 Recording in progress. Good evening. Thank you for your patience. We were in deliberations on the long night ahead of us a very full agenda. So let's just dive in. Welcome to the development of Burlington. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Is it still echoing? No, okay. Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board of November 7th, 2023. My name is Don Filibert. I'm chair of the board, and I'd like to introduce the other board members. We have tonight with us a very new board member, and his name is Charles Johnston. Welcome, John. Charles. And Stephanie Wyman, Mark Bear, John Muscatelli, and Quinn Mann. And a staff with us tonight are Marlekeen and Marty Gillis. This meeting is being recorded. There's a couple of ways to participate. You can do so by attending as many of you are doing, and you can also participate virtually online. If you're here in person, please make sure you sign up at the back table to document your attendance and participation. Should you want to take any future action? And if you're online, you can add your contact information to be registered as a participant in the chat box. And are any member, is anyone calling in? Do we have anybody? We have 11 people. Calling in. Can you tell the difference? Yeah. Okay. All right. Good. So let's just jump in and review emergency procedures. In an auditorium, there are doors at the back. Should there be an emergency, please exit one of the doors and go left or right, and you'll be outside. Are there any additions, deletion, or changes to the agenda or the order of the agenda? Okay. Any announcements or reminders? I've already announced that we have a new board member. Any comments and questions from the public that are not related to the agenda? Let's go ahead and dive into our first project. By the way, we have allocated about an hour for each of the three projects we're reviewing tonight. And for the first one, we anticipate there's going to be a fair amount of a public comment. So we're going to stop taking testimony at a quarter of eight. This is continued master plan sketch plan application SD 2312 of Eric Farrell for an existing approximately 105 acre lot development with two single family homes and six unoccupied or accessory structures. The master plan consists of placing approximately 74 acres into permanent conservation, conveying approximately one acre to a butters and constructing 124 additional homes in buildings ranging from single family to 12 units on 28.25 acres at 1195 Shelburne Road. And since this is a sketch plan, I don't have to swear you and so no swearing in and no swearing. We had an opportunity to do a site visit to this applicants property last week. So we will have some questions related to that, but let's find out who's here for the applicant please. Eric Farrell. Mike Buescher with TJ Boyle Associates. I'm Amanda Markey with TJ Boyle Associates. Amanda and Eric is your mic. It's on. It might be just too far away from you. We do have some folks online so make sure you pull it a little closer if you could. Don't be shy. So let me just go. So good evening. Good to see you again. Let me give you an opportunity before we dive into the staff report and go through sequentially any of the staff comments. Is there anything you would like to add to introduce what you'll talk about tonight or as a follow-up to the site visit last week? Dawn. Yes. This is Chairman. I'm Markey from this item. Thank you, Stephanie. I should have asked, does anyone else recused? Thank you. Frank, yes. Thank you. I didn't introduce Frank. Frank Cokman, who's a member of the board, but he's recused for this project. So go ahead. So the only minor, I don't know if it's minor, but a detail that was brought up by a couple of existing neighbors is that there's a single road crossing of the railroad. Too many years ago, my cousin David, the property owner, deeded a 64 right away to the state and they, to allow that to no longer be a farm crossing, but could be a regular public street. Meaning that we, when we go to the next level, we'll probably show it as a two-lane road. Okay. Thank you. All right. Let's start out with the first comment. Any board feedback for the applicant or questions based on our site visit last week? No. Okay. Let's move on to number two. Members indicated that they would, they wanted to discuss the configuration of the three family, three single family development lots further after review of the remainder of the staff report. So shall we hold this till the end? Okay. Number three, this is about the bike path. The applicants revised plan now show a portion of the development as containing a recreation path. Staff recommends the board review this. So can you show us that? And there was some question about, is this a for sure thing or is this, is it not clear whether a rec path is going in? Well, I think that, no, I think it's clear that we would support a rec path from, so it would start at, start or end at Bartlett's Bay Road. It would make its way all the way through the project to Holmes Road. And then we think the most logical pathway from there would be just west of the railroad in the Velco. It would be in the Velco right away just west of the railroad up to the old inroad crossing. And from there, people could make their way up to Fayette Drive. Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the board? I have something to add on that one. Sure. I was in a meeting with our department of public works director, Tom DePietro earlier this week, and we were talking about the rec path crossing of the railroad. And Tom said that the sketch level, he didn't provide any feedback specific to the placement of the rec path since your first iteration of this plan did not show one. But given the sort of the new iteration that does show it going up and crossing an inroad. He said that in general, he supports the connectivity and also wanted to minimize the number of railroad crossings that the city has to own. So he was kind of more inclined to support a rec path configuration that would run along the widened Holmes Road and along Holmes Road into the road that comes out kind of by the fire, the fire station there. And then it goes up. On the side of the railroad tracks between Holmes Road and what we call the inroad. Correct. That was a that was a configuration that he had expressed preference for based on limiting the number of public railroad crossings. The city has to manage and maintain. So I just wanted to let everyone know that that is a factor and that decision making process