a ledge Narrative being performed by main drilling and blasting and once that's done we can provide it perfect but I think that the legitimately so there are neighbors in the vicinity who will be affected so the question is Martha when we're talking about a plan, I assume we're talking about limiting the hours drawing which blasting can take place among other things Yeah, we're just we're just asking the applicant to specify when they would be blasting um And for how long they would be blasting and then presumably they would propose something that's reasonable and then you guys would Find their proposal to be on my way Who's weighing in gone can I weigh in? I was just going to say I think that Given its proximity to the development across the road of park road and of the concerns that were raised about that I think just mirroring the same blast mitigation plan that we Implemented on that one and it's the same company doing it. So it shouldn't be any problem to Implement it. Okay. Good. Thank you. I think there were some slightly unusual conditions as part of that if I recall correctly mark weren't there There was what was it notification of the neighbors? um, no more than two blasts a day or something which is what they said they were going to be doing because of the prep the blast the removal prep blast removal That's about how much they were planning on being able to do. It wasn't a stringent Condition we implemented on them. They proposed it to us given the way their operations normally work and it allowed us to have a little sense of comfort and control over how the blasting would be um ongoing daily operation would it be helpful if staff when we get this plan? Or maybe we should just refresh our memory on the one for across the street Yeah before the next painting. Yeah, and I think like I said main drilling and blasting is the one Is the sub that's doing the blasting across the street? I imagine, you know, and they were the ones that proposed it It should be a pretty easy, you know Condition to pull and for them to mirror Yeah, so and I just note that the one across the street was primarily a blasting job where this is probably 25% or less than what's proposed So it's significantly less. That's helpful to know. Thanks, Brian. Thank you. Yeah Okay number eight We need elevations and floor plans, please Yes, so we provided One elevation that we've used as a typical in the past Under the old LDRs we submitted a design narrative rather than elevations basically said that Certain architectural features had to vary couldn't be done next to each other We've had a lot of success at cider mill other projects on dorsal street using that sort of Scenario rather than having three distinct elevations and saying we have to build You know three of each or something like that So if the board's amenable to a design narrative that basically mirrors the design Aspects of the LDRs I think that's likely where we will go with this Comment there was also a visual provided at preliminary and that was acceptable I know the board's changed some but that was acceptable to the board at that time So we were kind of surprised to see this suggestion or recommendation. Okay I think the confusion was that it wasn't clear that you were still proposing the same things the visual. Yeah, absolutely Yeah, yeah, so that's our typical elevation. We didn't resubmit. Okay, right and then the design narrative will say, okay You can't have two colors next to each other. You have to have certain architectural features that vary. There's all sorts of architectural design standards that can't be done next to each other that are specified in the LDRs It takes in the account the Eight foot offset from the garage to the unit, you know, all that stuff is in that section. Okay. Good any questions? We will resubmit the visual just so it's part of part of the record. Good. Thank you Okay, number nine um We need responses, please to the department of public works comments Yep, so do you want to go through each one or should we just say that we're going to respond to the public works comments And we'll get stuff back from Tom Board, what's your pleasure? Well, they're coming back, right? Yes So I assume the site distances will be Provided on the plans. No, yep. They are on the plan. Yeah So they meet and it's a change of the public. I mean the public works director was good with it last time We made some changes, but that's the former public works director So these are some new comments and we'll address them with them. There is one that We need the board to discuss Yeah, one of the one that's mentioned is a potential future construction of a recreation path along park road This was discussed at preliminary and was deemed that it wasn't necessary. There is a rec path that currently crosses The wetland complex going to golf course road um So there are no plans to just to uh construct a sidewalk along park road It actually was not discussed at preliminary. It never came up until now. So the preliminary It was approved the way it is on the plan And it sounds as though the new public works director is posing that as a question to the board And staff has