 All the meeting to order. Welcome to tonight's addition of the Winooski Development Review Board. My name is Kevin Lumpkin. I'm the chair of the board. The vice chair I think is Matt and he's not here, right? Great, Colin Miller is our secretary. Other members of the board are Erin Gallette and David Weisberger. Additionally, we have Caitlin Hayes and Elsie Goodrich who are alternates but one of them is gonna get to participate tonight and we'll do some kind of coin flip later to figure that out. But the way that we do things here at the Winooski DRB is that all of our members including alternates participate fully in our hearings, ask questions, here's a testimony from the applicant and adjoiners and then it's not till our deliberative session when we figure out who's actually going to vote. So we've got one substantive item on the agenda tonight but we have a couple of things in addition to that to get through. One is changes to the agenda. Anybody have any changes to the agenda? Seeing none. The next is public comment. Public comment is a part of every public meeting in Vermont. It's a state requirement to voice concerns about anything other than the project we're hearing tonight. I have actually never been to a meeting at which anyone offered any public comment but if you wanna make a public comment, folks who are attendees, you can use the raise hand function. We will recognize you. I'm just gonna assume that no one's raising their hand and move on to our fourth agenda item, approved previous meeting minutes. They're available through our agenda center. Hopefully folks have had a chance to review them any concerns or changes to the prior meeting minutes. All right, I would entertain a motion to approve them. Everyone is muted. I make a motion to approve the minutes in the previous meeting. Any second. Harlan seconds, all in favor. Raise your hand, do a little thing, do a little dance. Great, all opposed, all abstaining. Looks like the motion carries unanimously. We are on to our fifth agenda item, the public hearing for 64 La Fountain Street plan unit development. This is a final plan review. We've seen this project a number of times before at sketch and preliminary reviews, and it is up now for final review. And I believe the procedure tonight is going to be that we are going to elevate anyone who wants to speak or present to join us here as a panelist. And once we do that, you'll be able to make whatever presentation you want. After the applicant presents anyone who is here as an interested party, a neighbor and a joiner, whatever, if you haven't let Eric know already that you want to participate, you can just tell us in the chat or raise your hands and we'll let you come voice any concerns that you have. Eric, did I miss anything so far? No, I think you covered everything. We have Dan here tonight, again, from O'Leary Burke representing the applicant. He's been before you for this whole project basically, so you should be familiar with Dan and Dan familiar with you all. As you mentioned, this is the final plan review. That's not to say that this is the final review. If you all have substantive comments that you want addressed, we will schedule additional hearings on the plan. However, with that said, this has been presented to you on three previous occasions, twice as a sketch plan and once as a preliminary plan. Most recently on April 16th of this year as a preliminary plan, there were five comments that you all had identified that were included in a findings and decision that were with this agenda packet. The applicant has addressed those items as well as all subsequent, sorry, as well as all the previous comments that have come up through the various sketch plans or sketch plan reviews. So I don't think there's anything outstanding that has not been addressed at this point in one form or another, but I'll let Dan take it from there. I have my screen available to share, Dan. So if you wanna have any of the documents up, just let me know and I'll provide those. Sure, we could. Oh, sorry. Sorry, Dan, before you start, anybody who speaks tonight, I'm just gonna assume that you swear or affirm that everything you say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Normally I'd swear you in, but it's a real pain over Zoom. So if you speak, please be aware that you are swearing or affirming that everything you say is true. And Dan, if you wouldn't mind orienting us as you go through your presentation to whatever it is we said in April, because I don't remember. Sure, yeah, absolutely. I'll address that. Also, sorry, Dan, before you start, was there anybody else that's presenting with you or is it just gonna be you tonight? Rick Church may be here. David Burke with our office said he was gonna hop on too, but I'll be doing the presenting, but they may chime in if they have a comment. So David, we have David as an attendee. Rick is not on right now as far as I can tell, but if David has anything he wants to add, we can unmute him as well for that. Sure. So I'm just gonna go through an overview of the project. So maybe we could pull up sheet two depicting the project. So there should be, yep, that's it right there. So as Eric mentioned, I'm Dan Heil, a project engineer at O'Leary Burke here tonight on behalf of the landowner and applicant, Rick Church of 64 LaFountain Street, LLC. We're here seeking final plan approval for a nine-unit PUD located at 64 LaFountain Street. Project is on a 1.16-acre parcel on the block bordered by LaClaire Street, LaFountain Street, Franklin Street, and East Spring Street, and it's currently vacant. There was previously a duplex unit located on this lot, but since been removed. Since our preliminary plan, hearing, and approval back in April, a boundary line adjustment has been approved and recorded to increase the parcel size from 0.98 acres to 1.16 acres. And this boundary line adjustment was necessary to accommodate the turnaround located on the southern portion of the private street. The project is located within the RB Zoning District, where the minimum area is 7,500 square feet and allows for two units per lot. The maximum allowable density on this parcel would be 12 units. We are proposing nine as was depicted at sketch and preliminary. The units will be condominium units with open space to be common land owned and maintained by the HOA. The project will be served by a 20-foot-wide private street utilizing and approving upon the existing curb cut located along the fountain street. Proposed units will be served by municipal water and sewer. On-site stormwater management is provided through 10 dry wells and infiltration trenches designed to meet the city's