and make sure we're on the same page at this time. So two, two observations. One is that you're that that proposal would bring them across property that we don't have any control over. It's a proposed it's a proposed city street that that that section is a proposed city street, a future city street on the official map. So we intend to make that connection at some point and we would be building that rec path out as we go in that hypothetical scenario. Another point of clarification where I described it going. Of course, once we once you cross the railroad tracks, you're on property that my cousin used to own that are now owned by Larkins, which is the subject of the of the next review. I can't speak for Larkins for the Larkin family about a rec path extending up the inroad. So they would have to be on board for that. I think the point would be connectivity between the developments. I don't think that we would approve a rec path that dead ends at inroad. Obviously, the users would continue across inroad and the Department of Public Works director just felt that for safety reasons, if we're going to be implicitly or explicitly encouraging folks to bike over a railroad that it be safe and publicly operated maintained. So this is an issue will have a more discussion about it later. Just want to flag everyone's attention. Great. Thank you. Any other questions about the bike path or comments? So I guess the point of sketch just to reiterate is to provide the applicant feedback that they can use to go work on future designs. I think it might be helpful for the applicant here. You know, does is the board kind of in favor of the proposal that they've. Oh my not close enough it's on. Sorry. The applicant has a feedback on what the board thinks about their proposal. Okay. Board about the bike path. Board any comments at this point? I mean, I'll say obviously I'm always in support of bike path, especially when it provides further connectivity throughout the city. You know, I think we're at sketch level. So I think at this point we are at sort of a okay conceptually we want a bike path, whether it goes on the east side or the west side of the railroad tracks. You know, I think that's kind of a TBD, you know, with further study, because obviously there's pros and cons of both, you know, the pro on being to the east side on the Feral property is obviously the applicant does control that piece of property. You know, I think I kind of see a prone con again of, you know, putting a bike path through that meadow, you know, because I think it's a nice meandering path. And again, you are going through conservation, you know, you're providing pavement. So I think it is to be determined with further study, just a connectivity of a bike path as part of this project is, you know, a goal. Okay. Thank you, Mark. Any other comments? All right, moving on to comment number four. This is about the major redesign. What is the rationale? When we last saw you, you had a design that you've now reworked. Please tell us what the rationale for that is. Well, be happy to. And I think that's probably one of the most significant things we need to work out. So we originally proposed to upgrade the existing, at least the east west portion of Holmes Road to a public street standard. And then we would turn south, not in the current pathway of that road, but we turn south with a public road and then it would work its way through our neighborhood. And then the existing homes on the extension would have access off a new public street. So it's not clear to me what the neighbors, the residents on that street, what their preference is. So we did show an alternate plan where we left Holmes Road extension just the way it is as an existing gravel road and serving only their residences. And then we would, you know, sort of tighten our project up and keep it in the south meadow. There's a couple of permutations to that. And I read Paul Conner's comments that were entirely supportive. So one alternative that we've not talked to the neighbors about, and we've had a couple of meetings with them before the first sketch, would be to make the existing Holmes Road extension a, what do you call it, a private alley that would only serve those, it would serve those homes and then it could serve single family homes. It would provide access to the garage side of single family homes that would back up to that alley. In the benefit of that, if there's a benefit to that, it would be that the lion's share of the traffic in the neighborhood would be in the neighborhood and it wouldn't be on that road. I think the only thing we'd be adding to that road would be the 10 or 15 single family homes that back up to it. In addition to whatever it is, 10 or 12 homes that are currently there. I mean, that's just, we didn't, I don't think we showed that plan, but that's one alternative. So that would address the comment from Paul that with the alternative design, because it would be not efficient to build a second public road adjacent to a private road. So we flipped the public road to the other side, which made all those single family homes front loaded. So one of his comments was that the TND wasn't very supportive of all the driveway cuts and all of the front facing garages. So by keeping homes road how it is, although paving it to meet the 16 foot width and then providing alley access, so we would continue the present access to the homes road extension residences, but also somewhat address some portion of Paul's comments. I think there's some dispute, too strong a word. Some question is to whether David, my cousin who owns the underlying road and the neighbors have rights over it, he possesses the right to upgrade that road and or dedicated to the city as a public street, exactly where it is. And, you know, we're not here to fight that battle today. What we really want to end up with is a plan that the DRB supports and the neighbors support. And I'm not exactly sure what that plan is. I think once we know once we I think we do have to settle the status of that road and from there we will fine tune, you know, the TND. But it's pretty hard for us to keep going on a TND. Well, that issue is up in the air and we we don't really want to do battle with anybody. And but we don't I don't think we have consensus, maybe even on the board. And I if there's a consensus among the neighbors, I'm not aware of it. Yeah. When do you expect to get a sense of what people want? Consensus or? Well, you know, after the sidewalk, we did talk to a couple of them and asked them it would