kind of suggested Take it in context that this wasn't brought up previously and was already has a finding preliminary approval. Okay Any questions all right Number I just think that so just to stylize that that's the kind of black text underneath dpw comment four above red staff comment number 10 Is what I believe They're referring to where okay, right tom had sort of said should we require this And we were kind of throwing the question to you saying that Tom might think it's a good idea and also the board at preliminary Did not require that sidewalk to be put in But like we said, we're not closing the hearing tonight. Okay I had a conversation with tom actually about this marty and I apologize for not following up with you. Um And mentioned that you know, just because I was talking about other stuff. I know this is your project Um, and he said, oh, I think I was thinking about the sidewalk up by golf course road Connecting to the existing rec path. I think that this is not where he was thinking of the sidewalk So he kind of wanted to retract that comment anyway Okay, um, and then I guess that was comment number Three There's no sidewalk between this project and golf course road and that's where there already is one between golf course road and the rec path um, and then Four is what marty was saying. This is from doors of street to the project Okay Number 11 This is about utilities Board require the app applicant to break the utility plans out onto individual sheets So that staff and board can better review the proposed locations of these features Yep, so we can do a above ground utility plan. That's not a problem. We'll call it code or do something Spells that out a little clearer. Okay. Thank you. Yeah number 12 staff recommends that the board requires The applicant whoops to address I just lost my place here Comments seven eight and nine of the director of public works. It's kind of more the same Yep, the pump station proposed is private I think the confusing part is our plat has an easement over an old pump station When these were two single family lots that were put in when uh from our nationals put it way back So I think it's an old outstanding easement that that has really no bearing at this time Um, so the I think we can work that out Tom. Okay. Thank you Number 13 staff recommends that the board require the applicant to address these comments 11 and 12 Of the dpw prior to closing more the same really. Yep. That's fine. Wait a minute. What was I maybe I missed it But what was the response to common number nine above 12 Above paragraph 12 What about the berm The response was that on all of these we're going to be working directly with tom and uh, uh, but that one I guess tom is Maybe that one is leaving a little opening to what does the board? Yeah, I think some of the uh, some of the um issue is is that the uh The force main that's shown uh through our parcel on the south edge and then it comes along dorset street Is an existing force main that the city does in fact own Uh, it runs from dorset farms all the way up to kennedy drive Uh, a lot of the neighborhoods are connected to it and um, it's existing As you go out on dorset street, as you know, there are landscape berms, uh on the eastern side of the road. So this is a Uh common practice, uh that these types of things have have happened over the force main You know, but what they're saying the city's not going to accept They already own that force main the city owns the force main whether or not They want to continue using berms as a way of landscaping along dorset street You know, we're showing them at five feet now Maybe we can work something out with tom that he'd be okay with three feet or something. We're not communicate or at least i'm not understanding Sure, what it says is We're not going to accept This landscaping device Period we're not going to we're not going to accept the easement Okay, the easement is existing The easement's existing. Yes, I guess he's unaware So it would become the discussion with him is not going to be whether you're going to accept the easement The discussion is Is the berm okay because the easement's already there and as brian said, maybe maybe the berm isn't quite um You know, well, so that's being put to us as an objection by the city Right now, right? It appears to be that would be the interpretation i put on it appears to be an objection by tom And what we've said is we need to work out all the items with tom so So the final staff I think if the board wants to provide some guidance that marty can use And the applicant can use when talking to tom that would be welcome tom says absolutely no fill will be placed there you know Your point I gather again. I can't visualize it. I'm not so I've kind of highlighted it in Light very light blue over here. You see those two areas Those are proposed berms and the force main I think runs north south through this area. Is that correct brian? That's correct. Yeah We had considerable discussion on to berm or not to berm at preliminary and these were considered to be rather gentle um You know on the positive standpoint A little bit of extra fill over the berm is just