stormwater regulations. So this project does have a little bit of history going back a couple of years. As Eric mentioned, the project was previously presented to the DRB at the sketch plan level on November 19th, 2018, and again on February 26th on 2019, and it received preliminary plan approval on April 16th of this year. Due to feedback we received from sketch, we were previously requesting a setback waiver for 10 feet around the perimeter, but we revised the plan to provide 15 feet all along the perimeter, so a setback waiver is no longer being sought. Plan was also revised to provide a larger turnaround on the southern portion of the private street. This was at the direction of the fire department and the fire chief, fire hydrant was added as well. Two guest spaces were added to the plan to the north of unit three to allow for additional guest parking onsite. Additional on-street parking is available on LaFountain Street if the need arises. We also updated the common amenity area to include nine planter boxes and a picnic table for community gatherings. And we coordinated with the state of Vermont to determine that there was a class three wetland onsite along the northeast corner and property line. And we've confirmed with the state that a wetland permit is not required for the proposed impacts in this area. And we previously provided the city with that documentation. So those were all the changes for the project leading up to preliminary. I was gonna hop to the April 16th comments unless the board had any questions at this point. So looking through the comments. I just had one question. I was trying to find the mute button. You said you confirmed with the state that the state wetland permit isn't needed but have you coordinated with the Army Corps on wetland permit? So there would be a self-reporting form as we are proposing impacts but they're less than 5,000 square feet. So an Army permit, Army Corps permit wouldn't be required but it would be a self-reporting form. So the Army Corps would have some documentation on that. Okay. So looking at those preliminary comments from April 16th, comment number one, based on the elevations provided for the residential units, the site plan should be updated to include stairs with connections to the sidewalk where applicable from the doorway on each side of the unit. So the final plans tonight have been revised to depict those connections to the doors on each side of the unit. That is located on sheet two. A comment number two, update the lighting. Yeah, gentlemen, I think that was my comment. Do you know if the garages are proposed to have doors on the side or would you enter through the garage door on the front? That's a good question. As far as I know, you'd be entering through the front. I haven't seen anything depicting doors on the side of those garages. But if there were doors on the side too, we would be able to make that work with the sidewalk connections. Well, what I had noticed was that the, obviously the finished floor of the houses is raised and that's what I was talking about steps before. There needs to be some steps in there to get down from that door or a walkway straight over into the garage and then steps down. I think what I was pointing out is that there's not going to be a connection between the front and backyards of these places because there's going to be something in the way to get out of that side door. Well, there would be a connection on the other side of the unit to the backyard. So each unit would have a connection to the backyard but you're correct. There would be some stairs with a landing going up to the first floor level. So that side would be inaccessible to the backyard. So comment number two, update the lighting plan to include additional shielding that eliminates the light crossing the property boundary on La Fountain Street or provide a letter from the city of Winooski Department of Public Works indicating that the proposed lighting will not create any undue harm related to glare, shadows or inconsistencies in illumination based on the proposed location and fixture type. So with our submission, we included in August 4th email from John Rauscher, the Public Works Director and per John's email, Public Works finds the proposed street lights at the intersection of the private road and La Fountain Street acceptable as shown with no need to shield the lighting spilling over to La Fountain Street. It's also our opinion that this light spilling over to La Fountain Street would help the cars navigate the entrance to and from the development as well. Comment three, provide written documentation from the city of Winooski Department of Public Works outlining the standards that are needed to ensure the proposed roadway will be consistent with city standards to the extent possible. In the same email from John on August 4th, he suggested that we revise the two inch base course for the pavement section to two and a half inches to match the city standards, which we have done on the final plan. Jalton also confirmed in his email that Public Works has no concerns with the proposed private road as it is to remain private with no intention of turning it over to the city. And with our submission, we also included a draft legal documents. And in those draft legals, there was a private roadway maintenance agreement indicating that the HOA is to own and be responsible for maintaining that private road as well. So Public Works was okay with both the light and the private street. The email that Dan is referencing was included in the agenda packet as well. So that's that documentation is there for you. And it's also will be an exhibit. Comet four, provide additional detail on stormwater and how runoff will be captured specifically related to the area behind unit nine. This may require additional underground storage capacity, recreating of swales, additional retaining walls or updated information that affirms the proposed conditions will not create any ponding or pooling of runoff. No, any changes on the final plan submission. So with our submission, we included updated stormwater routing computations related to the area behind unit nine. Stormwater computations show that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact to the ponding behind unit nine. In addition, we've also revised the grading in this low point where water currently ponds. So the proposed ponding volume is greater than the existing ponding volume, which will help ensure that the proposed development will not cause any adverse impacts as related to ponding of water in this area. The roadside swales and infiltration trenches and 10 dry wells used to treat the runoff generated