be great if they were all on the same page as to what they want. And and it would also be great if if the city supported what they want. And I I have my doubts if that Paul's based on Paul's comments that there's going to be common ground between what they want and what Paul thinks is appropriate. You know, I think we're pretty open minded about it ourselves. You know, we don't have any acts to grind. You know, in that regard, so we just got to we got to figure it out. Now there are neighbors here, if there's a consensus among all of them and it doesn't really help to have nine out of 10. So given given the the permit process in Vermont. So, you know, we always strive to have consensus as possible. All right, well, we'll be hearing from them in a little while. I would imagine. I think that's true. Yeah, I was just going to say, I mean, as as you indicated, it sounds like the status of homes road and what can or can't be done with that is a critical issue here. I found Paul's, you know, comments compelling as far as how the development is going to fit into the regulations moving forward. It sounds like you guys have an option to address some of that. So I guess what I'm saying is it seems like the original design is going to be give you an easier time to be consistent with the regulations moving forward. But it sounds like if if making homes road a public road isn't an option. Or how that looks so anyways, as soon as you can give the board clarity on kind of the status of homes road, it's it's clearly a critical, you know, component to what what design options are available here. I mean, my preference would be to have you guys fight it out with the neighbors and then tell us what to do. But it sounds like there's a there's a potential that the homes room couldn't be made a public. Am I misunderstanding that like all the neighbors would have to find out like. We haven't done all the research. We, we are initial belief is that my cousin David has the right to upgrade homes road to a public standard and dedicate it to the city, as long as it doesn't diminish the. But you know, having, but you know, I, I don't always like, I don't like to land on, you know, you know, my rights versus your rights, we'd like to find consensus. Okay. Any other comments or questions mark. Okay, I'll offer my sort of opinion comment on the original plan versus this potential redesign plan. And you know, as anyone who knows my experience on the board, you know, I'm going to speak from the cuff and could certainly be talked other ways or being completely discriminated on the rest of the board, but I kind of, I like the redesign look, you know, and I'd love to hear from the neighbors when it comes their time. But you know, I see that as providing like a good buffer, you know, and you have to look at any development as how does it fit within the neighborhood and if you haven't established, you know, neighborhood of small homes with a little meandering road that granted it's partially on your property. So you do have certain potential, you know, property rights. I just like having that buffer, you know, and I look at the original design, and it looks like the entire Meadow area is being cleared, put into new names somewhat respectful of building against an established smaller neighborhood. And I actually like the design better because, you know, it looks like it's more compact. You know, the other one looks like it filled the entire area, you know, it's it's still the same type of development you have a still a lot of good mixed use houses, lots of different housing types. But it's more compact with more like an inner ring road that then branches out to the two accesses in and out of the neighborhood. And that's sort of just my thoughts on it, you know, obviously, we're only at sketch, there's further information that needs to be shown testimony to be taken but that's my gut reaction to looking at the two and thinking about how it fits in to that area. Well, and, you know, we don't disagree, necessarily with that view, but you know, Paul's comments were pretty strong. You know, I mean, I didn't see an ounce of where he thought our alternative plan was consistent with the with the intent of the ordinance so and I don't where do we go with it with that. You tell me. Any other comments before we move on. Can I show a thought that I had on this, Marty, can you go to the original one. I was surprised to see the redesign. What I expected to respond to the neighbors comments was, instead of removing all homes road from the project, we're moving just a pole. Hard to draw a straight line with a touchpad. Moving just a portion. And so, you know, maybe the new road would stay up until the pink line at the top and then homes road would be realigned and keep the homes on the left but sort of halfway between. I don't know if members have any thoughts on some sort of in between option. I know it doesn't solve all the problems that Paul raised with the alleys being required to be the access for multifamily dwellings. And the organization of the common space but I guess I was surprised to see see this sort of all or nothing dichotomy. Can I ask you a question, Marla? Yeah. So when I'm looking at that not so straight public street. Yeah, sorry. The other houses on as I'm facing it the houses on the left would would front on that street, and then they would back up to the existing homes road which would stay intact. Right. Homes road extension. It was just a thought. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, I don't know how to remove my annotation now they've changed the toolbar. Wait, here we go. Any other comments, questions. Okay. Sorry, I'll just say I think that's a good thought, Marla. Thank you for sharing it. I mean, that's a good compromise. Yeah, yeah. I think it's the perspective of, you know, the homes road neighborhood and how this new development, you know, fits in within that. Okay. Number 18. I think I might have. Yeah, so I kept the original numbering. Okay. So you got through one through 18 or one through 17 before. Okay. All right. So I'm going to read this, but I think I need you to explain what the question is Marla. Most of the impacts to hazards are located within building lots to three and four, which are each proposed for single family homes. The board asked the applicant to describe how excluding the required hazard area will impact the project since since each buildable lot has an associated conservation lot. It appears required modification will not affect the land area associated with each