more protection more frost protection everything Negative standpoint is if there's ever an issue with that force main. There's more material to dig up But uh, so we just need to discuss that with tom. Well, personally, I kind of like berms There's sound protection among other things. Yeah, I like that's not the point Yeah, yep I'm in agreement with frank and I also think as long as tom's okay with that Um, I I'm okay with that. I like the idea of the berm I think it softens the the development from Dorset and provides a little protection of from dorset for the development from dorset as well okay, okay, so we'll when we talk with tom we'll say the preference is to berm and we'll See what he comes back with I think there's a little confusion there whether or not the force mains exist there or not But ultimately these conditions will be documented in the staff report or the decision correct Correct and if and if this will change Like as the applicant and tom have a conversation about how to meet this kind of comment number nine of tom's And if tom kind of realizes, oh, I might have made a mistake or something then We'll come to fuck that and if he says no berms, then our site plan will reflect. Okay, whatever he will accept. Okay. Thank you Okay, number 14 This is recommends the board require the applicant to address the comments of the water department. So comments one and two Do you want to do that now? Or do you need time to do that? Uh, we can update our EPSC plan to show the silt fence layout that they're desiring and um Yeah, and then the other comment is that we'll regularly maintain all storm water treatment and convey it So you've no objection to condition we do either. Yeah, okay. Thank you um number 14 sir Staff recommends that the board require the um I think we did it. Yeah, okay. Okay Um, so we're on 15 now 15 well, no, there's a red comment on page Those two red comments. They're just underscoring the uh The utility sheet confusion that we had um, which was like their third sheet, but they've already agreed to clean it up So, okay. Yep. All right So both of those red unnumbered comments are taken care of correct. Yeah, we just couldn't Provide your recommendation one way or the other on either of those criteria because we couldn't quite read the plan So there's no official staff recommendation on those um, but there will be once we had a plan. Thanks Number 15 staff recommends the board require the applicant to address the comments of the city arborist prior to closing the hearing Uh, the only thing I'd like the drb's uh Potential weigh in on is the first item where they're talking about additional protection for heads that we've said we're gonna save You know standard Construction practices is using construction fence along limited disturbance. That's a word proposing here um We'd like to maintain that uh separation with a limited disturbance construction fence We don't feel anything additional is necessary for a hedge. That's noted to be saved. Okay. Any questions comments? Okay onto 16 Marla, I guess this is marty I wasn't sure what this comment Was referring to could you clarify it or Summarize it So the The criteria from we're looking at the 2003 ldr's here. So the criteria for public and private roadways um Let's see. This is All the things I listed here a through h are why the drb would have to require a road to be public And this is just asking So The road as proposed is going to serve Enough homes that we don't have to require it to be public Um, but there are going to be more units. There's going to be 14 units But on just the one lot they're going to be footprint lots. However, the city of south brampton doesn't Recognize footprint lots. So this condition is just recommending that you Include a condition of approval indicating that they're not recognized Well, I need I need a little clarification also again If no footprint lots are allowed then The underlying land of for each building is own how and common by a homeowner's group or by Who owns who owns the land under? Footprint x that's not what they're saying though frank. I know that that your feeling is footprint lots don't exist period but the Um the proposal is footprint lots and all staff is saying is our zoning Footprint lot is not a lot for zoning purposes. Therefore. We'd like you to note that in your decision Um, I believe that's what yeah, correct It doesn't compute for me When you convey are these single-family homes or the duplexes or what are you their duplexes? But if you want to buy one half of a duplex and I want to buy the other half Yours comes with a footprint lot mine comes with a footprint lot and we each have one fourteenth common ownership of everything else Well, if we don't recognize footprint lots, that's an illegal subdivision. That's that's the only Interpretation I can put on That we can't we can't allow that but aren't most of the All of all of Vermont. Yeah, I mean, I think well and where I live at O'Brien single-family lots are full side at O'Brien farm They're footprint lots. We just did footprint lots on the clubhouse parcel Okay, the subdivision just on the other side of park roads all footprint