from the proposed impervious surface remain unchanged from our preliminary plan submission. So the proposed runoff is still to be treated in those 10 dry wells and infiltration trenches conveyed via roadside swale. And that hasn't changed since preliminary. And then comment five, consider design changes that may reduce the appearance of multiple structures along Fountain Street, specifically related to units one and two. This may include additional landscaping, reduced distances between the units in the garage or other measures that allow these two units to fit more consistent. Consistently with the character of the surrounding houses. So the final plan has been updated to show units one and two attached to the common garage, making it now one structure, which would make it more consistent with the character of the surrounding homes. We've also provided a street tree. I believe it was there at preliminary still, but there's a street tree too in front of that, the back of the garage along the Fountain Street to provide some screening there too. And that was it for the comments from preliminary. I had a chance to look over the staff notes and I think they generally look good and I didn't have any comments on those. Thank you. Well, great. Thank you very much for that summary. Folks on the board, any questions about any of those updates since we last saw this application? Just go for it. Okay, I have two questions about the road and I think they're kind of related. So it sounds like the road will not actually meet the dimensional requirements of the city and that it's up to us to approve it. So are you asking us to approve this as a private road that doesn't meet the city's requirements? In John's email, he said it was to be a public street. He'd be looking for 11 foot lanes and curbing given the tight nature of the site and how close the units already are to that road. We don't find it feasible to bump those out to 11 feet. It would just make the units closer. So we are seeking approval for the private road versus now a public road. With a public road too, you would need, believe maybe it's a 60 or 64 foot right of way which isn't feasible on a parcel this size too. You wouldn't achieve the desired density on this parcel. Okay, so given that I was, I'm not a lawyer, but I was reading the roadway maintenance agreement and I see that in our regulations it asks that an approved management plan or a draft of one be provided. Is that, does that roadway maintenance agreement fulfill that, do you think? Or is that more of a specific thing? Like how often is this road gonna be inspected? Who's gonna do it? What are the standards? Yeah, I guess that would be up for review by the city attorney. I'm not exactly sure what the city would be looking for in that maintenance plan. I know that the maintenance agreement does assign maintenance responsibilities on the HOA. However, I'm not sure how often, you know, inspections need to be conducted or what would trigger that maintenance. So I was hoping the city attorney would review the legals and maybe have some comments, but I haven't seen anything back from the city attorney on that. Okay, I'm just a little concerning that like once this gets transferred to the association, what influence does the city have or what recourse does it have if they're not fulfilling their obligation to repair it or keep it maintenance? So I think, I'll jump in on this. I think the intent here is that there's at least something in place that talks about who is going to be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the road since it will be a private road. That way there is not the assumption that the city will somehow take ownership of that or be obligated to repair it if there are issues with it. I think it's really the intent there is to protect the city from any type of recourse because it is a private road. So I have not requested our attorney to review the documentation, but I can do that if that's something you all would like to see. I think though ultimately we're really interested in making sure that there is something in place that talks about who owns it, who's responsible for any repairs or maintenance and the long-term maintenance of the roadway. Are there other instances of private roads in the city that you can speak to? I wanna say there are several, but I don't know offhand which ones they are. I think Pleasant Street or Pleasant Court up off of Bellevue, I believe might be a private road, but I'm not sure of that offhand, Harland. Can I make a couple of comments? Yes. David mentioned about looking for the board to approve the private road. I think the answer is yes and no. We did what we were supposed to. We solicited public works review and they're okay with it being a private road. We solicited fire department review and that's why there's now the big turnaround at the end. So I don't think it's so much that the board is approving the road, it's that the board is relying upon that part of the review process. And then absolutely there should be a condition that the town attorney reviews and accepts the legal documents. I'm not sure how Winooski does that. Most towns like doing that as a condition of approval because usually staff doesn't send to an attorney and incur those costs as until the project's approved. And it's approved prior to filing the Mylar or approved prior to the first building permit for the site construction. And then it kind of serves itself, Dave, if the HOA is set up right, the road is maintained because in this case, there's nine homes or in particular, the seven homes that are interior that are being served by it. So it only takes one owner to think that it's not up to speed to start the association doing whether it's a patching a crack or whatever. And in Winooski, I'd say as far as a comparison, maybe you don't have a lot of private streets recently, but you certainly have a lot of private streets that turn into parking lots. And the same thing, that's an HOA usually and or it's one developer owner, but I would assume that there's some HOAs where it appears more like a parking lot, but it'd be the same mechanism. So Eric, fair to say that one of the things we could do is condition final approval on submitting the legal documents, which are on our agenda as item B.5 draft legal documents to an attorney for the city to look at. Yeah, we can make that a condition. Yes. Any other questions from the board? Eric, are there any regulations about how close these buildings can be to each other? Not that I'm aware of since it's a planned unit development. The idea is that they would be clustered. So that's kind of the intent with the PUD is that