 Good evening and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board of Okay. Recording in progress. Good evening. Good evening. And welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board. Why is there an echo? Thank you. For October 3rd, 2023. Just want to remind you all that this is the Development Review Board. If you want to be here, we're glad and welcome. If you're interested in the Planning Commission, that is meeting currently on the third floor. This is the Development Review Board. My name is Dawn Filibert. I'm the Chair of the Board and I'd like to introduce the other members of the Board. Frank Cokman, John Muscatelli, Bryn Quinn-Mehan, sorry, and on we have Mark Baer, another board member who's attending virtually, and our staff Marla Keane and Marty Gillies. Thank you for being here. This meeting is being recorded. There's a number of ways to participate. Many of you are sitting in the auditorium attending personally. And if you are here and you want to be considered an interested party for any future action, please make sure you sign in with your contact information on the back table. If you are attending virtually, which is another way of attending, please make sure that you send Marla Keane, and I'll give you her address in a minute, your contact information so that you can be considered an interested party should you ever want to be in the future. And similarly, if you are on the phone participating, you can send Marla an email with your contact information. Actually, if you're attending virtually, you can put that information in the contact box. The chat box, sorry, thank you. Marla's email address is M-K-E-E-N-E at SouthBerlingtonVT.gov. And when we have lots of people who want to participate, what we're going to ask you to do is raise your hand, especially for those of you who are attending virtually. We're going to mute you throughout the hearing, but if you want to be recognized when the time is right, raise your hand and we will call upon you. Let's see. Okay, let's go to our emergency evacuation procedures. In the event of an emergency, you can exit one of the two back doors in each corner. Either go left or right and you'll be outside of the building. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items tonight? No. Hearing none. Are there any announcements? The City Council has advertised for new DRB members, so we are looking for a new DRB member to fill out a full complement of seven. If you're interested or you know people who might be interested, please send your application. The information is right on our website. Thanks Marla. Are there any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Hearing none, we will move on to the first project. Give me one second here. This is the first project, SD-23-12 is a master plan sketch plan application of Eric Ferrell for an existing approximately 105 acre lot developed 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 butters and constructing a 124, constructing 124 additional homes in buildings ranging from single-family to 12 units on 28.25 acres at 1195 Shelburne Road. Who is here for the applicant? Is it Eric, did you say? Eric. Eric, thank you. And can you poke the button on your mic? The light will turn from dull green to bright green. I'm the same with you, Eric. Perfect. Does that work? There we go. Thank you, Michael. And I'm Amanda Markey. I'm a landscape designer at TGA Boyle Associates. Thank you. Madam Chair. Yes. Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm going to have to recuse myself from this entire application. I want to say just a word or two. This is not a business conflict. That would be an easy call. I'm sorry, frankly, to leave. It's a big project. I'm sorry to leave my colleagues with extra burden. It's a personal conflict. I have very, very dear friends who I think with some certainty are going to be on one side of this project. On the other hand, we have an applicant, an old adversary. Then he became a friend of me and ultimately I came to respect him as a reasonably responsible developer. I feel like I feel like the preacher at a Marion Sam wedding. I can't do it. If the LDRs were black and if the 300 pages of the LDR were black and white and didn't leave such wide areas of discretion, I've always been confident in my ability to navigate that even when they've been former clients up there. But I can't do it in this case. I'm very sorry, but I appreciate your honesty. Are there any other recusals? So, board member Stephanie Wyman is not here tonight because she said that she was also recused. I wanted to take a chance to talk to her about that. She may not always be recused in the future. We'll have to find out what her perceived conflict is and if it's not truly a conflict, maybe we'll see her back in the future. Good. Okay. So, I don't have to swear you in because this is a sketch plan, but as you probably know, I'm sure you've been through this in the past. We have a staff report that I know you've reviewed. We've all reviewed it and it has a number of questions or issues that we need to discuss with you and receive testimony from you about and we'll go through this. But I'd like to open with asking you to give us an overview of your project starting kind of with a broad brush and getting more specific. Yes, sure. We will have public comment after we get through the staff report. Okay. So, I think I'll give you a little history and then Michael will explain the evolution of the plan. Is your mic on? Yeah. Is my mic on? I don't know. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yeah. So, just for the record, I miss Frank already. The, so this is a, you know where the property is. It's on Front's on Shelburne Bay. My cousin David owns it. My first cousin and he's lived there almost, it's been in the family about 80 years. He's lived there most of his life. It's 105 acres. There was an in on there several years ago back in the 40s and 50s that was partially destroyed by a hurricane that came through in the early 50s, interestingly enough. The main house burned down in 1962. The mansion that was there was built a long time ago. Anyway, so David lives there in the single family home, the same place he's been for decades, and he's trying to do some estate planning and thought that the time has come to try and figure out what's the best long-term vision for the property rather than just leave it. He's got three adult children that work in his business, his business being farro distributing. So, we flirted with a plan several years ago that had interestingly enough almost 400 units that met the ordinance at the time. We didn't pull the trigger. We're beating ourselves up about that now, but anyway, things work out the way they're supposed to. So, when Mike, I did ask Marla, I went to one of the meetings. Marla's had several meetings, I think with Mike and Amanda. I did ask her if she had an English version of the ordinance that I could read and she said no, it doesn't exist. So, I was a little challenged reading your ordinance and I think it was a very well written staff report, but it's hard to follow that as well, even though I've been doing this for too long. And so, we thought that the conservation PUD with a nested traditional neighborhood development was the most appropriate way to go about this. And there's a lot of environmental challenges on the property, as you probably know, and we'll experience if we do a site visit. And just for your information, I've met a couple of times with the neighbors on Holmes Road Extension and some of them are here and I'm sure we'll meet again. And I invited them. They didn't need my invitation, but I invited them to come to the meeting and offer whatever they wanted to about how they thought the property, how this should all go and we would certainly like to end up with a plan that meets the ordinance and works for the neighbors and works for my cousin for his long-term planning purposes. So, that's kind of the history. I'll let Mike kind of dig into exactly, you know, how we ended up with the layouts that we did and the proposal, because I'm not articulate enough to to say how it meets your regulations. We like to think that it does, but I'll turn it over to this guy. Thank you. Great. Again, Michael Buscher with T.J. Boyle Associates. So just to orient people, this is not a property that a lot of people notice, because it is pretty buried back behind other development and not a lot of public accessibility to it. So if you're looking at the plans, the project's bounded on the east side by the railroad tracks that heads north-south. There at one time was a portion that extended all the way out to Route 7, which was referred to the in-road, and that was sold and combined with a current project that's in front of the DRB. Could you speak up a little, please, or pull your mic in a little closer? Yep. So that piece, the in-road piece, is now, I believe, currently in front of the DRB as part of a Larkin development proposal, which has partially been built out already. On the west side, the project is partially bounded by Lake Champlain through the center portion to the northern portion it's bounded by Muddy Brook, and on this, or Potash Brook, sorry, my mistake. And on the southern end, it, well, Holmes Road accesses it, and that's the main access to the property right now. South of Holmes Road, it extends all the way to Bartlett Brook Road, Bartlett Bay Road, but it doesn't extend all the way out to the lake. It's intersected by existing development, existing single-family homes that line the lake. A portion of that area is accessed from the end of Holmes Road by an extension, a private road called Holmes Road Extension. Would you be able to change to sheet L1? So L1 is the existing conditions plan. It shows all the environmental constraints and hazards for the project. The most open area is the open field south of Holmes Road, and you can see it's the area that isn't encumbered with all sorts of hatches and colors and everything else. It's that white field area. There's habitat block that surround that open field, including a portion of the woods to the west side of it, and the orange represents Class III wetlands. There's a portion of out parcels. Once, when you get to the end of Holmes Road, there's an out parcel that somewhat divides this property into what we refer to the southern portion and the northern portion. On the northern portion is where Mr. Ferrell's house currently exists, and then the red hatch represents Class II wetlands. Again, more Class III wetlands with the orange hatch. There's also lake encumbrances, steep slopes, more habitat block, river corridor. So there's a lot of different components that make development challenging in the northern area. Part of this project started when, not Mr. Ferrell next to me, but the owner, was looking to just do a simple subdivision on the northern portion for, I think it was four lots. They approached the city planning, and it was determined that that did not meet the regulations, and we started to have a conversation about the different PUD options that would be the most logical avenue for development for the project. In particular, a conservation PUD was discussed, and we looked at doing a conservation PUD just on the northern portion of it. However, due to access and other constraints to do a conservation PUD on the northern portion, we would, if you understand the regulations, you're restricted to single family and duplexes, because you're using the regulations with the underlying zoning districts for the conservation PUD. We were not able to meet a minimum density that's prescribed through that process. So we took a step back further, and we tried to understand what the best way to meet this, to meet the essence of the land development regulations while honoring both the surrounding neighborhoods as well as the property owner, which is where we came to our current proposal. So if you can flip to the next slide. So what we are proposing, actually, if you can go to, yep, L2 right there, exactly. Yeah, that doesn't show the whole property, but it shows essentially the pieces that we need. So what we're doing is we are proposing a conservation PUD for the entire project. Within the conservation PUD, we are nesting a traditional neighborhood development to meet our density requirements. So the conservation PUD requires that 70% of the property is conserved, and then the rest is dedicated, partially towards development, but also roads and other encumbrances that can't be counted towards the conservation piece of the development. North of Holmes Road, there is access issues. We have a single road coming in. Several years ago, when we entered the development, we were working with the city for our development plans. We were contemplating an additional crossing of the railroad at the inroad, what we refer to the inroad. Exactly, thank you for pointing that out. It was very unlikely we were going to be able to get, there is an existing access at the inroad, and it allows access for as a residential driveway. It became apparent that it was not going to be possible to upgrade that crossing to something more substantial. So that severely limits the ability to do a heavy amount of development on top of the environmental constraints, and still we're looking to get a value out of this property. So as of right now, there's three single family lots proposed on the northern portion, which is part of the conservation puny. Lots, what we refer to as lots two, three, and four. Lots two, three, and four have a second piece, which would be a conservation component. So lot two encompasses the existing residential structure. Lot three actually includes the remaining structures from the end property, which was the reception hall, and there is a boat house. And lots four actually has a more modern bond structure, but the idea would be that there would be single family homes built on lots three and four. And each of these lots, two, three, and four, have a conservation lot that is separate from the development lot, but would be owned by the same owner. So the concept is that there would be three property owners on that northern portion of the property. To meet our density requirements, we nested a PUD, a TND planned unit development at the end of Holmes Road. And that incorporates the concepts of having a centrally oriented, walkable, compact development that uses smart growth principles. It has a diversity of housing. So we have a total of 122 units proposed as a part of that TND neighborhood. It includes a mix of single family, detached homes, duplexes, townhouses, which referred to as small multiplexes, which is up to four units, and medium multiplexes, which is up to 12 units. The medium multiplexes are only allowed at transitional portions of the project. So we're up against a Velco right away, the railroad, the next portion of development to the south is a wastewater treatment facility. There's additional commercial development on the other side of the railroad track. So that's what we're considering our transitional area. The townhouses are restricted for the center of the neighborhood. So there's quite a bit of nuance to the layout and meeting the regulations to comply with the TND neighborhood. Thank you. So you can see that the darker orange are the medium multiplexes, the blue are the small multiplexes, the purple are townhouses, the yellow duplexes, and the pink are the single family homes. In addition to the residential units, we also have a component of civic space. And for this, for the underlying zoning district, civic space is mainly allowed in the form of parks. And they need to have program associated with them, such as playground, pavilion, walking pass, benches. You can also have trails pass, things like that to meet the civic requirement, civic space requirement. The other component is a 5% mixed use component or non-residential. Currently, we were thinking that that would be live work units. There's basically two ways we can accommodate that, either through a live work unit, and we were assuming that those would be townhouse units, which is shown on this plan. It could also be a cottage commercial, so like a dedicated lot, which would be restricted to a single residential unit if that was provided that way, which we have been considering as well. So if you can go to the next plan, I think this probably gives the best impression of the overall intention and character of the neighborhood. We laid it out with the intention, because there are existing residents that are located along Holmes Road extension. So we laid out the road on the outside of the neighborhood with the anticipation that we would relocate the existing Holmes Road extension further away from those units, because it's very close to those homes right now, give them a buffer, reconnect to the new roadway, and emphasize the traditional neighborhood development concept of alleyways with the units that we're providing. So that would mean most of the traffic would be diverted away from those existing homes. It would give them a new front yard. It would put the single families in close proximity to those other single families, and the larger and multifamily units would then intensify as you got further away from those other units. We'll talk about this later, but we have been meeting with those neighborhoods the neighbors in the adjacent property, so we