lots too I I think you ought to bring it up. I mean it's blatantly a subdivision If you're you can if you're conveying the land underneath the structure Then you're subdividing the land if we don't provide for it in the subdivision rules Then You can't you you can't do it It's Every miss straightforward every municipality's done the same thing. They basically have stated Either within their regulations or by decisions That we recognize you're doing footprint lots. They're not a subdivision for our purposes because they're not in the regulations But does anything in the regulations address the the point? So the regulations do not contemplate lots with zero setbacks, but Well, so what's interesting here is this is subject to the 2003 regulations the new regulations do contemplate duplexes with a zero lot line They're expected to have normal front inside setbacks on the sides is not a common wall But on the shared wall that is allowed. So footprint lots should no longer be necessary This is an interesting project because it's subject to the old regulations and so our hands are tied. We can't Say well, you have to make regular lots With a zero lot line on the shared wall because that wouldn't have been allowed under the 2003 regulations Well, what have we done in the past was a brian in fact allowed to convey footprint? Yeah, so we include the standard condition that says the city does not recognize footprint lots The footprint lots are essentially considered non-existent for the purposes of this decision and the applicant must record a notice of condition So that effect It's just incoherent. That's all. I mean the suggestion is incoherent. It is You're saying well We don't recognize footprint lots, but oh We're just telling you it doesn't mean anything that's that's nuts I think most municipalities have decided it's not a bad thing that it's a good thing for people to That's great. They got a kind of we're going to get out of the way But there's a procedure for a quote municipality to say that it's called adopting an appropriate regulation So the applicant this is not the applicant's doing Well, we're one's proposing footprint lots I'll tell you that that every non single family lot project that Vermont national and other projects In south burlington within last 10 years has been footprint lots. Well, that's not entirely true There are other options for doing this. Um, we just had a project that had air lots, which was very strange And we had what kind of air lots a i r Which was very strange. Um, and it does not actually convey the land it conveys the air space over the land um, and so that's how Footprint lots were avoided on another project, but they was right most projects do propose this footprint lot and it's it's messy But what it does for us to include this condition is In the case where someone um does something illegal You know, they start a home occupation without a permit or they cut down a bunch of trees in the wetland or whatever it gives us a clear mechanism to Pursue enforcement with the HOA rather than there being confusion about well, it's not our as well You have something in the land and records that says we don't recognize footprint lots. So therefore it is the HOA's problem The easy avoidance Help me out here because there may be something practical. I'm not understanding What I'd be first of all your structure in your particular case nevermind solving the world's problem in your particular case Are the are your buildings going to have basements or are they on slabs? basements Excuse me. It's a legal term I I'm not going to take more time for the moment. This is something that the city needs to straighten that as far as I'm concerned Yeah, and our hope is that under the current regulations it is Um, but this is sort of an odd duck, you know, there's one more odd duck coming on vermont national Um, and then hopefully we're all out of odd ducks back to normal ducks What's the one more coming the remaining lot that the remaining law of vermont national that we haven't heard a peep about So that lot may be in you know, five minutes or five years. We have no idea. Yeah, you could Here's the fix it's only a lawyer would think of this. I apologize You could say all the land is in common but each homeowner has an easement for its incursion upon the upon the common land I guess you could say that If we get it for its basement if we get into the weeds frank We're not the ones that created footprint lots the mortgage industry created footprint lots Too much time Stop for now. I I'm not going to go along with that. I'm sorry morty. I mean, I know you're trying to fix a problem But that particular fix of uh, well, we know You're selling footprint lots, but just so you know, we don't recognize I can't do that. I don't I don't know what we're going to do Or what the right solution is right now right now. Can we move on? Absolutely. Sorry All right, I think that was it. I think that's it Um, so before we ask for public comments. Do any board members have any other questions? Thank you. Um So let me ask for any public comments. Are there any members of the public who would like to comment? Yes, come