you're taking the density and kind of clustering it as much as you can or as much as you want that really allows the flexibility of design for the property. So with this type of a layout, there is anything that would talk about any setbacks from individual buildings? Okay, thank you. I'm wondering about that area behind Unit 9 that it looks like it's just kind of a depression there where water will pond. What's that area used for? That's exactly what it's used for. It's used to pond the water that's running off from NICAC court that currently it outfalls in that area. So there is an existing depression out there and it currently ponds there. So we looked at possibly conveying that area to the city stormwater system, but given the grades there, we can't convey that up to Fountain Street and I believe the next, the next street we could convey that to, there's a parcel or two in between. So we would need easements and there'd be a significant amount of stormwater, storm sewer to run that down and it would be running over multiple properties. So what we did was we looked at what was ponding out there today, we looked at that volume and whatever we proposed, we wanted to maintain that volume to ensure that there wasn't an adverse impact on the ponding in that area. It's also important to note that there is no easement. So this is, in one hand, it's voluntary, but it's the smart or proper thing to do. It's where that water's always gone so why they didn't have an easement. Important that we're not taking away from it. Yeah, it looks like you've looked at that for a 10-year storm. What's your free, what's your freeboard from that ponding area? Freeboard from, so we don't really have a top of pond there. We looked at the elevations of the surrounding unit and we looked at the existing ponding volume for the 10-year storm event and we ensured that the water surface elevation and the proposed condition was lower than what it was in the existing condition. So you're saying that that catchment is going to be excavated lower than it currently is? It will be, yes, it will be excavated lower than it currently is. So I'm the lawyer on the board, not y'all with your engineering stuff or is very confusing to me, but what I think I'm hearing you saying is say we have a really bad storm with this development, we think this area to the southeast of unit nine is going to be better off after all this stuff has been built than right now because of all the things you're doing. Yeah, it will not be worse than what's out there today. Better, not worse. Okay. I have a question just kind of adding onto this. So there's not any additional runoff that is going to that particular area, but because it's a private road, there's not drainage to the municipal system that usually manages stormwater runoff. So is this developed in such a way that the runoff on the impervious surfaces here is going to be caught by the surrounding vegetation or how is that runoff going to be managed? Runoff from the proposed impervious surface, including the road that houses the sidewalk, that'll be managed through infiltration trench as well as 10 proposed dry wells. And those dry wells are located on the southern side of the private street. The houses all are proposed to have gutters and those feed into the dry wells? Yeah, so we provided roof drains that tie into the system along the private street. So the gutters would convey the runoff to the roof drains, which would convey it to the system within the private street and eventually to the dry wells if it didn't infiltrate before then. So I'd seen that there was some concerns from neighbors about runoff. And I just, I wasn't here for the earlier reviews of this project. So was it the neighbors on Nikhet Court that had those concerns or were just for my knowledge? I believe it mainly was the neighbors on Nikhet Court. Yes. I have a recollection of someone from Nikhet Court coming to one of our early meetings and really setting the stage for this runoff area southeast of unit nine being of focus for all of the subsequent meetings. And my recollection is that, at least from my perspective, it sounds like the applicant has done a good enough job that this adjoiner, and maybe here she's here tonight and can tell us for themself, but this adjoiner was reasonably happy with all the adjustments that this is, my recollection is that this plan we have in front of us is pretty far along from when we first saw it and other folks raised issues about this runoff. I think one of the earliest layouts, and I'm not sure if it was even the sketch plan that Dan came in with. It might have been before Dan was working on this project, but we did have a larger turnaround, not as large as the one proposed now that the fire chief wanted, but we did have a larger one kind of where unit nine is. And that would have impacted, basically we were utilizing the land the way we thought we could. And when it became apparent from the neighbor that that was an issue, we've had a conscious effort to confirm that it is an issue, that that's where the stormwater goes. There's not a good alternative for that stormwater to go elsewhere. So I think Kevin's correct. You know what we've tried to do is to make sure that the capacity is a little bit more than what it is now. So it doesn't preclude in a greater than 10-year storm event that water could cross that line back onto those properties slightly. But again, that would be what would happen today also. Additional questions from the board. So I daresay we may be ready to thank the applicant for the presentation and elevate any interested parties who are wishing to share any concerns or feedback they have with the board. And the applicant will obviously be listening as well. That makes sense, everybody. Sounds good. So Eric, do you have a list of folks who wanna voice? So we did not have anybody sign up in advance. There are still looks like six folks that are in attendance as attendees that are able to or should be able to raise their hand or write in the chat that they are interested in speaking. But before we do that, what I'd like to do is just read through the exhibits that will be added in for the record on this case so that we have a record of that, if that's all right with you. All right, strap in. This will be thrilling. Well, Eric does that. Anyone who is an attendee and wishes to speak to us, you don't need to turn on your video. You can just do audio only if you're more comfortable with that. I see a hand raised, awesome. So one person's figured out how to raise your hand or if you can't figure out how to do that, just let us know in the chat. And Eric, go for it with the exhibit. So