may be coming back with an updated sketch plan, and part of that would be our discussion here tonight. There's one thing I wanted to mention. The east-west section of the proposed street is actually in the exact location of where the current dirt road is, or gravel road, and then the north-south section has actually been moved east, quite a bit east of the existing road. So the folks that have that front on that north-south section we did propose to transfer some of the woods and land to them, enlarging their lots. But we didn't do the same thing along the north-south section, but we've had a couple of meetings with them and it's our intention to try and figure out a way that works for everybody. Is Shelburne Road there? So just to orient you, the lake is to the left. Lake is to the left, the road tracks are to the right, and Shelburne Road parallels the railroad tracks further to the right. I don't know if this is the right time, I'll just mention this. I think the neighbors have an interest in us leaving their road exactly the way it is and building the new public street in words of that, but separate. I wasn't sure myself when I met with them last, which was last Saturday, whether that would be allowed. And I think Marla has indicated, I think from a technical standpoint, it's probably allowed. And for the record, I think we're okay with that. If the DRB thinks that's appropriate, it would require us to tweak the plan some and to accommodate that. Well, as you know, the whole purpose of a sketch plan is kind of a high-level overview of the proposed project to give you a sense of where the board is. I might have some concerns or some suggestions or whatever, so that's fine. Yeah, okay, sorry, that's... Oh, all good. So other things just to be aware of, there is a Velco transmission line right away that parallels the railroad tracks to the right or to the east side of this neighborhood. Back in 2006, 2007, when we're working on this, there was a property transaction that occurred between Allenwood and the city to allow access all the way down to Bartlett Bay Road. So what you don't see here is that road continues to the south or to the bottom of the sheet and connects all the way to Bartlett Bay Road, which gives us our two accesses, which are required for the densities that we're discussing here, the required densities for the property. I'm trying to think if there's anything of consideration that we should be discussing. So back to the rendering again, the civic spaces, you know, there's a series of green spaces that were laid out through the neighborhood that were meant to create somewhat of an organization to the space. So most of the units back or front right directly to green space, we would envision a variety of uses in those areas, including a playground, picnic shelter, garden spaces for the multifamily units, and there's definitely opportunity for recreational paths and more passive recreational amenities throughout the site. I think if you see in the staff notes, we are showing a recreation of paths extending south from the TND to Bartlett Bay Road, and we always knew that there's going to be opportunities, and there was a larger discussion to have about how that was going to connect into the larger recreational path that is planned for this area, and that's something that we're very open to, and we have put some additional thought onto it. Did you want to say something? Well, just staying on the rec path, I think our notion is we would extend the rec path from Holmes Road extension west side of the tracks all the way to Bartlett, through the neighborhood, all the way to Bartlett's Bay Road, and then going north from Holmes Road extension likely through the Velco right away. We think the path is better suited on the west side of the railroad tracks because that's where the ground is level and much easier to navigate, and we think, although we'd have to talk to Velco about it, that Velco does not have an exclusive right away through there, so we think we can put a rec path in that. It's just a mode metal now, and that would take us to the farm crossing at the old inroad. I've had some preliminary discussions with Joe Larkin about where we go from there. It's pretty easy to get up to Fayette Drive. I know that there's a long range, I think there's a long range plan to actually go farther to the north all the way over to the brook and then cross into, what's the name of that neighborhood? Orchard, are you talking about? On the other side of the brook there. Oh, Queensville Park. Yeah, although I think you'd need the Army Corps of Engineers to design the bridge that would get you there, but it's possible, I suppose theoretically, it's possible to have an easement that would go all the way, follow the railroad tracks on the west side and go all the way to the north, but the grades get very challenging. I'm not sure that's really feasible, but won't happen in my lifetime, so maybe getting to the in-road and then circling up to Fayette Drive is probably the best way for people to, if they wanted to get over to Hanifords without navigating Sharbon Road, if they're on their bikes, that might be the best way to go about it. So, but we'd have to work that through with Joe as well, and you're seeing him next week. So I'm trying to think of what else, if the outcome of this meeting is support for leaving the Homes Road extension in place the way it is, then obviously we would tweak the traditional neighborhood development, and we might come back with a somewhat different mix of housing types, unit types, and maybe a slightly different density, depending on how it all worked out. So I think we're pretty open-minded about it. Okay. The other elephant in the room is, the, or maybe the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that on the northern piece, there's a section of the shorefront that's designated, I don't know officially what it's called, public park, future public park, or whatever, all about lake access, and my understanding of the process is, when we come back for master plan, you ultimately have to send us to the council, and then the council's got to decide whether the city wants to pony up to buy that parcel. You know, frankly, don't see that happening, but that's the process that we have to go through, and we understand that. What would be, the thing that's not really clear to me is, how minimally can we, you know, materials, can we submit before we get sent to the council? We don't really want to spend a lot of money on engineering, just to have it go to the council, and the council decide that they won Powerball and would like to buy that property, so I'm not going to pretend how that process will work out, but so that's one thing that Marlican advises, is to, you know, how can we get into the process without spending scads of money before we know what the outcome is? Yeah, I think that's definitely a good topic to talk about later. Let me think about whether that makes sense to have as part of this sketch plan conversation, makes more sense to have with staff, because I think the board does have some say in it, ultimately, if the applicant doesn't want to provide the proposal, the planned public park from the official map, the board has to, this is staff comment number three, so we're kind of jumping ahead, or maybe it's staff comment number four. The board has to deny the project, and, you know, the board tries to issue denials that are comprehensive, so that, you know, you couldn't appeal the, if this were different projects, say you had a house that you were posing on a single family law, and it was one story too tall. The board tries to issue their decision in the affirmative with a but for kind of clause, so that if it goes to the court, the court can't say, oh no, no, no, it's fine, you know, because maybe there's some other elements that aren't fine. So the board would have to kind of decide, okay, do they want to issue a full decision with, you know, but for this thing, or does the board want to just say, well, we didn't really review very much because it's dead in the water? I was a little confused about that when I read the comment. Yeah, so let's circle back to that after this conversation, and, you know, it may be ultimately the applicant's decision, but I think I'd appreciate the board's, you know, thoughts on it. Yeah, and that didn't mean to get into the weeds prematurely on it, only to say that, you know, if it's going to go to the council, we'd like to go as quickly and as inexpensively as possible and let them make their decision. Yeah, that's reason. You know, on behalf of the city. Yeah, okay. Then we'll know what to do. So just kind of big picture timing kind of thing for this hearing. I really appreciate you're going through what you just reviewed because it's a complicated, big project. I think what we will do is go start going through the staff comments and we'll go till about eight o'clock and then we're going to need to schedule a time for you to come back. And that way we'll have some public comment tonight. So we get some input from the public. So let's go ahead and dive into or continue looking at the staff comments. Sure. We've already talked about one, which was the overview and thank you for that. So there's a suggestion that we schedule a site visit for the board to come and kind of walk the property and get a better sense of what it's like and what some of the obstacles are that you're dealing with and whatever. So are you willing to do that? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. We'll schedule that with Marla, presumably. Perfect. Great. Thanks. So staff comment number three. So due to the complexities of the project, it's asking whether we would come forward with just a master plan application next or if we would move forward with master planning in combination with preliminary plan or site plan. And because of the complexities with this project and the issue of the official plan or map, we would be coming forward with only the master plan. Okay. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Number four. This is regarding future submissions and I'll read you part of this. A narrative description of the characteristics that they're committing to carry, to carrying forward throughout the master plan. But that's a little bit down the road. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And I assume some of this stuff, if it's not really clear to us, we'll ask staff about it. Yes. Yes. So it sort of also relies upon the DRB to provide in some guidance to what that narrative would be. Do you have specific components that you would like to see here? So what this is intended to be is like, you present a project in the board. So that looks great. And you're like, but this isn't a real project. This is like an example. And so you need to say, what about the example you're committing to and what about the example is something that might change? Right. Okay. So I understand that. And you know, our intention was the proposal that you're seeing is what we thought was the best plan. Since we came up with that design and with our conversations with the neighbors, that might change now. So we do want to probably get through sketch with what we think is the ideal layout and plan. Well, and you'll hear from us about concerns we have. Sure. Okay. I'll give you a heads up. Comment number five, this is about phasing and timing. Wondering what your thoughts are about that. Well, if I understand the question, generally we want to fully permit the entire project. So in other words, we don't want to, I don't think we want to do a master plan and then do components over time. I think we'd get the thing fully permitted. So we're fully vested before we make an investment in infrastructure. And then if the phasing question has anything to do with how it would get built out, I think the South Meadow part, the 120 units, a little bit driven by market conditions. But I think our intent would be to probably move right along and build it out. I can't predict when single family homes would be built on the other two lots. Okay. Any questions from the board? Comment number six, I can't read through my own writing. Six, yes. This is regarding the access roads and which ones will be retained. And you alluded to that a little bit in your overview, but could you maybe respond to this? The existing roads? Pardon me? The existing road network? Yeah, what do you plan to retain? Well, those roads are pretty historic. They've been there for several decades and our intention would be to retain them. They will end up being private drives to the two home sites. And so for historic reasons, we like to retain them. There's one connection where the roads loop together that we're going to disconnect. Other than that, we also think because they meander through wetlands, we think it would be more disruptive to the wetlands to try and remove them or relocate them or provide a different access. So we think the cleanest thing to do, they're in pretty good shape is to just keep them, just the way they are. And just to add some nuance to that, there would be roads that would be utilized and those roads were taken out of the conservation calculations. So there's a road that crosses at the end road that accesses those two single-family houses. And there's actually a portion of that that is proposed because we think that's the most direct access and would have the least environmental impact. So that's removed from the conservation calculation. There's an existing driveway that accesses the current residents. That is not a historic road, per my understanding. Is that gated off now? That's gated off right now. That one is also removed from the conservation calculations. There are some gravel roads that would go away. So there is specifically a series of very historic roads that have cobblestone arch bridges and walls and it was all associated with the end. And those are the ones that we feel should not be counted against the conservation calculations. But at the same time, we feel it would be disadvantage to take those, to remove those from an environmental and historical standard. And they're part of the character of that property. And you'll see when you go do a site visit, they're pretty scenic and it's been great to keep them. Would they be maintained? They would be maintained by... Yeah, oh yeah, no. David has maintained this property meticulously for all of his life. And yes, they would be maintained. They would be used. They would provide the access to those two single-family lots. No, it wouldn't mean no. So, which road are you talking about? So, the ones that we're talking about that would not be counted towards the conservation, they would not be regularly used. They wouldn't be plowed during the winter time. They probably would be maintained from a deterioration standpoint. But they would provide access into the conservation areas, but they would not have daily use. Anything that we would have daily use on, we have taken out of the conservation calculations. Okay, so I would say that's something maybe the board should provide a little feedback on after a site visit. Okay, sure. Yeah, yeah. It's hard to envision what it's really like. I think we need to get out of it. Oh, it's impossible to. Yeah, you need to see the place. Yeah, okay, good. Okay, thank you. The next question, next issue is number seven. And this is regarding the conservation PUD. I'm going to read this. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to demonstrate that their proposed conservation PUD boundaries are compatible with cluster development and protection of contiguous resource areas. So, we are meeting the majority of our density requirements through a T&D development. It's very approximate to utilities, roads, other development, all the check marks that when you look at the conservation development standards are listed. We also have three single family lots, including the existing residents. That is a matter of, there's a mechanism we're conserving 70% of this parcel. It's a large and it's a very valuable parcel. So, those three single family lots are the mechanism that allow the conservation PUD to happen. Because of the constraints, because of the Velco right away and the railroad, there are certain dynamics that need to be paid attention to in order to make those viable lots. So, we think that it meets the intent because it's not intense development. They're just three single family lots. And it is the mechanism which allows this conservation PUD to occur. Any questions from the board? Mark, are you with us? I'm with you. Okay, good. Following right along. Okay, thanks. Yep. All right, number eight. I'm also going to read this. Staff also recommends the board ask the applicant to describe the proposed driveway to remain on lots two, three and four and demonstrate that their proposed conservation plan will result in adequate protection of the conserved lands taking into consideration that the conserved lands are proposed to be divided into four lots. We've kind of alluded to this, but I'm wondering what else you might want to say about this. I mean, again, we, you know, they're two separate driveways. One will access a single unit. The other driveways will be shared to access two units. I know other similar elements like recreational paths are allowed within the conservation areas. So, we don't feel as if that those drives will create a burden or disconnect the conservation areas. Okay, questions. Okay, the next comment is I can't read my own writing. The intent of the three building lots. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to describe the intent of these building lots. Okay. I'm not sure I understand that other than the long-term intent is to build single-family homes on those lots. Whether they will be for family members or third parties hasn't been determined. Okay. But there'll be single-family home sites. Okay. Number 10. Sorry, can I just, there's a question for my lap. Has, do we have another project that has utilized the conservation PUD before? No. Okay. So, okay. I'm just thinking. So we're the guinea pig. Yeah, exactly. Because I'm just zeroing it out just to comment seven of the clustered development piece. Obviously you have a lot of clustering on the south side of the property and then these three single-family homes. So I don't have a full thought on it, but staff has obviously highlighted it with the comments. And since we don't have another example of this being utilized before, it does seem like those three single-family homes are less clustered than the majority of your development. But I think a site visit is going to be very revealing and I think you'll understand why we only have three single-families on the north side. It's a very challenged piece of property from a development standpoint. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Quinn. Number 10. How are the lots, let me see, consistent with the siting requirements for development areas? If not, the board asked the applicant to demonstrate how the proposed building lots, two, three, and four, are consistent with the siting requirements for development areas. Can you help us understand what you're getting at, Marlo? Sure. If you look above, this section is a headered development area and the standards for location and development area include adjacency to existing infrastructure and existing and planned development and minimizing encroachments into protected natural resource areas. So in that context, as Erica said, this is historic in property and there is existing infrastructure, paved driveways, and culverts. It says here that building lots two, three, and four do need to be modified as discussed pertaining to Article 12. So there are some additional natural resources that need to be taken out of those building lots. And so that modification needs to be done in a way that takes advantage more complies with the development area rather than less or equally complies, I suppose. So this comments asking how the selection of the locations for building lots two, three, and four is consistent with the standards for a location and development area. So I think some of the items that you mentioned that they are part of an existing road network, it is part of a pre-disturbed portion of the project. They're proposed where all the existing buildings were that were removed less than 10 years ago. About that, yeah. Although they hadn't been in use for decades. Yeah, we're essentially building, proposing to build two homes where the existing buildings have been since the early 1900s. And rather than venture off into areas of the site that have never been developed. And when you visit the site, you'll see some remnants of infrastructure. There's foundations that are still there that'll probably have to be removed. So yeah, pretty obvious why we're building where we're building. It's the only place to build there on that site, on that road. And where my cousin lives, his home has been there. And there were outbuildings there before he turned it into home. And so that's been a developed, sort of developed part of the site for decades as well. And is his home one of the three single-family homes? Yes. Okay, so only two of them will be new. That's correct. Yes, and there's an existing family, single-family home on Bartlett's Bay, fronting on Bartlett's Bay Road, which will be torn down. Oh, okay. So there's two existing single-family homes on the property, one to be demolished, one that David lives in. And then two new ones. Okay, thank you. And lot three actually, well, both lots three and lots four, both have existing structures on it that would be part of those pieces. So there's a fairly substantial, what was the reception area for the end on lot three and the boat house. And then on lot four, there's a large storage barn. Okay, thank you. I mean, John, can I ask a question? Sure, go ahead, Mark. So Eric, can I assume the site hasn't had much change or development other than the shoreline stabilization that was done, I don't remember when, but remember the board did a site visit for the shoreline stabilization. And when we did do a site visit back then, is it still pretty much in the same condition? Yes, Dave's maintained the property for decades. The only thing he did is put the wall up on the shore years ago because he was- Right, which is part of the site visit. Right, and then he tore a lot of the old in buildings down that were about to fall down. Hasn't done anything else. Okay, thank you. Yep. Thanks, Mark. Any other questions? All right, number 11. This is the board should discuss whether to direct the applicant to provide a buffer area on the non-conserved portion of the lot to ensure success of the conservation management plan. So this comment is sort of taken in conjunction with comment number nine, where the house slots, as you can see, are fairly large relative to the size of a home, you know, lot coverage is limited to what, 20% or something? There's no way a single home is going to cover 20% of a seven acre lot. There is a standard for a buffer area between incompatible uses or to avoid or minimize impacts of development on conserved resources and open space that's not part of the conserved area. So the question here is, you know, given the size of these lots should it's almost like a it's almost like a designated building envelope to help keep that so that instead of saying, okay, my house is at the very edge of my lot, I want a little bit of a yard and a little bit more yard and a little bit more yard. Maybe there's a buffer area. Not uncommon to what's typically requested for wetland buffer delineation for a multifamily project. Is that what you're alluding to? I think she's talking about a building envelope. So you might have a setback pick a number 10 feet off the boundary line so that so that you're not building right up to the conservation edge. Right. Yeah. And the only exception to that is David's home is pretty close to the edge already existing, but that's a done deal. Yeah. Yeah. So and there's very steep slopes right off the edge that prevent him from expanding outwards. I think we could probably, you know, you know, manage some kind of a defined, you know, building envelope. Okay. Thanks. Questions for. Okay. How do we do on time here? One minute. Okay. Number 12. This is a question about the vision from mixed use component of the project in the TND. Yep. So we were envisioning it to be live work units in the townhouses. So I don't know if you can throw up the TND layout. What's the question here? So it would be when we when we really calculated it, it would really require a fairly large number of those townhouses to be 5% of the total development area, which that development area is calculated, utilizing the residential and the civic space and the mixed use. As part of what we are sort of spinning in our heads now, it seems like it might make more sense as cottage commercial being that quite honestly, we don't think mixed use is the right thing for this area. Like we have a very hard time envisioning non residential uses in this area. It wouldn't be a coffee shop, you know, and I think it would be undesirable to have destination. Yeah. Businesses in here. So we're throwing around a few ideas. Maybe if it's if it's more on the cottage commercial line, maybe it could almost be like a co-working space for the residents in the neighborhood. We're trying to wrap our heads on how best to meet that. Okay. And what we don't want to do is build something there's no demand for. Right, of course. And interestingly enough, almost every single family home today is a live work space with remote working. So if we were to do cottage commercial, we might orient it up close to the railroad track at the entrance where you cross because it's more to keep any kind of commercial traffic out of the neighborhood. But we're not convinced that there's sufficient demand for it in any event. Okay. So some uses that are allowed in the TND, it's not. I think Mikey and I had had an initial conversation and we had both missed that there's like an extra column in the use table that is specifically for TNDs. It's not just the the zoning district. I don't know if you've seen that. But things take a look. Things like child care facilities, offices, indoor outdoor recreation facilities, all kinds of restaurants, retail stales, which you have noted that that doesn't seem to make sense for you, personal instruction, community center kind of things, cultural facilities, all these things are more are permitted. So yeah, I think the co-working space makes a lot of sense because that could be anything. That could be where you go to get your violin lessons or it could be where you sit and do your architecture work. But I just wanted to point out that there are more, I think, than you and I had originally thought. Great. Thank you. Okay. Let's look at 13. This is a question about the improvement plans for homes in Bartlett Bay roads. We've talked about it a little bit already. Do you have anything to add to that? We don't. Other than down the road we'll we'll have to do a traffic study or get a traffic study done, presumably, and usually that brings out if there's any inadequacies in the servicing roads that, you know, like intersection upgrades or whatever. So I think we'll we would deal with that a little bit farther in the process. Thank you. All right. Let's take a few more. Number 14 is regarding connectivity. And I had a question about this. The planned project at Fayette Road. What is that? That's the the Larkin Pudy that you've already seen this before. Oh, okay. Okay. Got it. Got it. Okay. So this is regarding connectivity between the neighborhoods. So we think that there's a lot of opportunity for connectivity. Okay. From from the whole Larkin subdivision up up near the movie theater through the inroad. I think we're very open to discussing the recreation path being on the west side of the railroad, which I think would be much more desirable than being pinned between the railroad and the existing ferrule distributing facilities and then meandering through the TND neighborhood and eventually out to Bartlett Bay Road. Okay. Okay. Any questions board? Number 13. I'm going to read this. Understanding that roads are not fully designed at the sketch plan stage of review. Staff for the recommends the board ask the applicant to describe how they will meet the requirement for the local streets to serve all users emphasizing pedestrian access and walkability. Staff consider cyclist connectivity can either be addressed within the neighborhood or along the railroad if allowed within the GMP easement. We agree. Okay. So I don't know what the standards are, but I think we'd want that for the benefit of the neighborhood as well. Okay. Let's take one more. Number 16. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant the possibility of providing lake access as a civic space. Well, I think that's up to the city council. I don't think that my cousin is going to donate access to the lake for sure. And so I think that as a practical matter, I think the only way that will happen is if the city wants to acquire the property. Otherwise, we have no plans to do that. Okay. I think this is probably a good place to start. We're about halfway through, maybe a little more than halfway through. So I'm going to we'll talk in a few minutes. Can I ask a question? Sure. Go ahead, Mark. Eric, I understand that, you know, it's a bigger picture discussion with the council in terms of public access to the short front, but will residents of the neighborhood be provided access? They will not. The South Meadow residents will not have access to the lake. The only access to the lake will be for the benefit of the three single family lots. Okay. Okay. Is this the time we talk about a date or do we wait till after public comment? Hi there. Continuation. Why don't you go to public comment? Okay. And then I want to talk about a little bit of a date for a site visit as well. It occurs to me that, you know, it was dark when we started. Yes. So it may need to be a right after work kind of thing. Yep. How many people who are here in the auditorium, if you'd show by raising your hand, how many people intend to provide public comment? All right. And do we know how many are online? Yeah. If you could raise your virtual hand online. I think there's a reaction button. You can just raise your hand if you would like to provide public comment. And sorry, we gave you very little notice. So we'll wait a couple of seconds. Given the number of people who are interested in commenting, I think what we're going to do is limit the comments to three minutes. We have one online. Okay. Maybe others may just take people a couple of seconds to figure out how to raise their hand. Okay. All right. So who would like to comment first? Michael, is that Michael? Okay. Can you come up to the? I was just asked a question. This is going to be continued? Yes. Yes. Yes. Who would like to comment first? So I'm just going to ask you to use the mic because we do have a board member attending remotely. Yes. Step up, please. Okay. Okay. I was going to say I can do a tube. Thank you so much for our friends in virtual land for using the mic. I would like to suggest to this gentleman that- Could you introduce yourself, please? I'm Wesley Eldred. I am in Queen City Park. And I'm in fact right at the Potash Brook, for the mouth of the Potash Brook. Can you make sure you speak up so we can all hear you and is the mic on? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'll trade you. Can you turn on your tea coils? Oh, yeah. I have hearing difficulty. Okay. We're going to make that happen. And my house, my property, stands in the way of pushing north. Maybe when I'm buried, which might have 20 years, maybe you'll have a chance. But there are no owners, residents in Queen City Park that will respond to an attempt to build through that property. I'm just suggesting that you're not to spend a lot of the energy working on that. Until you see my obituary. So the other, the other quest, the other quest, question. Excuse me, sir, if you could address your comments to the board, not the applicant, please. All right. Thank you. I would like an estimate of the total population that would be occupying all of the houses, homes, and certainly the operators of your plant for the, what would we call it, the wastewater? The wastewater, yes. They will be interested, of course, in what they are going to have for additional material to and how much, how much do they have to grow in order to deal with it comfortably? Okay. I think, I believe that at some point in the process, we will have our public works department review this and provide comments. Yep. They are already looking at it at a high level. Okay. Good. Okay. Thank you. So thank you very much. Thank you. Who's next? I'm Marjorie Lipson. I'm a resident of Holmes Road, and I just want to make an overall, given that I understand we'll have many opportunities to respond. And I do want to thank Eric Farrell for inviting the neighbors to weigh in already. But I'm a little taken aback by both the staff report and the time spent tonight because it's as though that very large 122 unit development isn't in your vision. So I don't hear any concerns about habitat or conservation or wetlands or a visit to that site. So I want to be very sure that when you do make a site visit, you visit that plot of land as well as the large area where the conservation is designated, because I don't think you can sever those two issues entirely. And then finally, it's my understand we all have deeded rights to Holmes Road. So individually as homeowners, we have deeded access to that road. And it's my understanding that decisions really cannot be made to change that access unless we individually agree to it. I could be wrong about that, but I believe that is the ruling in Vermont. So we want to be sure that we are invited at every step of the way to have a conversation because otherwise we won't be in a position to inform that. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Hi there. I'm Gretchen Guida Michaels. I live on Central Avenue and I am a Northern abutter on the Brook. And I just want to clarify when you guys asked if this project would be in phases, if you were like speaking only to the large development, because the way that the applicant responded made me think that there actually were two phases. So there's the large development of the 120 units. And then the two other lots were not really commented on when those would be developed. And part of the reason I asked that is because I don't understand the process and maybe you can clarify of exactly what the last speaker just brought up, concerns about wildlife and conservation. I don't understand the process about, I mean, there's a lot of wildlife that comes into the Queen City Park neighborhood from this property. And so can you tell me how that will be addressed? Yeah. It's a process question really. Sure. So typically when we talk about phasing, we're talking about the construction of infrastructure and civic spaces. So when he says that it's going to be not a phased development, I believe what Mr. Ferrell is saying is that they're going to put in all of the public infrastructure at once. And because there's not any infrastructure required to support the development of those single family home lots, we wouldn't really consider that to be a phase from a city planning perspective because they're not doing anything to support the development of those lots. And then what about the opportunity to speak about wildlife and environmental impacts? Is that later for part of this group or is that a separate committee? So your opportunity to speak on this development will all those opportunities will be through the development review board like tonight's meeting and any future meetings we have. You can direct concerns about habitat connectivity to us, the DRB. There's also I think we have committee for wildlife or natural resources, but they're not going to be specifically reviewing this project. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next commenter, step right up please. I already may have already said this, but we didn't get through the whole staff report and some of the staff report later portions of the staff report talk about natural resources. Right, right. Right. Good evening. My name is Kathy Easton, E-A-S-T-O-N. My husband and I live on Holmes Road in South Burlington. I appreciate this opportunity to make comments. I don't want our neighborhood on Holmes Road to sort of be cast aside in discussing the larger project that's coming. And I know there's going to be more times for a comment, but I just wanted to let you know a little bit about our neighborhood. For those of you who are not familiar with our small Holmes Road community, it consists of 10 homes located on a very quiet, quarter mile gravel road in the Lakeshore neighborhood district. Our neighbors represent a wide range of occupations to include the fields of medicine public service, law enforcement, retail and business, hospitality, etc. While several of us are now retired, when one considers the extent of our neighbor's employment experience, that collective timespan would probably exceed 600 years of full-time work. 600 years working, saving and planning so that we could live our lives in our chosen home, the state of Vermont and the city of Burlington. Our properties represent a commitment to our families and neighbors, to our local community, and to life in the Green Mountain State. What's more, our properties represent our plans for a secure future as we age. In short, we are vested in our small community on Holmes Road. We value and work collaboratively with our neighbors. We strive to contribute positively to the greater community and we treasure the natural world around us. We have already had two neighborhood meetings with developer Eric Phil at his offering. We have found Eric to be personable and informative, and the exchange of ideas has been thought provoking. That said, we know that we shall need to look for input and insights from city staffers, committee and community members, along with a host of experts, drawing on the collective viewpoints, expertise, and wisdom of all the participants who come to the table. We do recognize and understand that one way or the other, some type of fundamental change is probably coming our way. We just hope that in that journey, the ultimate outcome will be one that yields the most positive result, not only for our small neighborhood, but also for the greater community and the natural world as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Who's next? Good evening. Good evening. Green lights on so you can hear me. I am Tom Easton, EASTON. The better half just spoke to you a little bit ago. I will say that we did not collaborate on notes, so I had no idea what she was going to say. Hopefully there won't be a whole lot of overlap. I too live on Holmes Road as one of the 10 home owners, property owners, in the Holmes Road Lakeshore neighborhood. Before I start, I would like to thank all members of the Development View Board, as well as the members of the City Planning and Zoning Office for the time and service that you give to our community of South Burlington and the critical function you perform in overseeing the development in our community. With that in mind, I would like to make one observation and present several issues that our neighborhood is now facing based on the application for the land development, which is before you tonight. First, my comment. First and foremost, my wife and I firmly believe in the property rights of landowners who legally own their property and are taxpayers within our respective communities. Although the news of a new plan development going in next to our well-established neighborhood may not initially be received with shouts of joy coming from the residents of the established neighborhood, it is the right of the property owners to develop and improve their land within established rules, regulations, and existing laws of a given municipality. That said, my wife and I also believe that the developer, along with the municipality, the given municipality, has the obligation to blend the new with the old in such a manner so as not to be offensive in hopes that the two can harmoniously exist, not as one, but as two distinct and separate communities. i.e., both having their own separate identities and neither community trying to mold itself into the other. With the above said, and as it's been noted before, I just want to make sure that the board is aware that Eric, as well as Mike, have reached out to us as the residents in the Holmes Road neighborhood. And they've met with us on two separate occasions. To solicit input from our small community on how best, but within reason, federal properties can modify their initial plans and better accommodate the needs and desires of our neighborhood. Although neither party will for sure know what can or cannot be done until the DRB chimes in with their regulatory oversight, we are hopeful a give and take working solution can be achieved in the long run. And I believe, was that the three minute? Yes, it was. Thank you. So you probably want me to wrap this up. I'll just say, in general, since we'll be meeting again, that there are several considerations or issues that we're looking at. And one is the Holmes Road remain as it was, has been discussed tonight. The second one is the environmental impact with the wildlife habitats, the corridors and things like that. So we'll be charming in later on that. Mr. Easton, you're going to have to. Okay. So thank you for, thank you for your time. Well, I'll look forward to talking to you later. Thank you. Go ahead. Come on up. Hi, my name is Lisa Hickey and I live on Central Avenue in Queen City Park Road. And I have three, I think relatively quick questions to them or process. One is if you look at this map up along the Queen City Park boundary, it looks like some of the property goes right up to Potash Brook, where there is quite a bit of erosion. That's my understanding. I know my neighbors who live on the Brookside of Central Avenue, there, there's not bedrock. There is my understanding. And so that some, there is continual propping up occasionally of buildings. And I know that they're not proposing any buildings there, but I'm wondering if you're looking at the conservation area and, and the percentage of the land that it encompasses, how, and sort of is it, are you obligated to think about what kind of erosion could be happening at a long Potash Brook, basically removing potentially a lot of that land? Is that something you take into consideration? Like, is there a long-term perspective about that? I don't know that it is an issue. It's just something that I know on the other side of the book has been. And so I'm wondering if in 15 years, there's much more erosion and all of, you know, a sizable percentage of your conservation land has been eroded. Is that something you take, is that under your purview? Do you have an answer to that, Marla? Not off the top of my head, but I think it's an interesting point that I haven't heard brought up before. I'm looking at it. Okay, thanks. And then I just had two other process questions, because I'm relatively new to South Burlington. One is, I think that we just redid our sewage system, correct? Did we not just, or are we in the process of, like, don't we have a new, or we just approved it? Right, it didn't come out. Right, so we just approved it. And so I'm wondering, without approval, have you built in the capacity for X numbers of new units? Like, is that something... And this is, again, a process question. It's not specifically about this particular development issue, but because there will be so many new units, I'm wondering, is that something that will be taken into consideration? How do you build all of the, what will be increasing development into that? Yeah, so short answer, if you don't mind. Please don't let this detract from Lisa's three minutes. The long-term planning for capital improvements takes into consideration sort of a short-term, a medium-term, and a long-term. Okay. So this would be considered a short-term project because there's a number associated with it. Right. Medium-term projects are projects that we've talked to people, but there's no number. And long-term projects are just based on the baseline growth rate of the city. So all three of those things are planned into any new capital projects. Okay, great. And then the sort of follow-up to that is schools. So as we know, our schools are crowded. We have infrastructure issues. These children would all... The children living in the proposed 122 units of whom I am sure there will be many would all probably be zoned for orchard. I know that's a school district's issue to address, not the city councils. But I do wonder, and I know impact fees have been reinstated. But again, I'm wondering as the DOB approves development projects of this size, how do you make sure just another process that you're incorporating that kind of consideration into the infrastructure needs of the city? And I know there's not a direct answer. I just wanted to sort of flag that as something. I'm not clear about how integrated the workings of all of the different stakeholders in this kind of thing are and how much that is under your purview or sort of... Yeah. The city council, and the city council is certainly dialed in to this issue because it's come up before discussions are happening. I don't know if you want to add. We are well aware that it's an issue. Yeah, I'm smiling because it's a very insightful comment. Take everything I said about wastewater treatment plant, and I will say I am assured that the school district is doing the same, but I cannot say for sure that they are because I don't do it. They call me and say, what are the numbers? Right. But I don't work with them through that process. So that's largely a question for... Well, I think it's a question that isn't really the purview of this board. Right. But certainly as somebody who's been involved with the school board, what I have seen is that everybody feels like... There isn't a comprehensive overview. There doesn't seem to be a process where the GRB says we're going to approve these numbers of seats like school board and let's meet all of us with city council and talk about how we're going to make that work, et cetera, et cetera, because building things without making sure that schools can be built to accommodate them ultimately isn't good for everybody. So I'm just trying to sort of ask that circle can get a little bit squared somehow. That's the right expression. I don't think it is. But I think to a large degree that's happening. I think that my understanding of that is because my responsibility is to stop the development review board is more limited. So I'm not able to answer as cleanly as I can. Absolutely. And I'm just sort of mostly making the comment to throw it out there to sort of put in your pipe to smoke as a way to maybe coordinate with everybody. Thank you. Thank you so much. Who else would like to... Somebody come down. We have a little bit of a waiting here. You're next. So don't go far. Adam, it's not going to take long. My name is Dana Twitchill. I live on Holmes Road. And the biggest problem we have is that Ferrell's have been great neighbors. We don't want any changes. They take impeccable cares of their grounds and they've always been friendly folks. I've known them for a long, long time. But we understand there's going to be expansion. It's just the way it is. And we're starting off working with them. And I hope we can continue on. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. If you're getting your steps in. I need it. I'm Adam Glazer. I'm Dana's neighbor on Holmes Road. And I just wanted to bring up a couple of quick points with regards to maintaining Holmes Road as it is. Currently, Holmes Road runs by my front yard, feels more like a shared driveway with my neighbors than a proper road. The speed limit's 10 miles an hour. We put up a little, Kathy calls it our little farm stand of our excess fruit and veggies at the end of the road that people stop and grab. Just last week I saw Bobcat come across the field. He stood and stared at me on the road and then continued north. And I understand that and I appreciate Eric talking to us and asking for Holmes Road to remain as is. And I ask for your consideration. Some of the things he mentioned is the density concerns and with shrinking the development a little bit, being able to maintain the density concerns and have a buffer between our current road and the new neighborhood. And I just ask that since the north and the south side of Holmes Road in this project feel like very disparate pieces of property and only that this is being considered as one proposal with all the density on one side and most of the conservation on the other side that if you could consider that maybe the density requirement not be held true if that's what it takes to give us a little bit of a buffer between Holmes Road and the neighborhood. As he's mentioned in talking with us his willingness to allow for a buffer between our current road and the new neighborhood. And that'll do it for now. Thank you. Thanks. Come on down. Can I ask one clarifying question before my timer starts? Introduce yourself first please. I'm Greg Dickum, T-I-T-C-O-M-B. I'm the resident of Holmes Road. Okay. With concerns to city access like Holmes Road on the other side of the road tracks and things that are not addressed in this plan where they're referred to as we'll do a traffic study in the future and a bike path that has a lot of maybes and theoreticals. Are those suited for this committee here or should those be saved for a later meeting? Well there will be other steps in this in the review. And the applicant needs to get more specific as we move through the process. And that's where we will be asking and gathering information on the very specific details that you're talking about. Is that correct Marlon? Yeah. Okay. So I mean this is just really pretty high level right now because as Mr. Ferrell said they don't want to invest a lot to get to a lot of details right now when they don't have a sense of what the board's reaction is. Okay so there will be an opportunity to be granted more than three minutes for details such as those? Well the three minutes is based on the number, the reality of how much time we have, and the number of people who want to provide testimony. There will definitely be other opportunities for public comment as we go through this application. This is a complex. And I would note that we encourage public comment and writing if you have something longer to say. Okay. Okay I can submit most of that. Okay thank you. Here writing then. Okay so we'll start at three minutes and I'll try to quickly go through this. My greatest levels of concern are Holmes Road, not necessarily the private dirt road, but the carrying capacity of the city beyond the railroad tracks. It's primarily an industrial road. There's two businesses that rely heavily on tractor trailer traffic. There's a great deal of traffic coming out of ferro distributing. There's two car dealerships that have service roads where customers are test driving cars they're not familiar with. Mechanics are testing cars by accelerating as fast as possible. It's a pretty squirrely road a lot of times with the 10 current residents on the road, increasing that by 10 to 12 times. You know I've seen I believe the number was 124 units, two of which would not be using this, but there's been numbers they're all around 120. So you know we're looking at an increase of probably 200 cars plus all of the cars that would be required to service such a facility, UPS trucks, trash trucks, etc. I don't believe that road is in a state able to handle that increased traffic, particularly with the one lane railroad crossing. That's just going to be a bottleneck. It's the north exit. Most things are north. That's going to be the primary means of entry exit from the neighborhood. As much as we might want people to use that new road down to Bartlett Bay, it's not convenient. People aren't going to take a longer way around to sit through an extra traffic light on Shelburne Road. So those are a couple of homes road concerns, just being quick and paraphrasing. I believe that the bike path is an integral part of this neighborhood. So not seeing anything actually on a plan and hearing things like theoretically we can do this. Maybe we can get permission from Velcro. You know, maybe we can do a railroad crossing. Maybe it'll connect to something in the future. Without that bike path, the points that they made about this being a walkable neighborhood kind of go out the window. You could walk around in a circle. You could, I don't know, walk down that new road and go to the Jiffy Lube, I guess. But without that access to Haniford, to the movie theater, to the, you know, Blissby, any sort of restaurant, any sort of local business a person might want to walk to, this would become an entirely car-centric neighborhood, which is antithetical to most desired urban planning. Ironically, the two businesses closest to this neighborhood car dealerships, you know, in order to actually get anywhere without a bike path, you need to walk up this industrial road where I do it all the time. I'm almost hit by cars, semi-trucks, etc. regularly. But then once you get towards Shelburne Road, you actually need to walk down a car dealership service road through their parking lots, through the parking lots of various businesses. And then just quickly, I want to, just like 15 seconds, could make a comment about this being the first conservation PUD. I want to make sure that since there isn't precedent that this is handled correctly and that the size and scope of it doesn't make it feel, this is just a knee-jerk reaction. A lot of it felt like when I was a child and my mom said to clean my room and I swept everything into one corner and the whole thing was cleaned or conserved. It's a very crowded in the south, in the south portion of this conservation area. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Hi, I'm Jane Boivier. I live on Holmes Road and my husband is Dana Twitchel who spoke earlier. And I just wanted to say, first of all, thank you to the board and to Eric for consulting with the neighborhood and asking for our input. And I just wanted to share a little bit of my story. My family has lived on Holmes Road for over 45 years. I cared for my father in our home where he was granted his wish to die at home in peace in our quiet, peaceful neighborhood. I would like to think that we could maintain some semblance of this piece by retaining our neighborhood one lane road with a generous buffer between our home and the proposed development. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, good evening. Good evening. My name is Sarah Dopp. I'm the president of the South Burlington Land Trust. There's a lot to like about this design of this neighborhood. I wish it could be somewhat smaller. I don't mean tiny, but smaller. And though I'm not a designer, I wish it could be flipped so that it was running in a north-south direction. Because we all know that a neighborhood of this sort produces a plug in the north-south migration route for wildlife. And that's what this is very effectively doing is plugging. And so it renders the existing conservation area a lot, whatever is just off the screen. But where you have the cross-hatching 1A, law 1A, it will render that just an island in the midst of quite a lot of development around about it north and south and so on. So if that development, if I were a designer and I could flip it for a number of degrees so that it would run north-south, be sort of close to the railroad line, that at least would open up a central corridor for movement between the lake and the railroad, which has already always existed. I would love to love to see that explored. I'm also curious about the fragmentation of the lakeshore. I know there's these three lots. I get that. I'm sure they all have lake frontage. That would be obvious. So is it that there's a little section of lake frontage left than a parcel? I can't really see the property boundaries on here. But so is there some lake frontage, then a building lot, then some more lake frontage, then a building lot so that it's all broken up? Is there any way of conjoining two of them? So it only takes a certain section of the lake frontage and maybe creates a little more lake frontage somewhere else in the distance. I'd just like to see that explored or see those boundary lines a little clearer so I could understand that better. And then the last comment I guess I've got at this point is I think I heard it asserted that the natural resources and conservation committee would not have any input in this project. That surprised me very much. Maybe I misheard, but I certainly hope they will. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a response to that, Marla? Yeah, I'm a spoke earlier, I guess. I just meant to say that they don't specifically review development projects. If we need to kick something to them, we certainly can. But if you're looking to speak to the developer or to the DRB about the habitat connectivity standards and our LDRs, they would be through us. Right, so the natural resources and conservation committee would be looking at projects either on their own volition or at the recommendation of the board. But the board, if you had comments on those elements, they should be made to the board. I mean, you can certainly make them a conservation committee, but they don't have the authority. They certainly used to weigh in, that's why. Yeah, right. And they probably should here, too. And just a comment on the Lakeshore as well, one of the things we didn't get to tonight is that the floodplain is one of the areas that's required to be part of the conservation area. So at least the floodplain part of the Lakeshore would become part of the conservation area. So what do we need to do to get input from the natural resources committee? I would be happy to take your feedback to send it to them right now. Okay, I think that makes sense. Okay, thank you. Good evening. Hi, good evening. My name is Chris Colova, C-O-L-O-V-O-S. I live on 119 Holmes Road with my wife Megan Gething. Thank you for taking the time to review this and thanks to Eric that we have had very fruitful discussions. But I think it's very important to come and take a look at our neighborhood. It's really a very special place. I've been living there now for five years. You don't know how many different sorts of wildlife we see. June, the forest is just full of fireflies. It's something very special. And since this is the first case that you guys are going to review and this sort of environmental impact, I think your choice has to be very judicious. Thank you. Thank you. Is it a good time now to go to online comments? Sure, sure. I'm going to start. We're not, you're still getting your chance. We'll go to Selma first. And then I think that Eden also had a comment. Selma? Selma with an S. Selma. Let's see if they are still around. Are you with us? Yep. There we go. Yes, I am. Sorry. I'm actually a wife of Eden's son. I was just making sure that his comment gets seen because he had to jump off. So if one of you just wants to read it, that's easier to hear. That's fine with me. Okay. Thank you. So Eden had a comment that said earlier. Okay. We'd like to know what type of privacy slash safety fence slash barrier is planned for the four properties impacted by the street E connecting to Bartlett Bay Road. Oh, it's the small four, those four on the small street. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply the properties are small. The street is small. Okay. So is this a question for? Well, I mean, I think that the format tonight is generally put all the questions on the table rather than have a back and forth of the applicant. But if it's something you'd like the applicant to think about and address at a later meeting, we can certainly ask them to do that. That might make sense. Could you give that some thought? I don't think I understand the question. Okay. Sorry. I just have the what was written. And I don't know, Selma, if you wanted to, I can let you unmute again if you have any more clarification. Are you talking about a fence along that line where you're moving? I believe, I believe that is the question, whether there's anything proposed. And I would say at this time, there's nothing specific. There is a rec path on that side. There'll be street trees. Obviously we won't be impacting that property with grading or construction activities. And those houses are a bit off, but we'd probably be open to discuss and hear their concerns. Selma, did you hear that? Yes, I did. Thank you. To add to the comment, we have met, the Lakeview homes have met, and we would like to request, if possible, to meet with you as well as we see that you've met with the home side, but we have not been met with and our concerns have not been addressed. So, if it's possible at all, we would love that opportunity. Absolutely. Okay. I see Mr. Ferrell nodding yes and saying absolutely. So, good. Thank you. Because as mentioned on the home side of the road, the neighborhood is going to be impacted greatly by this change, our privacy and our views, and again, animals that we see as well. So I would love to have a discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Um, anyone else online? Doesn't look it, no. Okay. Gentleman who was, yeah. Good evening. My name is Mark Sherman, M-A-R-C-S-H-E-R-M-A-N. I live at 123 Holmes Road. And along with all of my neighbors who are here today, I think we're appreciative of the collaborative discussions that Eric Ferrell has had with us and come forward to talk to us. And he is known for being a considerate developer and it seems to be the case from our discussions and it's been a pleasure talking to him. We also, my wife and I at 123 Holmes, recognize the importance of housing right now in Chittenden County and in South Burlington and realize that all of the comments that my neighbors have made regarding wildlife habitat for geese, deer, fox, bobcat, and countless other animals, along with the traffic flow issues that need to be considered in the study for getting onto Shelburne Road, whether it's through Bartlett Bay or off at Holmes Road or critical, as it is now with the industrial LTL freight for UPS, ferrule distributing, and access from the two dealerships is often a considerable hangup at the traffic like getting onto Route 7. And we do believe that most of the residents of this neighborhood, whatever size it is, will use that access to Route 7 and not necessarily Bartlett Bay. That being said, there are also significant safety issues on that road. As Greg mentioned, my wife and I have both been nearly T-boned with people coming out of those side roads from the dealerships and from ferrule distributing and to a lesser degree LTL freight. We really feel that those need to be considered when you think about putting probably 200 additional cars going up and down that road every day. I also saw the mention of school district issues. Orgard School is considerably overpopulated as it is this year. My wife and I have a five-year-old who wasn't able to get into after-school programming because of the lack of staffing and that's without the additional children. This is a great conceptual development and it meets all the density requirements that are laid out by the city of South Burlington. I don't think that addresses the fact that these types of developments will be populated with families with children and that will be needed. Personally, I love the idea of having a playground nearby and other children nearby for my son. We live on a block with... I think we have the only child on the block, so... And so I think it's also interesting and Greg pointed this out with his bedroom analogy. I love that. I do that with my desk at work. But to see a development of this size compressed into this piece of 105-acre property, it's hard to envision if that's the only way. But what I would say, it seems to me like that is a... It's a developer-based and the cost of building something like this, making these decisions more so than necessarily being the best thing, although certainly a community of this is great. And I'll finish in saying that I really think there's a huge importance following Chris's comments of preserving the existential aspects of our neighborhood. It's a seemingly small rural neighborhood only yards from Shelburne Road, yet the unpaved tree-lined road and the forest that is there, which may seem small in some of these drawings but as significant with large trees and well-developed internal structure, maintaining as much of that as possible when looking at this and accepting that, yes, there will be development in this field and, yes, it will be more homes than any of us would love to see in our backyards, but there's a way to do it. There has to be a way to do it that preserves this existential neighborhood that we have, the existential nature of our neighborhood, understanding that there is a need for additional housing. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Hi, my name is Megan Gettingen. I live on Holmes Road. I have concerns about the forest that's going to be chopped down on the west side of the development a lot. It's a, you know, it seems to me, and I understand the thing about the parceling of the land that there's only so much, but this is forest here is mature trees. They've been, I mean, they're gorgeous and it's, if you look at this layered resource where you can kind of see the layers of everything that's available in terms of the natural resources, this is also a habitat for you know, rare and endangered species according to the map. So that really, really, really concerns me and that forest there, I don't quite know why the development needs to be so big. I have a lot of concerns about that forest being chopped down. That's it. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Did I see your hand go up? Oh, I was just so, if we have other comments, we should email them tomorrow. Yes. Yeah, so in a general way, once a meeting is concluded, we can't accept new public comments, but because this is going to be continued, we are happy to accept public comments. Anything that is sent to me before the week before the scheduled date will be published in the packet for everyone to read. Anything else will just be sort of forwarded to the board after the next conversation. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So you want to talk about scheduling? Sure. Yes, ma'am. It's a quick procedural question. Yes. Notices as to where the butter, so we got this letter to say come. Yes. So you will always get a butter, if you are in a butter, you will always get the same type of notice when there's a new meeting. If it's a continued meeting, like tonight is going to be continued to a later date, there won't be a new notice sent out. You can always check the minutes or you can get on the list that has the agenda sent out at the end of every week to check to see when it's going to... If you missed one or talked to your neighbors, but you only get a butter notice when there's a new hearing. So this is the first step in a multi-step process. So every time that we're starting new steps, there'll be a new a butter notice that goes out. And there'll also be always a placard. And I think Mikey put that at the railroad crossing on Holmes Road. Eric, does somebody hear? Eric did, yes. So there's always a little poster. If I could ask you guys, actually, when the hearing is concluded, to take those down because I think it is a little money's the waters when people leave it up when there's no longer an active hearing. That way they can see, oh, there's a new placard. There must be a new hearing. Well, keep it up until the continued meeting is completed, right? Right, yeah. So actually you have to keep it up until the appeal period expires. But if there's a three-month gap, take it down during that time, if you would. It does not include the butters that are equal. So only direct the butters to the property. Which may include some folks in Queen City Park. There's quite a few people in Queen City Park that are direct the butters. There's not a placard over there though. The placard is, there's one placard and that's... And subsequent stages are reviewably in the newspaper, too. Yeah. Sketch plan doesn't go in the paper. More hearings for which a decision is issued does go in the paper. Okay, let's talk about dates because we're already way over time. Is it also just worth noting these meetings are recorded and so if folks miss one, they could rewatch it. I know your intent is to attend, but if you have a conflict, you can always find the backlog. Those are available on YouTube. So you can monitor it through all the avenues and then also you can catch up if you miss one. So thank you. That's good. Okay, dates. November 7th would be the good date for the continued hearing. If we think we can schedule, I would like to have a site visit for that point. Site visit has to be warned as a public meeting. I can get something in next Thursday's paper so we could meet anytime between the 26th and the 7th for a field visit. Do we want to stick to the Tuesday thing? Because members generally are available Tuesdays. So Marla, I'm out of the country from the 20th to Halloween, October 20th to the 31st. Okay, so maybe not the 31st then because that would be the only Tuesday in that window that works with the paper deadline. We could do Wednesday, the first November 1st or Thursday, November 2nd. I think I'm available. Mark, John. One thing I'll sort of keep in mind is that going that far out, sunset actually is getting down to like 430. Yep. Oh boy. All right. Thoughts on that, Mark? Any alternative suggestions? What about a noon time? Yeah, that would be my suggestion. I guess you're all local. Or first thing in the morning, whatever. Does that work for you? You probably have the longest drive. Yeah, yeah, I can accommodate that. Okay, but you have an office that's farther away, don't you? That was what I was thinking. But you can make it work. Well, I'm mostly away from office. Okay, okay. So noon time on the first? Is that too crazy? What? Let's see what day it is. Wednesday. Wednesday, November 1st. Pretty sure I could do that. Noon time. Is that going to be okay with you? That'll be the first day you're back. Yeah, I'll be jet-lagged. Pardon me? I'll be jet-lagged. And our hearts will bleed for you. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Um, that's also my packet deadline day, which gives me at least a little bit of chance to respond to anything that happens in the fields in the packet. Not a lot, you know, like four hours. Yeah, okay. But you're a magician. Okay, so Wednesday, November. God, I can't believe we're into November. Okay, November 1st. So we need to make a motion to continue this to November 7th and to make a motion to hold a fake visit on November 1st to noon? No, you don't need the motion for the second part. We don't. Oh, okay. We don't need a motion to continue. We do need a motion to... No, because that's a new... It's a separate meeting. Okay. So do I have a second to Mark's motion to conclude, to continue this hearing to November 7th? Thank you, John. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Now you will send us instructions as to where we should meet. Yes, I'll talk to Eric about that. Okay, or Mike. Great. And we should wear comfortable shoes. Hiking boots. So Mila, how does that meeting get worn because it will be a public meeting? Open to the public or is it just... Yeah, so it'll be... I'll word it carefully, but it's open to the public, but it's just fact-taking. The applicant makes a presentation of what the facts are of the lay of the land. This is where we're proposing this. This is where we're proposing that. There won't be a discussion other than to clarify facts. Yep, yep, okay. Okay. Can I ask one question? Sure. Marlo, if we make any revisions or create any new exhibits, when would you need those submitted by? Um, so generally, anything that you want to incorporate into the staff report, we need two weeks before the continued meeting date. Great, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. Thank you. You and a couple of weeks have a great trip, Eric. Pardon? Have a great trip. Thank you. It was a good idea six months ago. He's going to be tortured. Exactly. It's still recording and we have another hearing. That's okay. Well, people are good. Okay, we'll do. Thanks. We're much later than I thought we'd be. Yeah. We haven't had a late meeting in a while. We were spoiled. Welcome back. Welcome back. We missed you. Yeah, fighting my targets. So we're going to move on to the next thing. We are recording. All right. Shall we start? Continue appeal A023 of Robert Mason and Kathy Brunette. Yes, please. Thank you. And so Marty, if you would like to take the... Let me find this here. And I will try to take notes and present at the same time. We will see how that goes. All right. Oh, Marty, you have to stop presenting. Oh, yeah. Thanks. So thank you. All right. So I'm going to try to be a wizard here and I'm going to try to run the meeting and pay attention to what's being said and take notes and watch keep an eye out for people who have questions or raise their hand virtually. Here we go. So this is appeal number A02301 of Robert Mason and Kathy Brunette at 17 Appletree Court, Burlington, appealing the decision of the acting administrative officer that there is no performance standard violation at 408 Shelburne Road. Before you start, Marty, are you the only person testifying tonight? Are you the appellant? Yes. Okay. Okay. Pardon me? Oh. Just have to do that right. I got to work. Yeah. Yes. I'm Robert Mason. Thank you. All right. First, we're going to hear from the administrative officer. Well, so let me do some introduction if you don't mind, Don. Sure. So this is a different process than our usual meetings. Yes. This is an appeal. The board is acting as a court. So what the board has to do is the board has to first identify interested people. And so anyone who wants to be considered an interested person has to state why they believe they're interested people. Sorry, I'm jumping around because I forgot that I'm presenting. The interested people have to meet one of three tests, which I will show in a second. I can't talk and scroll at the same time. I think there are five actually, aren't there? And so people are going to say that they're interested people and then the board is going to decide if they agree that they're interested people and if they are, then they will be able to provide testimony. If you are not, if the board does not accept you as an interested person, you won't be providing testimony. You can still provide public comment, but the board doesn't take it with the same weight. It's not it's not the same like, you know, I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth is nothing about the truth kind of thing. So let me just pull up the criteria and we can go through those quickly. And then well, you're doing that. Let me ask, here we go. Are there any people here who want to be considered an interested person? I think there are online. Let me see. Okay. I gotta magically unmute some people first. Two. Okay. Oh dear. Sorry. This is a lot. This is a lot of things that I'm trying to do all at once. Yes, it is. So I've got Liam unmuted and was there anyone? Yes, Liam Murphy is appearing on behalf of the appellants. Thank you. Anyone else who wanted to be an interested person if you could raise your virtual hand? Do we need to have any disclosures? Yep. That's where the question is. So I guess I'm going to disclose that I am a long-term friend of Liam Murphy who's representing the appellant, but I don't believe that's going to, unless you have some concerns, Liam, I don't believe that's going to interfere with my ability to be objective. Can you live with that? I'm fine with that if the other parties are. Okay. All right, good. I don't see anyone else who's raised their hand virtually who want to be, oh, someone's waving. Well, both of my clients, Bob, Payson, and Kathy Brunette will want to speak as well. Okay. Kathy, did I successfully unmute you? Did it, there you go. Okay. Hello. And then anyone in the audience that would like to be considered an interested person? There's two. Okay. So let's have everyone state why they believe they're an interested person. Okay. How many are online? Two. Two. Two. Because Kathy's not an interested person. She's a, she's part of the appellant. Yes. Right. And so that, that makes her an interested person. Okay. And it's sort of a foregone conclusion. If I may overstep my bounds, that she is in fact an interested person because she appealed to it. Sure. Okay. All right. So why don't we start with you, sir? Why don't you explain to us? These are the five criteria. Why do you believe you're an interested person? Can we hear? Yeah, you need the mic because we have some people online, including a board member. Is that one set up? It should be. If it doesn't, there's... Um, my name is Adam Jones. I'm the proprietor of Myers Bagels at 408 Sheldon Road. And why do you think you should be considered an interested person? The entire case is based upon our production, what we do, and how we do our business. So I'd like to be able to respond or answer if possible. Board, do we agree? Let's do everybody. And then we'll talk about them afterwards, if that's okay. Oh. You don't want to do it one at a time. I suspect that you're just going to say okay to all of them. Okay. All right. Let's go. Let's move on. Thanks, sir. My name is Joe Larkin with Larkin Realty, landowner of 408 Sheldon Road. I'm here as an interested person as the manager of the property that Adam leases. Okay. Thank you, Joe. All right. Folks online. Who's next, Marla? Go with Liam first. Liam, go ahead. Oh, I'm here as an attorney for the two appellants, Bob Payson and Kathy Burnett. Thank you. And who is the last person online? Yes, didn't you say there were two? There's a person there. I don't, she has a name that I don't think is a person name. Can you say your name while you're an interested person? Yes. Yes. My name is Kathy Burnett and I'm one of the appellants. Yeah. Okay. Oh, I thought there was another one. Okay. All right. Board. Let's take them one at a time. Adam Jones, the owner of Myers Bagels. Interested person. Yeah. Yes. Okay. Joe Larkin. Interested person. Okay. Larkin. Liam Murphy. Yeah, interested person. And I'm missing someone's name. I'm sorry. My name is Kathy Burnett. Kathy. Okay. Kathy. All right. So are we in agreement that all of these individuals are interested persons? I'm sorry. Other than Mr. Payson, have the other appellants identified themselves as adjacent property owners? No. There are no other adjacent property owners here except you, correct? Correct. Well, and Kathy lives with you? Yes. Okay. Yes. So yes. So the people who have identified themselves as appellants are all adjacent property owners? Yes. Okay. Okay. Let's see. Sorry, it's gotten so late. Okay. We are going to invite in this order people to provide testimony. And we'll start with the acting administrative officer and then move on to the appellant and any other interested persons that were previously identified. So go ahead, Marty. Sure. Yeah. Mr. Payson first contacted us at Planning and Zoning in February to inquire about air quality standards in the city of South Burlington and then reached out again in June to report his concerns regarding the wood smoke emissions generated by the operation of Myers Bagels at their new location at 408 Shelburne Road in South Burlington. For context, this property received site plan approval in July of 2014 to convert an existing short order restaurant, which was KFC at the time, to standard sit down restaurant use. The first tenant was juniors and it's since changed a couple of times. That property then received zoning permit in October of 2022 to construct a wood-fired oven and grill in that existing standard restaurant. That decision to approve that zoning permit was not appealed at the time. So in June of this year, I reviewed our land development regulations and our various ordinances for any regulatory language that might pertain to wood smoke emissions and determine that our performance standards for both air pollution and odors, which are in appendix A4 and A5 respectively, might apply to the situation that Mr. Payson had described in his email to us. On Friday, July 7th, I performed a site visit at about 10 a.m. at 10.02 a.m., so I kind of drove to the property on Shelburne Road. I tried to identify the chimney and at 10.02 a.m., I thought I had found it and stood in the rear of the property. I could see the chimney and Marla has pulled up my map, so that green X, so that where her kosher is, is where I stood. As I made my observation, the chimney is sort of on the closest part of the roof to that X, which is why I chose that spot. And then at 10.04, I drove up to Apple Tree right there where the second X is and that property in between two X's is Mr. Payson's. And so I didn't go on his property, but I got kind of as close as I could on the road, trying to see if I could get a glimpse of the chimney, but because of the house, I could not see the chimney, although I knew where I was. So I made observations at both of those sites. I did not observe, I observed no odors and violation of the odors performance standard and observed no visible emissions that were in violation of the air pollution performance standard during that site visit. As a result of those observations, the limited evidence that had been submitted by Mr. Payson at that time and the fact that our office had received no other public comment on the topic, I determined that at the time of that site visit, there was no evidence that Myers Bagels was in violation of either relevant performance standard. I therefore concluded that given the information available to me, no further investigation was necessary. I communicated this information to Mr. Payson in an email dated July 7th of 2023. I did in that email invite Mr. Payson to provide further information and offered that our office could and would revisit this issue if there was more evidence but did not hear from him. Although I do understand he has submitted materials as part of his application tonight. To date, the city has not received complaints of wood smoke omission or offensive odors at the Myers Bagels property from anyone else. Thank you. Is it, can I ask a question? Is that appropriate? Can you show me on this diagram where the ovens are located, please? I don't know where the ovens are located but the chimney is right to the up top left where I think. Okay. And that's where the, if there were odors, that's where the odors would come on. Presumably the wood service below that. Okay, thank you. There are in the packet for the board plans, some pictures of, that were from the zoning permit and that does have floor plans if it becomes relevant, I believe. Okay. Any other questions from Marty? Yes, I have a question. Preceded by a short speech. I went through carefully the materials and I'm scared to be corrected by Liam or the, or the appellant but the only thing I saw at issue and I'd like to focus on that with you was A5B. I don't see the interest of the public being involved here but A5B doesn't, doesn't talk about the public. It simply says, any process which may involve, which may involve the creation or admission of any odors shall be provided with a secondary safeguard system so that control will be maintained if the property safeguard system should fail. I'm not entirely sure what that means but I want to ask you first, do you doubt the appellant's report that there is at least some odor coming from the, from the chimneys? I wouldn't say that I doubt it but I will say that I was unable to confirm it. You smell nothing. Correct. You were there when the ovens were operating, when the brick oven was operating or don't you know? I'm not certain. I don't know. Wouldn't that be important to know? That would be probably important to know. Yeah. What is the secondary safeguard? Can you explain the meaning of that provision? It's sort of, I find it... I think my understanding is that a lot of the performance standards were developed with sort of... I'm not asking you how the performance standards were developed. I'm asking you about the meaning of A5B. Yeah, and I'm saying that because they were developed for, I believe, more industrial uses. That's a way to regulate industrial production things. Not necessarily for... So if you were doing something that... doing something on a larger manufacturing chemical scale, the performance standard there is sort of... So your interpretation of B is it simply doesn't apply? It's not applicable to the circumstance? I wouldn't say it's inapplicable. It's a performance standard. Oh, no. A5B... A5B... A5B, since it's... Your interpretation is it's only intended for industrial applications, not for something as... No, that's my understanding of where it originates from. Not... I'm not saying that it's not applicable here. So if there is any odor... I'm just reading a language. If there is any odor coming from the chimney, there should be a secondary safeguard system. Is that right? I'd agree that's correct. Yeah. Is there a second... Is secondary safeguard system? I'm not sure. Okay. That's the end of my question. Any other questions? Thank you, Marty. And next we will hear from... I'm sorry, a little rusty on this. We will hear from Mia Pellet. I think Liam was going to go first. Okay. Yeah. Okay, go ahead, Liam. Good evening. Thank you. I know it's been a long night, and hopefully we won't keep you here too much longer. This is an awkward situation that we're in. You know, the inspection was one day out of now what's been 365 days of operation there. And the only reason that I appealed was because I was concerned that if there was not an appeal, then we would be bound by the decision forever. And that's why I appealed. Obviously, everything depends there on which way the wind blows. The wind is predominantly from the west, but it often is come from the north of the south and where you stand depends on what you will smell. So, you know, that's one of the problems about being here. We're here about, you know, an inspection on one day, but we felt we had to appeal in order to preserve the issue. My concern first is on a legal basis that the staff has been reading the section 316 and the complaint quite narrowly. This is not only