on up and May stand at the podium Yes My name is gary berzeron. I'm here with my husband real path here We live at 70 fulsham hollow road our entire most of our entire northern book boundary A buts with this project My neighbors, um, I don't think they're here, but they may be online on james and dan uh, danas. Is your mic on? Yeah Okay, I have a loud voice I'm james and danas handle may be online. Um, our first concern question is I mean, we've we have relatively very nice lots there. We've enjoyed our privacy. This will be a big change Um, I am our property is low man on the on the totem pole and even though I have a hedge The property is high on the hill and closest the door set will be looking down into my property And my question to the individuals representing this project. How do they represent or plan to preserve our privacy to the best? Ability, okay We generally don't do um questions and answers during public comment. Okay, but um, if if the board would allow me to Ask the applicant to respond It's a reasonable question. I think so. Um, would it be helpful if I put up the landscaping plan? What plan do you want to see? Yeah, she l1 I certainly understand your concern And uh, probably would have the same concern if I were you Were you aware that there would be another development in back of you? You must have been because this is a fairly new project the the Yeah, the the idea was that that land would someday be developed for sure Okay, yeah, so we are meeting all applicable setbacks. We already talked about the hedge that's being maintained Um, unfortunately the force main does run along that southern line if you want to bring back up the plat marty You know if tom has issues with uh berms on the force main my expectation is trees would also fall under that category You can see where It's highlighted in the green center of the green line. So it kind of prevents Trees in that eat that easement Yeah, and then to the east we have our pump stations located at that spot um It's the low point for sewer um on the site and then We do have a duplex. I'm in a wetland buffer there Could a couple plantings be proposed on the south side of unit 14 if that's what the board would like to see I don't think we'd be against them including a couple shrubs or a tree in that spot What would you think about that we could also look um directly behind unit six outside of the easement area Okay Well, I I know that I currently have a hedge that blocks part of it But my neighbor to the to the west does not have anything so I don't think a couple trees or shrubs is going to do it It might require a fence on their property. I personally would like to see a tree A good size tree strategically placed On on my boundary near my boundary that would kind of block the view of the the houses on the hill Um, I don't know whether that's possible based on what's been discussed on where plants can be placed But that would be my you know, I understand the property's value is going to be developed But it would be nice. It could be done. So with the minimum invasion of our privacy I don't particularly like people, you know peering down into my backyard And so whatever can be done. I'm just you know, and I'm sure my neighbors would agree they would like something as well Well, it sounds like the applicant is aware and is willing to do whatever they can to I thought it was an interesting question as well And so I pulled up this grading plan just to look at how the grade relates to how the proposed grade relates to existing grade and it looks like um the home here is at 412 and the grade along this back property line is between 412 and 402 and then these homes are relatively level with the existing property back here and also I don't know if you can see my mouse wiggling around so the property on the right hand side of the page is between 412 and 402 and this home is supposed to be at 412. This home is supposed to be at 427 with the back at 423 And the property here is again in that same range 428 is here and then 414 is on the right and then as you go further up they get even closer to one another Um, so I thought that was an interesting question. So I wanted to highlight that makes sense You know the question about the one on the hill unit six Is going to be more predominant than unit 14 is even though unit 14 is closer Okay, my my second question and this is the bigger concern I know there is a pumping station a waste pumping station on the back of the property My question is where will that waste be pumped to? I have a pumping station on my property which supports the fulcrum hollow hollow development Which pumps into another pumping station. I forget the name of the next development over but that's where it goes to And so and my concern is this is that currently I went through a lawsuit was the owner of this property Because of a boundary dispute the boundary was misrepresented to me by the builder And as a result we lost the the the reinforced road that services our pumping station There was no real good viable way to get to it And so if this pumping station pumps into mine There could be problems down the road in addition