we'll have the zoning application, which includes all of the project narrative, the site plans, the elevations, the traffic, the trip generations, all the communications with public works, the stormwater modeling, the stormwater permitting, et cetera, the legal documents, that'll be exhibit A. Exhibit B is the notice of the hearing that was posted at 64 LaFountain Street. Exhibit C are photos of the hearing notice posted at LaFountain Street. Exhibit D is the public hearing notice that was posted at City Hall and in other locations for this meeting. Exhibit E will be the proof from the Burlington Free Press of the publication of the public hearing for tonight's meeting. Exhibit F is the memorandum to the adjacent property owners notifying them of the meeting. Exhibit G is the list of people that received that memorandum, including a copy of the public hearing. Exhibit H will be the agenda for tonight's meeting. Exhibit I is the memo from me to you all on the general standards of section 6.2 H. Exhibit J is the memorandum from me to you all on the standards of the planned unit development, which is section 6.3. Exhibit K is the comments from your November 19th, 2018 meeting when we first saw this as a sketch plan. Exhibit L are the comments from the February 26th, 2019 meeting of a sketch plan. Exhibit M are the findings and decisions from the April 16th meeting that outlined the additional items that Dan went over today. Exhibit N will be the sign-in sheet for the folks who are in attendance tonight. And Exhibit O is a photo that was provided by one of the residents showing some stormwater concerns. And I have that to show you all as well if you want me to put that up on the screen so you can see it. So that is who we have tonight. And it looks like the resident who did submit the photo, Rosario LaRose is here to speak. Gene Silva is here to speak and Josh Cox has his hand raised as well to speak. So Paul will, I guess, so that's all I have and I'll let Paul, our communications coordinator on mute folks. Great, so why don't you, I guess we can leave the sketch plan up but be ready to take it down if we don't need to look at it. So folks who are adjoining property owners or neighbors, if you want us to let us know your name and kind of where you live in relation to the project, it'll help orient us as to what angle you're coming at this from both literally and figuratively. Hi, my name is Rosario LaRose. I take it you can hear me okay? Yes. Cool. Yes, I live on Eat Me Cat Court which is right behind where unit number nine is. And I'm the gentleman who has issues with the ponding that already exists because the runoff in Eat Me Cat Court. I still have a concern because I was out there the other day actually taking some pictures because there's three deer that happen to be running through Wunuski. Anyways, so I was looking up through and I'm like six feet behind below everybody up through the Eat Me Cat Court. And I just still have a major concern with how that water from the city, right now it drains off and over time it will eventually drain. And I got a problem with it, it's a gully thing filled up. It's not gonna, it's gonna back up farther up my land. And it's not really probably the greatest water that you want in your land. And also I see that he's built the 16-foot hedges. And then if you look at the map on, I guess it's number two, the last one or the first one I found out you look at it is right where the drainage is. And I just have issues with how that's gonna improve how what he's doing is helping me out here. That's my concern. Because right now it backs up quite a bit. I've had pictures probably go on for three or four years now that I've sent some to Eric and it was another project prior to that I've sent. And it's not getting better. Right now at least it drains out over time and I get a bad feeling if the gully gets filled in it will have a bigger issue. Thank you. Okay, thanks for sharing that. And board members, any questions for Mr. LaRose? As when his backyard fills up does the water make its way to that storm drain in front of his house or no? Oh no, no, no. It just backs up my backyard. It's like I have a pool. And I've seen Eric has pictures that I've seen. And that's when I recently sent that's there been times water has been up higher. How would you share that picture, Eric? That's how it's been draining for a while. The sun's out. Can you tell us, can you just orient us to what we're looking at? Well, the drain drain, I'm not sure it was right about in here in the lower right hand corner. That's where the runoff in the street comes in there and overflows and goes down through the gully that's permanently there now. Like I said, over time it does drain but if you can fill that gully up, again, I'm like six feet below everybody. So we would be looking at the back of unit nine. Yes, exactly. Yes. And when you refer to the gully, you mean the whole site as currently graded? Yes, exactly. If you walk up, you look from behind there and you look up north to Nikkec Corp. There's a gully there. There's about a seven foot difference in elevation from Nikkec Corp to where that picture is. And even on Mr. LaRose's from his front yard, there's about a five foot difference in elevation. So I think that picture, the right side of it is probably pretty close to the property line with that water mostly being on the project just for clarification for Mr. LaRose while we are filling some of that what we're interested in is making sure that the volume is equal greater than it was which will actually help him because with the volume being deeper, it's not gonna have as much surface area back towards his line. So it's not even with an easement and there's not an easement but even with an easement it's not the project's responsibility to improve the situation but in this case because it's been a longstanding situation. Again, we feel it's important to make sure that we're accommodating for it and not making it worse. But as I said earlier, it doesn't preclude water as Mr. LaRose says, backing up onto the low side of his lot in a big storm. But it does back up to my lot. That's after a lot of it has drained out. There have been pictures that I've sent where I have a retaining wall on the right side that the water has been all the way back up through there. Right, and that's what I'm saying. It's not the project's responsibility to- Oh, no, no, I'm not arguing that. I will agree probably, nothing to do with it but my point is it's gonna make it worse by filling in its gully. So what we're doing is while we're filling the far side of it, we're digging it deeper so that the volume, so there's no