about odor. This is about the smoke and the odor and the pollution that is within the smoke. And if you look at the whole of 316, you know, there's a purpose of it is to reduce to a minimum dissemination of smoke, gas, dust, odor, or atmospheric pollution outside the structure or beyond the property boundaries. Number B talks about that no land or structure shall be used or occupied in any manner to cause hazardous or objectionable conditions to exist in any way and dangers users of the site or surrounding area. And it goes on to limit them, including smoke, dust, vibration, air pollution, or other hazardous or objectionable conditions onsite in the surrounding area. And then we get to the performance standards. And you'll see in the note at the end of A4 and A5 that the staff considers ready detection and unreasonable interference to be the first step of administrative officer to enforce. Well, that's not how it reads. There's not an and there. It says pollutants. It says that it is an or not an and no emission shall be permitted of odorous gases or other odorous matters in such quantity as to be readily detectable or to as to interfere unreasonably with the comfort of the public. So this is not solely a public issue. The intent is for surrounding properties and the quantities are readily detectable. We did submit and there's been some technical issues and submitting some materials, but we did submit a four or five minute video that shows visible smoke coming onto the applicants. I mean, the appellants property many times. In addition, there have been some other neighbors who have submitted letters this week. I think there were two other neighbors who submitted information to the board with complaints. So it is not I didn't receive any other letters. You didn't I got a copy of a I'll have to send it to you. I got a copy of an email from Bob. That was a copy of an email to Marla today, yesterday, maybe. And then there was another neighbor who I thought emailed as well. Excuse me. They didn't send them because they sent them to me and I emailed them back and said, please send them to you. No, I didn't get anything. By the way, I apologize. We thought they were both being my next door neighbor. Then you sent one. I can email to you right now if that's appropriate. I can. So there are other, you know, neighbors besides excuse me for just a second. I may have missed it, but has it been a squaring end of the way? Oh, no, I didn't swear. So I should swear. Liam in everyone. Everyone. Okay. Everybody raise your right hand. Do you solve me swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. I do. I do. I do. Obviously, I don't do a lot of these. So I'm I look like your left hand, Liam. Well, no, it's my right hand, but it's the way the TV works. It's sort of the case. I'll go with the perjury part. So, so, so, so I think first of the ordinance, we'd like this to look more broadly than odors. And I do. I wonder if you could, I could briefly be permitted to share the screen. You're to show us a video. No, I, well, I wasn't going to do that. That's a pretty long video. Okay. Right now. I just, I just wanted to note a few things. Okay. So you're sharing something that you have. You're not pointing to things on my screen, correct? That's correct. Okay. Let me figure this out. I'm disabled, it says. Yeah, you are. I got to figure out how to let you do it. I think you click the green button and just enable. Allow, I think. Okay. I can only allow all participants. So everyone else has to swear they won't take advantage of this. Okay. Go ahead. You should be able to. So first, I'm showing a portion of a letter that was sent to the EPA in just June of this year by our Vermont attorney general and 10 other attorney generals to the EPA within, it's a notice of intent to sue. And it talks about and very briefly in this paragraph, but it has all of the citations, public health outages from wood smoke. As EPA acknowledged in the 2015 performance standards, wood smoke contains fine particulate matter, PM, carbon monoxide, polycyclic or aromatic hydrocarbons and other toxic air pollutions. All of these compounds negatively impact public health of direct relevance to the performance standards. And these are performance standards for wood stoves. Wood smoke contains particulate matter, which causes an array of adverse health impacts, acknowledging those harmful impacts EPA recently proposed to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards. And it documented a causal relationship between particulate matter exposure and mortality and cardiovascular effects. Multiple studies also confirm health impacts of particulate matter exposure, including cancer rates, dementia rates and childhood lung functions. For this reason, many cities, including New York City, have started requiring commercial pizza, bagel, wood burning shops to minimize their wood smoke emissions. New York just required them to reduce their wood smoke emissions by 75 percent by using what they call off-the-shelf filters. The property owner and the business owner write and say that they can't find methods to minimize the smoke. And I think if anybody just searches the internet, they can find it. I just also just want to show two photos that for some reason didn't transfer and get into your books. This is a picture of the smoke chimney. And you can see by how black the smoke is around that chimney. And that is what is coming out of or where the smoke is coming out of. The other thing I wanted to show, and unfortunately, this is sideways, but there's a question. I live around the corner from Felino's wood-fired pizza in Burlington. They have this, which I think is an electrostatic air cleaner on top of their wood-fired pizza vent. And I can tell you I've never smelled any smoke or odors from them because they do this. And then we're just, that's what all we're asking for here is for the owner of Myers to install some sort of air cleaner. We're not, they don't want to put them out of business, but the smoke is dangerous. And it's not just odor. It's also health effects. So what we'd ask the board to do is to ask the zoning administrator to maybe take a number of visits to the site to determine whether or not there are whether they can see and smell the smoke on the property and the surrounding properties. And then to the way your ordinance reads if they make that determination they can require the applicant or excuse me the business owner to come back in and seek a conditional use approval. And if they did that, then at that point I think that the city could and require them to put some air cleaning system on the on the on the wood stove stack. Let me have a question for you. Go ahead. May I I take your point that various authorities have found that wood wood smoke contains pollutants. Let's call that as a given, but the performance standard says all discharge or emission are potentially dangerous or offensive elements. Let's call wood smoke something that contains potentially dangerous or essential offensive elements shall be subject to the requirements of all applicable local state and federal regulation. Are you aware of any local state or federal regulation that's being violated? Well, you're you're the local regulation would be your performance standards, which I believe if but our performance standards depend on a violation of local state and federal regulation or federal regulations. Do you know? Well, there are a number of other possibilities. They're visible. There should not be this quote. A that though they're not be discharged into the atmosphere from any source at any time any air pollutant insect in excess of this specified darkness standard, which I don't understand, but that and then the last sentence visible mission of any kind at ground level past the lot line of the property on which the source of the emission is located are prohibited and, you know, well, that's that's that's at ground level. You haven't testified to that yet. Well, I haven't, but I know one else has either. My clients will in a moment if we'll we'll be able to testify to that. You're saying that the smoke that rises. Hang on a minute. You're saying that the spoke that rises from the chimney on top of the building is visible at ground level. Well, it comes back onto their property, which is uphill. And at ground level. We have sometimes. I'll let them speak to that. I have not witnessed that at ground level. So let's come back to pollutants and and specify in any local state or federal regulation that's violated because that's the standard that's incorporated into our performance standard. So can you specify any local state or federal regulation that is violated? Yes. No. I can't. Thank you. All right. All right. But but I haven't haven't had an order though. There the the smoke is so now hang on a second. We're moving from pollutants. One at a time. We're moving from pollutants to odors. Now, right? We've given up on pollutants because there's no violated state, local, or federal regulation that we can specify. So let's we're done with pollutants and we're going to hold an abeyance pending testimony on ground level darkness. Technically, but now we're moving to odors. All right. You can speak to odors if you want. If you want. Well, I'd like at this point I'd let both Bob and Kathy however wants to talk talk about their experience as living there since this business started. Okay. We'll be good to focus it on the performance standards as they read. That would be helpful. Okay. So are we going to move to Bob and Kathy? Are you done, Liam? Yes, I just I wanted to provide that background. And thank you. Let them testify as to the odors, gases, and the smoke. Thank you. Okay. Bob. Did you Marla, did you get a chance to show these folks the little video? No, I can do that now if you'd like. Would you like me to show the short one or the longer one? Uh, the longer one. I mean, maybe you can speed it up a little. It's four minutes so just pictures of smoke emanating. All right. I think it would be good to show the one. Let me pull up the longer one. Oh, I saved it to my local because I was afraid it was going to crash. Yeah. Oh, don't start yet. Wait, wait, wait. Sorry, Bob. I feel like this is very amateur hour. I'm not used to running the screen. Marty usually does that. All right. Here we go. So, um, I can looks like I cannot make it go faster, but I can skip around. I can narrate over it. So, the dates around these pictures and from our house, you can you can see the smoke. The smoke isn't necessarily the visible smoke is not necessarily coming on to our property, but the smoke, the residual of the smoke is coming on to our property. So, this started in April before the leaves were on the trees and we could we could see it more. And as the weather got warmer and if there's a light wind coming from the west, this doesn't happen every day of the week. And that's one thing was very explicit when I wrote the letter. Marty was depending on which direction the wind is blowing is when we get affected. It doesn't happen. It may not happen for two weeks. Last week it happened three days when the weather was 80 degrees we couldn't open our windows because the smoke, there it is, that smoke is blowing right to my house. And we are uphill. So, we're probably, my yard is probably 10 feet, 10, 12 feet above the sparking lot. And my house, my first floor is another 10 feet above that. So, that that smoke and more importantly the odor, we cannot keep the windows open on these beautiful summer days. And part of the problem is the wind changes directions and might be coming north all of a sudden it's coming from the west. And we've got this odor in our house. And when the other restaurants were there, once in a while we would smell a little tomato sauce, some garlic bread, maybe a burger, but some fried chicken but never to this extent that we have to deal with this. And there are multiple scrubbers on the market. They're not inexpensive. You know, but for the amount of bagels they sell it's probably two cents a bagel. And why I should have to, my wife, my neighbor, my two tenants, why we should have to deal with someone else's issue. It's already cost me a couple thousand dollars between filing this appeal, having a higher attorney. And we're not probably not done. And how am I going to be compensated for the loss of my property? So we have not been able to use the yard multiple times. It's frustrating. And we spoke, we raised this issue in February. The owner and the landlord totally ignored us. And there are the letters that they've written to my attorney. It's my problem to fix. I didn't create the problem. I didn't put a hole in my roof. And in my mind, they changed the use of the property. They went from burning gas to cook their food to installing a wood stove. And there, so another, so I think it's a change of use of property. It should have been notified, but that's another story. And on their submission with their, the paperwork from their oven manufacturer says that thing should be cleaned once a month. That thing is filthy. That is all creosote. So it's just doing that. Where's all that, where's all the smoke going? It's going to my house. It's going to Mr. Larkin's apartment building, which is amazing that he doesn't want something done. I know how many units are in it building 20, 24. They've all got double hung windows. That smoke's going right in there. People probably don't want to complain because they have no place to live. So I'm done with my rant. Can I weigh in? Go ahead, Mark. Okay. So I think I'm hearing what everyone's saying and I heard Frank comment. And I think one thing that's happening tonight is I guess we're kind of getting off the purpose of the hearing. I'm hearing everything and I'm not disagreeing with the appellant, but I'm just wondering in terms of what our discharge is for tonight in hearing this because it's not whether there exists a violation, but whether there existed a violation at the time that Marty made his determination. Now, in that regard, I would say it seems as though there wasn't because he wasn't able to determine it. And that's a separate issue to it should be the crux of it, but that's a separate issue to the additional testimony we've gotten from the appellant with this video and as well as my own personal interpretation of the regulations and the performance standards would say if something does potentially have the potential for destruction of odors or noxious fumes, then a secondary device needs to be implemented. So I'm just wondering how from a procedural standpoint, how do we deal with the appeal and then whether or not there actually exists a violation and if Marty can take a different interpretation based on the evidence presented tonight and require the secondary device to be installed. Because I'm sitting here at home, I just Googled it. Yeah, there's quite a few different devices you can put in line with wood burning ovens and restaurants, wood-fired ovens for pizza, bread, essential. It seems to be a pretty common thing. I don't know the cost associated with it, but that's not our purview either. I think none of that presents a real difficulty. We have enough evidence in front of us. I don't think, I think if Marty was there one day and detected nothing, I think that's inadequate as the appellant said. It's, you know, it depends on which way the wind blows. I agree, but what is our good start tonight? And I think his testimony is, I didn't see black smoke. I don't agree with that. I don't think it's a change of views. That's a red herring. It has nothing to do with this. I'm just looking at the simple language of the performance standard. There's an order coming out. You're supposed to provide reasonably interpreted a device to present the odor. Apparently there are practical devices. There are apparently there are practical devices. Marty was wrong. We tell the owner unless you can show an impossibility or some incredible cost where we might have to reconsider. I think we're really jumping ahead here. You ought to fix it. Right. We haven't taken all the testimony. Pardon? We haven't taken all the testimony, right? So we've heard from Mr. Payson. We haven't heard from Kathy who just seems to have walked away from the screen. Well, it's not a hard issue. We haven't heard from the property owner. We haven't heard from the business owner. And the board's responsibility in the case of an appeal is to determine whether an error was made by the administrative officer. So in this case, the decision that was made by the administrative officer was that there was no violation of land development regulations pertaining to hazardous conditions at the time of site inspection. If so, the board's responsibility tonight is to take all the information that they need in order to make a decision on that point. I think there's some subtleties in Marty's written testimony or sorry, Marty's email to the appellant that have not been brought up. I don't feel the need to iterate those tonight because they're already part of the testimony and you can deliberate them on them during your deliberations. But I think it's important that before we decide that this is a close or before you decide that this is a closed hearing that you hear from everyone and consider all the testimony. Okay, so you're done with your testimony. The only thing I would say is that someone has to monitor it. If you guys don't make a decision tonight. Who pays for the monitoring? I don't think I need to pay for it, but I think that the restaurateur should personally, but it should be monitored. Come back once a week for three months. It's not, like I said, it doesn't happen every day of the week, but if you can make a judgment tonight saying that they should put something in, at least have it monitored. Okay, we hear you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Kathy, would you like to provide us with your testimony? Yeah, I have, I also have a question. I'm not familiar with all these processes, but I'm just wondering why when there was a such a significant change to a restaurant operations by installing a wood fired oven in the middle of a neighborhood, why we as neighbors so close to it were not informed properly? Like we live busy lives. We have jobs. We work. I don't have much to do with that restaurant at all. Even when I walk by, I don't really walk by and look at it. It's that kind of thing. I'm just wondering why we were never informed and brought into and invited in to have be able to weigh out what was being changed. It has been life altering for us. And we've lived here. We're going on our 10th year. We built it from the ground up. It's been a beautiful place to live. None of the restaurants prior were any, there was, like Bob said, once in a while we get a whiff of something delicious. But this has penetrated so deeply in our lives that we've been unable to enjoy our property the way it's built to be enjoyed and the way we've enjoyed for 10 years. And it's mitigatable. And that's why I'm so, you know, we're neighborly here. All of us are neighborly. We all care about each other. And we care about each other's health. And, you know, some of the people aren't bothered by it because it's not penetrating into their home the same way because of the way their properties are built or the way they live their lives. A lot of them are living their lives in the backyard. But you can smell it when you go out to walk the dog. And it's sometimes so intense I have to turn around and come back home. So, you know, my public enjoyment of our little neighborhood has been impacted in a way that I can guarantee there's not one of you sitting in the room right now would want that in your life. Thank you. Is that it for you? Do you have anything else to add? Oh, I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that. All right. Thank you, Kathy. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to another interested party. Joe. Yeah. Okay. Okay. No, that's fine. That's fine. Either there or up front. First, I was just going through the language and things that have been submitted to Joe and I that I think it's incorrect to say that we have been ignoring and not trying to deal with this. My I've I've owned Myers just about 1112 years. We've been on Pine Street in Burlington for many years before that. Our niche, our product is a wood fired bagel. I understand we went through the processes of filing the zoning to have this built all through the proper channels. I believe of South Burlington. I'm not a resident here, so and we did that and we had the letter of notice up for many times. We have been in lease of that building a year. We have only been in operation since April. I know the lawyer said that we've been full operation for 365 days. That is not true. This has been going just starting in April and the he had brought up that you know they did submit even before we lit a match or had a piece of wood burning their concerns and it certainly validated. That any burned product expels any type of particles, whatever you call it. I can research and provide many articles on natural gas burning and how in commercial operations of kitchens they're slowly pushing and converting to electrical use of grills and things like that and ovens because of the spin off of natural gas. There's no good expelent of any type of thing that's burning. Notes too that I'm curious about too does South Burlington require permits for residents for having a fireplace? A wood burning stove to heat their home is would allow to use as an energy source to heat a home in South Burlington? If someone puts a fireplace do they have to submit a permit in and tell their neighbor when they do that? Because that is going to be doing the same kind of consequence there. The original complaint and hopefully the videos will even show that too smoke emanates but it begins to disperse so it's not in my opinion you know cluttering up and we have to wave your hand and you can't see like you're you had a campfire and you know it's all engulfing everyone around them. It's the smell and odor of the fire that is why I believe is the primary concern and complaint here and in all the other language that we'd received prior to this it was the odors and smells and that is where our search in speaking and what I had submitted speaking to four different chimney service companies around the state of Vermont and working with Avonda air systems who did our systems and they've done many other commercial properties about this how can we eliminate the smell and odor of wood burning and all of them said they're really in their mind isn't for the smell there's smoke scrubbers and things like that the smoke you can stop the dispersion of the black gray of the smoke itself but the smell of the smoke will still exist they said so yes you can do that but it is not going to stop the smell of a wood burning in their opinions the other part too that I went because it was brought up in the notes from their lawyer of how Felinos was made to do this I spoke to the owner's son about we get on friendly we're you know competitors in the sense of food products and things but he was very open to me that they'd one never had a complaint prior to during that since they opened in Burlington and the item on top of the picture that he showed earlier is a fan to help disperse the smoke or any exhaust out it's an exhaust fan there's no filter or scrub process in that device that he showed the picture on the top of Felinos and they with the city and all of their other locations submitted what they're doing and it was all held in in line with what the local ordinance was in creating an exhaust system for their operation Burlington, Shelburne, and Williston and they've used a similar device there in speaking to Avonda I sent that picture to him I said Dan Noel who's one of the vice presidents of their operation division I said Dan what is this thing and that's what he said it's an it's an extra exhaust fan that just helps blow the smoke or exhaust out further he said you know by blowing it out it may disperse those particles and it may or may not help with some of the smell but that's unknown he says it isn't designed for that purpose to help eliminate odors or smells so and I know Joe and I we talk every so often if you come up with anything no if everyone's saying they're finding this googling and these things that will eliminate smells and odors Joe and I are more than happy to sit down and work together on doing this we didn't come there to be a nuisance to everyone many of that neighborhood I don't know anyone who lives there they come to us and say how happy they are to have a place that's there that's a different morning entity somewhere they can go some people have said they've enjoyed that smell reminds them of campfires and you know it's it can be I can stand certainly unpleasant for many and being close to us I the dumpster the gentleman who lives right behind our dumpster I think who's probably getting hit with a lot worse on these warm humid days and things like that so I just want some clarity on some of the things that have been said about at least mine and speaking partially I'm part of for Joe and the Larkin group that we are looking into this we have been and this is what we're coming up with which really is anything again for the odors and smells portion of trying to eliminate that okay thank you question I don't want to hog it but I I want to get rid of it okay look the odor I think unless someone anyone can contradict me if they want but I'm inferring that the odor is a function of the smoke I would completely agree so if we're agreed on that then where the smoke goes the odor goes if you put the smoke somewhere else other than toward the house of your immediate neighbor then presumably that would constitute a secondary safeguard for you for your smoke and odor producing system for example if you had a device a fan of some kind that took the smoke as it came out of your chimney on your roof and blew it toward Shelburne road where there's already lots of smoke exhausting that would solve the gentleman's problem isn't that a viable solution that I mean I think I I think there's a time killer that we shouldn't be I'm gonna I agree and I think you ought to fix it you know and that that sounds it sounds in principle kind of easy whether the device exists or not I don't know but it should and it should be not that hard to fabricate fabricate I will lend you a fan to put on your roof to blow the smoke toward Shelburne road and then he will have fewer odors at his house and then when he comes back and says but I smothered once out of 412 days I won't listen to him okay but first put the fan up somebody by fan I don't know necessarily whether I mean a fan I mean some kind of air moving system sure that puts it in the right direction can we do that again with what they what Flinos is using as a dispersion device for the exhaust and that it is if you have a 21-hour westerly wind once that blows that up beyond 10 feet it may push it back towards his area again and we and if you saw in the pictures we even extended the height of our chimney an extra four feet over the original idea to help with getting it higher up and out of the way of everything excuse me we're really not here to problem solve okay um I mean that's the answer in this question right I think let me finish please I think what we're here to do tonight is to determine if there was a violation and this is probably important problem solving but we're not here tonight to solve the problem I think there was a violation well we can talk about that in deliberation yeah but I'd also like to think the problem solve I know you would because that's the kind of guy you are Frank but I think it's getting late we have one more witness to hear from and thank you for your testimony thank you sorry go ahead Joe sure thank you I won't I don't have much more to add other than I just want to make sure that it's understood the communication it wasn't intentionally ignored I thought we were communicating effectively through attorneys and through Adam I hope our reputation is one of being responsive and caring and thoughtful so I you know I don't I you know that that reflection is not one that I think is accurate but we're here tonight to sort of support the process and we will take direction as as given okay thank you very much so I think that's it for witnesses so the board now can give everyone the opportunity to sort of go back and respond if they need to I think that you know Marty if or you have if the board has additional questions for each for any of the people who need testimony or if they just want to make any statements in response to other testimony so this is a time to give anyone who's testified an opportunity to go ahead Liam do you want to go in order again please maybe you should you're much better at this than I am I'm only I'm only because I'm looking at the at the cheat sheet so um I would start I would start in the same order again so start with Marty do you have anything okay Marty do you have anything to add move on I don't know okay thanks Liam oh you're muted sorry Liam I muted everyone because we had a little bit of a problem and then now I have to let you unmute there you go you should be able to unmute now and just very briefly I appreciate Frank's comments Bob we tried to work with the operator and the owner for number of months we would greatly appreciate if they just start trying as Frank says put the air disperse around there and see what happens you know and then I mean I think that might solve much of the problems so you know we just like to see something happen sure okay thank you Liam Bob second what Liam just said okay thank you Kathy yes and I really I can't emphasize enough having smoke blowing in your house on a fairly regular basis how oppressive it is and there has to be some sort of mitigatable way of doing that beyond just blowing the smoke in a different direction okay thank you and Adam no that again we will continue and I'll speak to more people about an air dispersion type system that could be used for this okay thank you and Joe I will pay for it okay okay okay now board members do you have any questions to help when we deliberate to help you make a decision do you need any more information or do you think we have enough information to decide whether a violation was committed I have enough information you okay okay John is that a yes okay I'm good okay good all right I I have enough information I believe so I don't believe there are oh actually there are quite a few members of the public so you can take public comment okay we're going to take public comment now so again I have everyone so they cannot unmute themselves so either wave at me through your video or raise your virtual hand if you would like to be unmuted online I'll leave you a few seconds to do that I'm not seeing anyone waving at me virtually or with a camera so I guess there's no additional public comment Liam's waving oh Liam's waving Liam stop muting yourself my goodness I'm going to unmute you where'd you go MSK ask to unmute okay I just wanted to know for the record that I forwarded the two emails from the neighbors that I thought had been already sent in so I just want them to be part of the record thanks Liam I'm not sure what the construction is of that when it's forwarded by someone it's certainly testimony but I wonder if it becomes your testimony even though it was written by someone else but we'll figure that out with our attorney if you look if you look at them there they they both thought they had addressed something to you and I just copied it and sent it on that's all yeah I saw that it doesn't look like you have the original email it just the it's just the text of it so I was just curious what happened anyway I will make sure the board gets them okay thank you so any public comments what are they emerging trying to get you finished Kathy was it Kathy? yes yeah yes I just wanted to not that it's even has any bearing at this moment but I did forget to mention that we have great concern about the expansion of hours at the business behind our house that already pours smoke into our house most of the day even hours after the restaurants closed the smoke is pouring into our backyard still today it was so bad and that they'll be burning until you know nine or ten at night or whatever once they add pizza so now we'll have burnt pizza to live with at night so we really have deep concern about these things and I just wanted to add that thank you excuse me are you testifying that there was smoke at ground level oh yes oh yes it sometimes penetrates right out to the street it penetrates through our entire driveway our front porch it nails our back deck we can't use it I've gone downstairs we have dogs we sometimes I can't even stay outside with the dogs I end up having to take her for a walk and she's a really old lady dog so sometimes I have to carry her but it just has made it so our our life just isn't the way it should be what we built our home to be like and what we were used to living like so sure thank you thank you for your time thank you okay any other questions before we so once we close there can't be any new testimony I can't take any new neighbor letters you know I can't take any new videos so once we're closed the board has only the information that's been submitted until now okay I'm hearing that they're good with that okay so do we need do we need a motion to I'll make a motion that we close AO 2301 thank you Mark second thank you John any discussion all in favor I I oppose okay we will deliberate at a later date and be back in touch Myla I have a question if the party should get together and say that they've solved their problem could we just treat this matter as moot no I don't I don't think you can withdraw an appeal after the hearing is closed still trying to I think you could I think you could withdraw an appeal up till we started tonight but I don't think you can I don't know I could ask if it if it becomes relevant I will ask the question of our attorney I suggest the parties just try to solve their problem now keep in mind this is an appeal of the administrative officer not of the property occupant right so it's a decision not to solve the problem they solve their problem then we don't have a problem right okay it is 10 o'clock and that is closing time for us do you want to do minutes briefly I didn't I didn't see any minutes except for oh you're right you're right you're right yep so we're not in that place so very much I know it's late thank you for your patience good night everyone all right thank you so we'll call the meeting end it at 10 o'clock and I will try to stop the meeting I think I can find that hang on not stopped yet we're done