the builder never my our builder never turned over the property to an Association which we should have had so there was nobody actually maintaining Or or monitoring this other than me eventually Occasionally calling the pumping folks to come and clean the pumping station So that's a concern as to where this this development will be pumping its sewage Okay, maybe the applicant can respond but we don't piggyback any other stations Ever not Vermont national the force main that we're tapping into goes all the way to kennedy drive and discharges into the gravity sewer system So okay, we we will pump north and not south And so I guess my other question is is since is there any possibility since our development doesn't have a viable access to the pumping station That there would be a viable access via this new development that could be worked out Well, that's that's a private matter. I think And it really is not our concern Okay, okay. I mean you could work that out Or not Yeah, those are my any questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you so much Are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? Any online marty? No Okay Wait, is that yes? Tell us who you are, please Hi, um, thank you. My name is Dana DeSano. I live at 76 Folsom Hollow Road with my husband James Rustad and our toddler Who has passed his bedtime. Otherwise we would be there in person Um, thank you very much to everyone. Um, thank you to to the board for for all of your attention To this matter and to the applicant One of our concerns is When we were reviewing the latest submission, there's no proposed screening on the south side And with the removal of a large tree, there's even less There's even less screening for our lot So we are concerned about that and I know it was addressed a few minutes ago But we're hoping that some more Screening landscaping can be provided along the south side of the development I spoke with, um Someone from the from the developer Approximately a year ago and it sounded like there was an intention to try to include some and we're just hoping that they'll be able to do that Thank you. Do you know where she's talking about? Yes, the tree is proposed to be removed. Um, I think the recommendation came from the city arborist that it that it did get removed Okay, um, so we can take that comment and with the previous neighbor and and try and show a little more landscaping behind unit six Perfect. Thank you. Yeah Thank you very much Are there any other comments from the public before we once you come up and Again, this is is usually not a question and answer session But if it's a simple question, please tell us who you are and we'll see where it goes Okay, my name is carol heffer and I live at 11 cedar glenn north in south burlington And this is the first meeting i'm coming to so I I know this might be naive to where you are in your process But i'm seeing so much development going on and i'm wondering where it's going to stop You know, I think many of us occasionally Pardon me feel that way, but This this board does not make the planning decisions or the planning regulations We adjudicate them and make sure that applicants have projects that comply with the regulations Um, I think if you have concerns about development in south burlington, you need to talk to the planning commission Okay, thank you. But thank you for paying attention. Thank you. Thanks Any other comments Okay, um, if we continue this marla when will it be continued to? Marty I took a second to look at the schedule I think we can fit them on the july 18th meeting if you folks think you can get us stuff two weeks before that meeting Yeah Even with summer vacation schedules and things Yeah, we've already started revising the plan so Um, so that night it'll be the fourth thing on the agenda, but that's not unheard of Okay, um, do I hear a motion to continue this hearing? Thank you until july 18th. I'll second that any discussion On favor of continuing sd 2308 to july 18th say I Hi pose. All right, motion is carried. Thank you gentlemen. Thank you. We will see you back here on the 18th Okay, so our next item is um Minutes so I have I looked at minutes from april 11th and june 6th that I think we're in the packet But the agenda also says may 2nd and I didn't see those No But does not say that does it really say well this Got cut off so oh Oh, it looks like that. Yeah, that was probably From my template that I okay. So what minutes are we talking the april 11th and june 6th? All right Have folks had a chance to look at the minutes um Are there any comments marla do we? Seems a lot do we vote on minutes for meetings we haven't attended You certainly can Yeah, you are permitted to you are not required to All in favor of adopting the minutes from april 11th and june 6th say I Hi, I pose Okay The minutes are carried or adopted And is there any other business? Just um mark if you could please stay we do need to do a little operation Mm-hmm. Now my Good, you're just gonna I'll just stay on and you'll lock everyone else out or start it. Okay. Yep I don't want their business done. Okay. Good. So the meeting is over. Thank you everyone. Good night