loss of volume. Okay. How much of the water flowing into that is from the rest of the site? Is all of it coming from- That's all from the street of Neacat Court. I would suggest that it might get a little bit of water along the back line of our project that is now gonna get, some of that will get cut off because it's where a unit will be or a driveway will be, which will go out to the road. So if you look at sheet one, existing conditions, the, all the way to behind the Antoniacs, two houses up the street from Mr. LaRose, that's the contours, you can see the small wetland area there at the top corner. And then from there, just a strip along the property line does contribute to that water now and that will no longer contribute to that water. So primarily it's the water off Neacat Court but there will be some surface area removed that does currently collect in that low area. As David said, a portion of our site does drain down that way now, which will be redirected to the dry wells and away from that low point. You can see a 245 contour that's right above the relocate existing fence. It wraps around and comes down between Mr. LaRose. Yeah, if you follow that contour, that's kind of the area that goes to that lower corner. And it will no longer go to that lower corner. So while our volume remains a little bit better than what's there, there will be less surface area going to that corner. Any other discussion for this witness? All right, I think we may be ready to move on to the next person who has their hand raised. Thank you very much Mr. LaRose for your comments. Who's next? Next up is Jean. Jean Silver, whenever you're ready, go ahead. So I'm Jean Silver, I'm Bridgette's here also. We live at 48 LaFallon Street and I have three concerns. One, my concern about this pond is if it's gonna be deeper, how deep and will it be a hazard to small children? So right now there is a depression there. We'd be cutting it down anywhere from one feet to three feet. And on private property. So this could be filled with three feet of water? During a storm event, yes. Typical or less than most storm ponds. And those don't need any protection. I've visited on the developer's request or the developer one point's request. The project that was similar to this in Waterbury and a significant number of those homes had small children in them. And I'm concerned about a pond that can be that deep without any protection of kids wandering into it and drowning. We've had drownings in Monoski. It's one of these catch 22s. If the board feels that it's necessary, we would not be opposed to fencing. But in 35 years of doing this, what we found usually is that if you put up fencing it encourages kids. So it's, we kind of stay out of the fray and leave it up to the board as to whether they feel a fence is helpful or not. Is there an estimate as to how long that would be likely to be filled that high after a big storm? In our routing, I would think a few days but I don't have an exact number on that. I'm concerned. Four or five year old doesn't need much water to drown in. Just to clarify, so is the amount of water that would be ponding if the project was to move forward? Is it greater than what is currently ponding there or is it the same or less? It would be the same or slightly less but it would be a deeper, instead of being a shallow, wider area, it would be a deeper area. Whether a child gets into one foot of water or three foot of water, they can drown. But they're usually not too enticed by storm ponds from our experience. Well, I raise it as a concern and I think it should be addressed. My other concern is when this was first initiated I didn't know about the Main Street development and now there's going to be excess parking on La Fountain Street from two developments. And I saw what happened on Mansow Street. This is going to impact our neighborhood. People will have guests. Eventually we will be able to have guests at our house again. And the people living in this development, I am assuming that there are two bedroom houses, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, the way millennials have to live now it could easily be two couples because they can't afford it otherwise. So you could have potentially three four cars at a household. And then when you start heading guests on on weekends and same thing with the Main Street, there's going to be a problem. So I'm becoming concerned. And it's also, if you have a row of parked cars it's a safety issue for pets and for children and bikers, La Fountain's a busy street. So that's my second concern. My third concern is my understanding is as the sewage goes to La Fountain Street and gets into that sewer line, the wastewater line. Is that correct? That's correct, yeah. We have had incredible problems in the past with much to do with the city about sewage. And I'm just very, very concerned that we'll have problems at our house because of this. So those are my three concerns. Do you have anything, Bridge? I actually had a couple of questions. One of them is, I know you said there's a heavy duty pump station in there and I was just wondering what that was and is that going to be noise? The heavy duty pump station? So the heavy duty is a reference to the thickness of the concrete. It has a pump inside of it. You will not be able to hear it. So there's a, in front of unit three there's a gravity sewer. We can't make it by gravity out to the road. So there's a gravity sewer that starts at unit three goes down to the end of the road. The pump station, the pump is underwater within that station. So there's no sound from it. Typically this type of thing will help the main sewer in the road because it's only gonna kick on once or twice a day and it helps keep the main line sewer clean because it introduces some velocity to that sewer. But so it should help out. It has been reviewed as part of the Public Works Review. The parking, again, you asked and they are two bedroom units. We don't anticipate these are one family home so we don't anticipate that there is gonna be more than that. We are providing the two spaces per unit. So we do meet the town regs. And as Dan mentioned, there wasn't a lot of extra room but we did add two spaces near the planner boxes and the picnic table for additional. So La Fountain Street, it's not that we're saying people will park on La Fountain Street. They're not precluded from parking on La Fountain Street because it's a public road. But we're not counting on it. We meet the regulations independent of La Fountain Street. I was also wondering there are the circular items that are on the drawing that have like pie divisions in them. Are those trees? Yep, those