single family home, but instead will simply ensure protection of areas the city has determined have high natural resource value. So we're now in the conservation beauty. We're no longer in the TND and we're in the area north of homes road with a lot building lots to three and four. Right. And we're now talking about environmental resources environmental resources. There's certain ones that are required to be conserved in a conservation beauty and some of which are sort of like second tier. If you can and then areas that are not in the first year of the second tier are supposed to be the areas for development. So this is a question about those hazard areas that are required to be conserved and what that does to these three lots. And then I think in supplemental I put a revised plan I may not have actually put it in there. I might have to open the original folder. So what is the question being asked or the issue. These lots don't can don't protect the hazard areas that's required. So for instance, there's a cross hatch and that's included in some of the what we're calling the the primary lots to three and four. Each of those have a conservation law associated with them. So those cross hatches that you can see on the screen right now are what South Burlington categorizes as very steep slopes or slopes above 25 above 25% except in rare situations we are required to have those hazard areas within the conservation lots. So we we step back and we took a look at this. There were some other areas. So one of the things that we were doing is one of the one of the regulations is the conservation area should be as contiguous as possible. Obviously we have some unique situations here. We have an existing home and we have quite a bit of previously disturbed or developed areas, which is where we're proposing the three lots. So we took a step back and we recalculated and for the most part, we have accommodated these lots without providing the developable portion of the lot within within any of the hazard areas. There's a couple rare rare exceptions. For instance, South Burlington has imposed 100 foot setback from class two wetlands that wetland goes directly that buffer crosses through the existing resident living room. So obviously, you know, there's an existing home. We can't move it. Excuse me. There's got to be some accommodation to that. The driveways exist. So there's a little bit of infringement on lot two. I believe lot three has fully accommodated this. It's reduced the development area of that lot down to just over two acres. And in general, lot four also meets that except there is one little sliver of very steep slopes that that jut into it. And we feel like that is one of the situations in which in rare situation the board has the ability to say, well, to make this a more regularly sized lot, we would ask for that to be allowed. And that that that was some of the load. We actually appointed that very steep slope out on the site visit. If you can remember, it was just to the north of the existing foundation, the northern most foundation. So for the most part, we're now meeting those, although the development area for those lots has obviously significantly decreased. Marty, can you pan up so we can see the areas of those lots now? Because I assume you've updated the call outs. Yeah, they're about two acres for a lot three and a lot four. They're about half what they were. I think two, three and four anyway. Board questions, comments. No, I think the updates make sense. Thanks for talking them through them. Good. Okay, let's move on to comment number 19. This is regarding the floodplain overlay. The question is, can the, can we confirm that there are no proposed changes within the overlay at this time? And the recommendation is that the board defer review of the floodplain overlay district to a later stage of review. Right now, we don't have any proposed changes in lane. Thank you. Comet number 20. This is regarding the steep slopes. I guess the up because of the update, we don't need to discuss that. So, so just just to call out. We're using LIDAR data. That area of very steep slope is actually within the existing homes or extension. So my guess is that there are actually no very steep slopes at that particular area. All right. Thank you. Number 21. At some point, we're going to ask for a need a professional wetland delineation. I assume that's part of your plan. We're already in talks to engage a professional. Thank you. 22. I had a hard time following this. So let me. I think this is about the driveway to lot two. And I think there was just miscommunication. There are no improvements. Okay. And what about comment number 23? I would, I would ask you to look at the revised L2, which actually wasn't was a supplemental filing that that Marla called out. And that we are, remember what 23 was. So for the most parts, lots two, three and four have been revised to avoid impacts to hazards. And that's one of those situations where we didn't get it in time to do a thorough review of this revised plan. So I would say, you know, this might be a trust and verify situation. Okay. And can I just add, just as we're talking about like conservation habitat blocks and such at the last meeting, I think a representative from one of the organizations kind of came forward and spoke to connectivity for, you know, wildlife travel throughout the property in the context of the proposed development. So we're at sketch. Currently, I just wanted to flag that as like reiterate that common. I thought that was something good to focus on. And when you come in the future, if whether it's through the city's committee on conservation, having them review it or just showing where the wildlife connectivity is going to take place through the parcel like that area is available for that to happen. I just wanted to know if that would be like a helpful, you know, map to have when we're later on in the process to make sure that connectivity is there. That makes sense. Sorry. Yeah. And I think that's one of the one of the elements of getting a expert involved in this project that will need to happen and will have to part of this project will require us mitigating the habitat block that we're impacting. I think, you know, if you go out there, there's lots of the area that's not habitat block that you can see has very valuable natural resources and that based on a more natural setting would would easily suffice as that. You know, quite honestly, doing a lot of work with the Vermont utilities power lines are one of the key wildlife corridors and we have that opportunity on the site. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Number 24, this is related to larger area habitat blocks. That recommends the board confirm, pardon me, the applicant's intention to undertake a larger area habitat block exchange. And if so, consider whether they will invoke technical review of the habitat and disturbance assessment. Is the they the board. Okay. All right. Do you plan to do that? Yeah, our plan as as shown impacts the habitat block on the on the south parcel area that that was a result of ongoing planning and collaboration with the city when we were getting ready for this project. So that would require a transition and mitigation. Okay. Thank you. And I think we can decide whether we invoke technical review later. Okay. And then, but if you invoke it now, then I can get it started before you see them again. Okay. What do you think? Okay. Good. Right. Oh, emotion to the technical review. So it's a vision motion of the habitat and disturbance assessment. And the habitat and disturbance assessment. There's a second. Thank you, Mark. Any discussion. All in favor. Say aye. Opposed. Okay. Thank you. Before we turn to public comment, does anyone have any other questions for the applicant tonight? Hearing none. Thank you very much. We're going to open it up now for public comment. What, what is the next step for them to come back with a master plan? Well, so I, it's up to you guys to decide. You can say you would like more consideration of the, the two layouts in the TND areas and ask them to and or continue the meeting. You could continue the meeting to review this revised conservation PUD or you could say, yep. We'll take public comment and then decide, or you could take the public comment and then just say, okay, see you at master plan. Okay. We'll decide that after public comment. Okay. Thank you. All right. How many show of hands, how many people are interested in making public comments? If you can raise your virtual hands online, that would be helpful too. Yeah, virtual hands. How many roughly do we have online, Marty? Don't see any hands raised. Okay. All right. So given the time, let's go with a cap of three minutes each. And if we have extra time, people can add comments. And what's generally very helpful is we don't, it's not helpful for us to hear the same thing again. So if you want to make comments that Ralph has already made rather than reiterating Ralph's comments, it's helpful for you to just say, I would like to reiterate Ralph's thinking or like Ralph's comments or whatever, rather than go through the whole thing again. All right. Let's, who would like to go first? Don't be shy. Okay. Step right up. Please. I'm large lips and I live at 125 homes road. I want to thank both the developer and the board for having a really thoughtful conversation tonight. I came here with my primary concern being that a decision would be made without ample opportunity to consider the consequences of various iterations. This is a substantial project on a piece of land that cannot be reclaimed for South Burlingtonians. And for us to decide on one plan versus another without opportunities to fully discuss them both as from our perspective as neighbors, but from the city's perspective as citizens of the bigger city. I want to encourage you to take a bit of time about this. I would really like there to be no decision particularly on lot one until we've had more opportunity to look at possible iterations that reduce not only the risk to our small community, but to the wetlands that are there to that quarter have the habitat quarter. I don't know how you can have a conversation about a habitat quarter for that set of lots without looking at how they're going to get there, which means looking at how do they pass through lot one. And that is a major concern for our community as well. So I'd ask that you when you think about possible iterations of what's going to happen on lot one, you factor in not only its impact on us, but its impact in all kinds of ways on both the habitat and our bigger community. In particular, the number of units that are possible to be put there without reducing the quality of life for the animals that live there and the humans that live there and pass through there, also for managing traffic. And I think there's been a beginning discussion about not just the traffic in and out, but within and its its impact. And then finally also run off the amount of heartscape that may introduce that close to the lake without jeopardizing the quality of life for our entire state. So thank you. Thank you. Don, I wanted to make a note that I did receive a couple additional written public comments after packet publication. And I can provide those to the board. I received some from the Natural Resources Committee. They're not really on the subject of natural resources. So I'm just going to classify them as public comments. Okay. From Michael Lipson and from Adam Glazer. Okay. So you'll send those to us. Yes. Okay. Good. Thank you. Who would like to go next? Okay. Man in the green shirt and then next will be the man in back of him in the white shirt. Come on up, sir. Maybe it's blue. Sorry. No, it's all right. Before my time starts, could I get the gentleman's name over here? Mark. Mark. Okay. Okay. What did I do? No, you're good. Believe me. Good evening. I'm Tom Easton, a neighbor. I believe in the, in the Holmes Road neighborhood at one zero one Holmes road. I'd like to thank the board for the opportunity to speak tonight as well as Eric being here to listen to the neighbors comments. And I had a prepared speech, but I think I'm just going to add live because I'd like to follow up on Mark's comment. And that is that I myself and I think other neighbors from talking to them. We'd like to get a little bit more of a firm understanding of how the city. Intends on integrating a neighborhood with an old existing neighborhood. And when you talk about a T and D. That's different from what we perceive our neighborhood as our neighborhood, according to the deeds was established. About 100 years ago, back in the 1820s. So we have been around a long time and we consider ourselves a traditional South Burlington neighborhood fortunate enough to live on the lake. So with that said, having read some of the comments that the staff prepared tonight, primarily from Paul Connors written comments. Where he said, I quote the original way layout needs referring to the new proposal that Eric and his landscape or came up with. But the original layout