are hardwood street trees. I think there's a total of 16 Freeman Naples. Okay, that's what I was asking. I mean, trees are good, I love trees. I was wondering if there's anything you could do with trees that would help your stormwater problem. Well, I don't think we have a problem. Okay, the last question that I had, you know, where this house is right under the F-35s. And I was wondering if there's anything in the plan to do any preventive insulation to make these desirable places to live. I'm not aware of that. I grew up in South Burlington underneath the plains and loved it. So I think most people that are buying in Winooski or renting in Winooski, they've chosen to live there. So I can't say that they like or love the noise, but it doesn't prevent them from choosing to live there. Well, I was just thinking with all the abatement projects that are under discussion now, if building right away, when everything's gonna need to be rebuilt is a good plan. It would definitely be smart for the builder to consider, you know, additional insulation. That's all my questions. Thank you. Any board members have any discussion or questions for these witnesses? Seeing none, I think we are ready to move on to the next set of folks. Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with us and having that discussion. Who's next? Next, we have Josh Cox. Josh, whenever you're ready. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Hi, my name is Josh Cox and here with my partner Amber Westcott. We live at 71 La Fountain. And I think we share, I think Jean articulated our concerns quite well related to the parking. Parking on La Fountain in this area is only allowed on one side of the street. So, and there's not a lot of parking available as it is right now without these units here. So that is certainly a concern of ours. And then related to the stormwater runoff. I know that, you know, builders can only build to what the modeling shows for 10-year storms and things like that. But I work frequently with the National Weather Service and every meteorologist I work with just keeps reiterating that storm intensity in Vermont is getting, they're getting, well, they're getting more intense and they're becoming more frequent. So I know it's with climate change is a larger issue. It's a bit hard to plan appropriately for that. But I suspect in short order, the way weather is intensifying here that the, that stormwater runoff may be woefully inadequate. So no questions, just those are my concerns I wanted to share. Any questions from the board for this witness? We get which side of La Fountain is the parking on currently? It's on the, well, it's on the side of the street that the development is planned for. I think that's the south side. If the cover sheet can be pulled up, the ortho photo that's on actually shows three cars parked along the fountain there. So that. So will there be some loss of parking? Will there be some no parking zones around that cut? It's at the existing opening, but I can't preclude, I don't know exactly where the line striping is to know if one space would be lost. Because with the change to the 20 foot drive with the required radii, it's certainly wider than what was there. Are there individual spaces striped currently? I don't know the answer to that. No, there's no. Yeah, David, I don't think the fountain currently has the striping for the spaces. Any other questions for this witness? Okay, so we've gotten, oh, we've got one more hand up, right? So I think we'll elevate our next person to share any concerns. Whenever you're ready, Sam, go for it. Hi, my name's Sam Russo. I live on Manso Street. Just in regards to striping the street for parking, since that comment was brought up, it's been very helpful to have that done on Manso Street. So thank you to the city for doing that. My concern is that if this is, there's two components to my concern that have to do with the width of this private road. One is access for emergency vehicles if there's any kind of parking allowed on this private road and how do you plan to mitigate that? And then the other is if this is a private road and you have nine units or all nine units going to be responsible for payments of repairs of this road or are units one and two going to be exempt because they're on the fountain. My concern is that repairs could exceed the financial ability of this homeowners association to actually repair this road. And if it falls into disrepair, that's a safety issue. So as far as the width goes, we are providing a 20 foot wide street. The fire chief has reviewed the plan and he said he was okay with it with the proposed turnarounds down on the southern side of the private road to allow the emergency vehicles to turn around. So the fire chief has said he is okay with that. And we do have some no parking signs down by the proposed fire lane at the turn around area there. And I thought that 20 is not narrow. 20 is the old 30. Roads were overbuilt in the 60s, 70s and into the 80s. And we've gotten smarter and trying not to overbuild road widths. If you went out and measured route 2A in most places you'd find with all that traffic it's about 22 feet wide. So there's a lot of roads are down to 16 foot width, 18 foot width, certainly gone away from curbs in most locations, gone to infiltrate storm. There was one comment early about stormwater being taken care of by the town. Well, that's the old method. It goes into catch basins and gets directed to some stream. And new school is infiltrate, infiltrate, infiltrate. So you try to reduce the amount of impervious area same as what they're doing with parking lots for shopping centers. Don't have three acres of parking if you only need two acres. Is there parking allowed along the length of the road? The private road? It's not restricted per se until you get down by the turn around but because of the driveways it's gonna kind of be self-imposed. It's not part of the calculations as far as meeting the requirements of two spaces per unit. And I think it's might, is it one and a half or two per unit but I know we meet the requirements. And again, they're two bedroom units which also helps. Could you foresee a situation where a car is parked offset on either side that would prevent an emergency vehicle from getting down that road? If a car was parked on both sides, that would be an issue. And based on that comment, I'd suggest that a condition be included for a sign it maybe two signs on the side. I think it would be on the side of units three through five for no parking on this side. That would be consistent with the, or actually the, I'm sorry, I think it's the opposite side. Put a couple of signs of no parking on this side consistent with where the fire chief wanted it down by the turn around. That would be a very good thing to do. And I've lost my train of thought. There was one other comment, the last gentleman made that. As far as maintenance for the private road, I looked at the roadway. All nine units. So while that duplex in the front does face LaFountain, it does come off this entrance and has its drive in the back. So while it may or may not use the rest of the road, it will be one ninth. There'll each be one ninth of the HOA and one ninth of ongoing costs. So is there, I would rely on the development review board to have an idea of what that type of cost would be. I'm thinking about a similar length of stretch on Manso Street needing repair. And that cost would essentially be divided over all the citizens of Winooski through our taxes. However, the stretch of roadway if needed significant repair, seems like it could be quite expensive. So I'm just asking the review board to take that into consideration to see if a private street this size could feasibly be maintained by nine units. Do we have a private road in Winooski that's this size with a similar population density that has been maintained adequately as a precedent? The, I guess the only thing I'd say is that there's with the drive going towards one two, you've got about 400 feet of 20 foot wide road which isn't very much compared to a small parking lot. You're talking 8,000 square feet of pavement. So it's not a large area to maintain. The cross section that we have should enjoy about a 30 year life cycle before pavement would need to be topped. So we never see that this road would need to be reconstructed because it's going to be constructed properly. What would happen in typically in about 30 years is they would be considering putting on a shim code with pavement and I'll try to do a quick calculation before we sign off as to what that'll be. Any questions or further discussion for this way? All right, seeing none. So we have other folks in the attendees list who have not made comment. That's totally fine. No pressure, but if you have been hanging out and you feel like you wanna talk, just let us know by raising your hand or putting your comments in the chat. Otherwise we are likely to wrap up the public portion of the meeting pretty quickly here. We do have technically the rest of the agenda to get through, which I expect to be pretty short. So just to give everyone who is here watching a preview of what's going to happen next, once we close this hearing, we're gonna go into a different zoom as a DRB and do our deliberative session that is closed to the public. And what we do is we issue a written decision on the application in front of us within 45 days of today's date. That'll be available from Eric and the city and whenever it's issued, it's typically a couple of weeks before that happens. And so any questions about that stay in touch with Eric and I'm sure he'll let whoever needs to know, no. I think we're waiting on math for our final. So a one inch shimco just for the roadway, not the driveways at today's cost would be about $6,000. So you could expect that it might be 7,000, pretty easy to incorporate into an HOA. You know, again, that would be anticipated about a 30 year life cycle. That life cycle can be longer if they're proactive on crack repair, you know, as cracks form if they put a motion on those that helps out greatly too. So it's not a large number. Okay, well, we'll take that into consideration along with Mr. Rousseau's comments during our deliberations. So I think we're ready to move on from item five on our agenda to item six, which is city updates. Eric, you got any city updates? So the only thing I wanted to update you on is that at our lab, I believe it was the last meeting you heard the appeal of the notice of violation to 133 Elm Street. You upheld that notice of violation that has subsequently been appealed to the Superior Court's environmental division. So more to come on that. But that is the only update that I have for you at this time. Cool. Other business, item seven. Anybody got any other business? I would just note that our next meeting is scheduled for December 17th. We do, I actually did receive an application today for that meeting. If you're all available for it, it would be another Zoom webinar meeting. So that should be a fairly simple, fairly straightforward application. It's a dimensional waiver for a pre-existing non-conforming lot. They just want to add on to their existing home. Want to go into the fourth dimension? Pretty straightforward. Can we waiver for it? Exactly, so. But that's so far, that's the only application that I've received and the deadline for that meeting is tomorrow. To that same point, I've developed the, put together the schedule for next year's meetings, the submission deadlines and the public hearing deadlines in our meeting schedule. That'll get posted to the city's website. Hopefully I'll provide that over to Paul to get that on our website in the next week or so so that folks can see that and I'll distribute that all out to you as well. Perfect. All right, the final item on my agenda. Oh, go for it, sorry. There was something we were gonna review at the city council meeting, what happened to that? Right, so that actually got pulled from the council agenda. Or sorry, it never, it didn't get pulled from the agenda. We didn't include it on the agenda because we are waiting for some additional information from the applicant. That has not been rescheduled yet. So I will let you all know when that does get rescheduled. And remind me what that was for a, the proposed development of lot nine in downtown. That's the hotel that keeps coming up every couple of years, right? Correct, that's correct. Eric, what about the George Street appeal? Any news on that? That has moved. That is in the environmental division as well of the Superior Court. I don't really have anything. I know they've had a pre-conference or they had a call about it with all the parties involved. The neighbors have entered in appearance as well as the applicant. So they had some discussions but I don't think there's been any movement so far. The wheels of justice, they're real slow. Okay. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Anybody wants to make one? I will motion to adjourn. All right. And do we have a second? Second. All right. All in favor, hand all opposed. All abstaining, looks like motion passes. Sam, thank you very much for your kind words in the chat. And DRB members, what we're gonna do is exit this meeting and you have a separate email session and we'll see y'all in that Zoom.