further integrates integrated existing and future neighborhoods together. So he wasn't pleased that it was more of a separate neighborhood than being integrated to ours. And then also there was a comment that said, I quote, it isolates this neighborhood from existing neighborhoods. So with those comments, I would ask the board as well as the city to please let us know how you envision this new T and D being incorporated into our area. Are you intending to take over our neighborhood and integrate us into this new neighborhood? Or are you going to allow us to exist in its original concept of 10 homes on homes or extension. And for me, we have a close knit neighborhood, and I would like to see it stay that way. That's not to say that we want to exclude the new neighborhood. And if you remember from what I said in my past comments, we believe in property rights. We believe in people having the right to develop their land within the existing guidelines and regulations. But for us to be proactive in working with Eric, we need to know how you are going to perceive our neighborhood and I use the rest of my time. Thank you very much, Mr. Easton. Can you hear me? A little closer to this so we can hear you please. What is your name again? Dimitrios McLeodis. I lived in South Burlington on Twinbrook Court, which is off Barlow Bay Road for 50 years, almost 50 years. And one of the things I noticed is a brook in my back of my yard. 50 years ago, there were so many feasts there. You could catch bucketfuls of perch in the spring. Now you can catch one. I believe it's part of it, of the development that has occurred on Spear Street, Wynie, Sabon, and so on. When I see this development being an outsider, it doesn't affect me really. I see the wildlife really getting back there. There's a lot of deer and I have seen 34 deer. I have a video of it in my yard a few years back. And this time of the year, I have an apple tree that will always be a deer during the week of Thanksgiving and the night. So I see that development is killing that corridor of that wildlife. Because those cows are going to have dogs, they're going to have cats, and I have nothing against dogs and cats, but deer don't like that. So I think by doing this, you're killing off that corridor of wildlife. And that corridor extends to me from Red Rocks all the way up to Mitzkov. You see that deer, you know, moving up and down. So what can we do about it? I'm not an expert, but I hope the expert really guide you on this. Because it would be a crime to kill a natural corridor. That was my comment. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes. Good evening. Good evening. Can you hear me? We can. Please introduce yourself. I'm Kathy Easton, EASTON. I live at 101 Holmes Road. And normally I take the time to prepare and write things down, but this time I didn't. I was quite frankly confounded. And I guess what I want you all to know is I think the board and the applicant and all the various commissions should give some thought to what our community is going through. Because we have a kind of a unique neighborhood where we actually know each other. We know each other by name. We don't stick our noses into each other's business. We don't look over and say, hey, what kind of hot dog are you grilling? But we know each other. And if somebody needs help, we're there to help them. It's a unique and wonderful place. But you come to a meeting like this tonight and we're told, well, it could be plan one and that could be option two. There is also an option three. And by the way, David Ferrell just might have the legal right to pave the road and do what he wants anyway. But your neighborhood better decide really soon what you want. So they're asking for all of our houses somehow to come to consensus about a project. We don't even know what's going to happen to it. We don't know when the wildlife people and the wetlands people come in. They may say, ha, this is a class two wetland. You need to have 100 foot setback. You're going to need to move all your houses. We know people are telling us in our small neighborhood, but you better decide how we're essentially going to destroy the character of your neighborhood to make way for the vision of what we think should be this new urbanization. And I think the new urban communities are nice. I did research today on traditional neighborhood development. So I get that I'm not against it. Not against new neighbors. But I also think that our neighborhood has a unique quality that deserves to be preserved as part of the history, the historic nature of South Burlington. And so I hope that when everybody works on this, they'll keep in mind that we have a unique resource about diversity, wildlife, a field, everything. And we would like to make sure that we're included in that and not just to hurry up and make a decision because we're going to change your world. May I ask a question? Yes, ma'am. Pardon me. What process would you suggest to have that happen? And you understand this is not the end of the review. There's other steps. Exactly. And that's, we will be narrowing down information or the applicant will, and we will all have a chance to ask questions and hear public comment. Well, I think that, for example, I came here to your meeting on October 17 to see if the Larkin hearing was going to occur. So I've read it was continued to the 21st. You confirmed to agree the 21st. So then when we were doing the walkthrough, they said, oh no, they're going to be presenting on the 7th as well. So we came here, 37 pages on this, 42 pages on Larkin, all kinds of other things. We're trying to absorb. We're getting squeezed from every direction from the city plan, Larkin, Farrell, and it's all coming down toward us like water downhill. So I trust in the process. I have faith that this is going to take a long time and that we'll just keep coming back as neighbors and relying on you to do the right thing as you usually do. And you hear people out and work the work. So that is my best offer and suggestion. But I thank you for all you do and for the extent to which Eric and Mike have, have worked with us. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Other comments. Good evening. Great to come. I live at 150 and Holmes road. Had a whole bunch printed out and repaired, but some of it's been covered some of it's changed based on what's been said. I think I want to start out just by saying a quick thank you to the board for the site visit on November 2. It felt very informative for all sides and I felt it was run in a smooth and efficient manner. So I definitely appreciated that. I wish I wish the redesign had been better communicated. Some of us didn't even realize until the final stop of that site visit on November 2 that we were talking about and touring a different design from what had been presented to us on the previous d rv meeting on October 3. It makes it really hard to know what we're commenting on and prepare any sort of talking points when there's two versions, they're pretty drastically different. I don't believe anybody, you know, on our road really has any expertise in this sort of thing. So there's questions of like privacy setbacks, whether there should be a paved road that rings the neighborhood, whether there shouldn't be, I think there's also probably just a lot of confusion. I know we don't have a consensus in the neighborhood we were talking this afternoon, some of us are in favor of one, some of us are in favor of two. There was a third pink line drawn this evening that potentially has merit I think I personally would like some insight from whether it be from the development side or from the board. What provides the most privacy in a road? Is it an alley road? Is it a front facing road? I would be under the impression that we would get less traffic with the fronts of the house because everybody driving in and out of their home would be going down the alley. And the pink line seemed to suggest kind of flip flopping those and backwards. I would love just some pointers also to know, you know, there's concerns from neighbors about like the speed. You know, of, you know, we'll currently sometimes you'll see somebody coming down our road single lane dirt road 2025 miles per hour feels way too fast, you know, kind of give them a glare. Those speeds seem like they would be completely acceptable on a two lane paved road, potentially even faster. I would like to know sort of what what types of speed and traffic would we be anticipating in our neighborhood. I think that would help us determine whether we would like to keep our existing dirt road or a ring road. Personally, I know the differences between the two plans. The first one had a paved road closer to my home. I live on the corner of the homes road extension. That also provided immediate sidewalk access. I would cross that paved road immediately be on a sidewalk. The one that the second plan, which leaves the road there takes away some of that access. It would be nice to know how to how to balance those two privacy versus access to to walking. All right, I'll stop the ramp. Thank you. Yes, sir. My name is Michael Lipson. I live at 125 homes road. One question that has. Speak up a little please and pull that in. Thank you. One question that's been on my mind from the beginning is. We enter homes road extension over the railroad tracks. In that 60 foot. Road that Mr. Powell was generous enough to give the city which resolved the major fight that I was involved in between us and the state. Who claimed that we didn't have a right to cross the railroad tracks because it was a farm crossing as I recall. The state never responded to a title company lawyers. Letter to it that said. You're wrong, but in any event the city was helpful in getting all that resolved for us. But it is a one lane crossing and I wasn't sure I heard anything about what was going to happen with that. I know the road can be extend can be widened behind it on the west side of it. But what about the crossing itself? Are you going to. It's our understanding that from from talking with legal representation that that crossing is able to be increased to a two lane crossing. Well, I hadn't heard about that. Okay. If it isn't what I would point out is the traffic block there and I would further point out that because there are two trucking depots on. Home road proper and a traffic light up at the at the head of it that often gets backed up in any event that it the more traffic you allow to go up and down that road. The worse it will be for everybody living down that way. Yes. Thank you. Why don't we go over here and then your next. Hi. Thanks for letting me speak. My name is Doug Goodman. I live on Central Avenue and Queen City Park. There's a lot of moving pieces here and that's a very special piece of property. I know that on city maps, it shows that those potential future Parkland and that there's a bike path that shows along the railroad tracks. And I think it's really important as we go into this to consider how we're going to bike in pedestrian amenities and where they're going to go and how they're going to tie into the into the Larkin property. Because the way it's been striped along the new Hanifords is pretty much deadly for bicycles. So I didn't really prepare anything tonight, but I think it's really important to consider that and what kind of public access or might be on the conserved areas. And also as we look at the wetlands, looking long potash brook where a lot of debris has been dumped for years and years. There's hundreds of yards of debris in there. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'm Adam Glazer from 99 Holmes Road. I submitted my comments in writing, but I just had one other comment to make with regards to the original plan, which I much prefer the revised plan. But on the original plan, there's a through road that comes all the way from Bartlett Bay straight through the development and points straight into my driveway. Eric seems generally willing to work with us on a number of things and should that be the direction that things go, I would like to see if there's a way to avoid having headlights pointed at my kitchen window nonstop. Thank you. Are there still no comments online, Marty? And are there any other people in the audience who want to provide comment? Hey Dana, I think you're up. Hi, good evening. Good evening. Thank you very much to the board and to everyone who's here trying to make this happen in with sensitivity to this very, very special piece of land. I want to use your name, please. I'm so sorry, Dana Walrath. I live at 42 Central Avenue. And I really am just thinking about the big conservation piece and how we make sure that that animal carter is protected but also the lake itself is protected. One of the first public commenters who spoke of, you know, what is going to be the impact on the lake with the runoff? We're seeing the water quality go down and more and more blooms of things in the water in the summer. And so I wonder if there are any pieces put in place that specifically are examining what the impact on Lake Champlain will be. I know that there's some environmental work being done on the wetlands specifically, but what about the lake itself? So that's the question. And then the comment is just to encourage us to go as slowly as possible to make sure that we protect the environment above all because there's no turning back once something is paved over. It's an extraordinarily beautiful piece of land that has a history that I think we want to preserve collectively and keep as a resource for the city. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Last chance, anyone? Okay. There's so many seats in the middle. You all don't have to sit in the back row. Okay. Chris Colovos, 119 Holmes Road. Thank you for taking the time. Thanks, Eric and Mark, Mike. The only question, I have one question and does a lot one have to be a TND? Because from my understanding, the whole property zone is a L1 residential, which can be TND or a conservation. That's my question. And who is that question directed at? Us or the applicant? Everyone? Okay. Thank you. I can answer. Do you have any response? Sure. It's a TND because of density requirements for minimum densities in the conservation PUD and the restrictive nature of the environmental constraints on what we consider the north parcel. So we actually looked at doing more intense development on the north parcel and we just could not figure out a way to make that happen. So to meet the density, the minimum density requirements, this is the solution that we came up with. Thank you. Do you have anything to add to that? No, it makes sense to me, but I know the regulations pretty well. Yeah. If that's a question that you guys want answered in a little more depth, I could work on that maybe for the next staff report for the project. Is anyone else curious about that? I thought Mike's overview was helpful, but maybe it would be helpful to have something in writing the staff report for also the neighbors to have in writing to refer to as well. Okay, I think that brings us to the end of this hearing. Ford, what is the word I'm looking for? What would you like to do next? Go ahead. We think it makes the most sense for us to continue sketch, giving us a further opportunity to meet with our neighbors. Last three words, please. To meet with our neighbors. Okay. All right. I'm in agreement on that. Yeah. To you, you've had your sketch plan hearing, you know, so, but I agree because I think right now we have two very divergent paths. And, you know, we've also had a 2.5 path offered, you know, which I think there's some, a lot of merit to that possible idea to look at where you still create, you know, sort of more of the T and D. You know, standards that Paul talked about in the staff comments, but you get some of that separation that I think is important to this project, you know, and by sort of cutting it in half with a crossroad. You know, I think there's merits to both project, but I think that there definitely needs to be some further study done, and I agree working with the neighbors now that you have both options and possibly a third option. You know, that you come back to us with something that we can then review and there might be a little more consensus, you know. So I request you. So does the board have any feelings strong or otherwise about the retention of the existing road? What was the last word? About retaining the existing homes road extension. Oh. As a private road. And it's current state. And it's, yeah, it's current state. Personally, I like the idea of keeping it as is because I think you can achieve both goals. Yeah. I don't think that this is enough of a development that I think you can maintain homes road as its own standalone entity while developing this as with plenty of elements of a T and D. And, you know, you can achieve both goals. I think this is the name, the notion of a master plan. It's coming up with the best solution given the constraints you have to work with. Okay. So I'll make a deal with you. That's just me. Obviously. I'll make a deal with you. So we'll get the neighbors on board with a plan that we have consensus and you get Paul got a good luck getting consensus. I just want to say I appreciate how willing you're willingness to meet with the residents of homeowners on homes road extension and try to reach some consensus about this. All right. Do we should we set a date for you to come back? Yes, you have to. Okay. So we'll Marty and I just had a little whisper conference here. Keeping in mind that the 23rd of November is Thanksgiving and a lot of folks are off. If we were to continue you out to meetings, we would need stuff. We would need your revised stuff. The middle of that week of Thanksgiving. So the 22nd. That gives you two weeks to sort of get together. Off with neighbors see what you want to do. And what would be the date of the meeting? It would be the December 5th meeting. Or you could have another two weeks and we could look at December 19th. And we could call it a Christmas miracle. Which gets a little tricky with what we were talking about with scheduling other stuff and not having like jam packed nights. Okay. All right. I would prefer to see you on December 5th, but if you think that's not enough time, we can't force you. Who knows if it's enough time, but we'd like to shoot for the fifth. Okay. So I would entertain a motion to continue the sketch plan. SD 2312 to December 5th. So motion. Do I have a second? Thank you. Questions, comments? All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Close. Okay. We'll see you back here on December 5th. Thank you. Thank you. Right now. Okay. Welcome back, Frank. Here we go. Good evening. Would you kindly introduce yourselves, please? Hi, Jeff Hodson with Wagner Hodson Landscape architecture. I love rectangle. I'm sorry. First I've got master plan sketch plan application SD 2314 of John Larkin Inc. for an approximately 40-acre existing PUD consisting of 270 residential units in eight multifamily buildings, a 20,000 foot square foot movie theater, the 22,500 square foot restaurant medical office building, and a 3500 square foot restaurant with drive-through. The master plan includes four phases and consists of adding approximately 92,105 square feet of commercial space including 110 room hotel, approximately 281 homes, and multifamily and mixed-use buildings. Six homes and two family buildings, approximately five acres of programmed and passive, oh my thing cut off, open spacing. Thank you, my printer cut me off, so thank you. Now who is here for the applicant? All right, Jeff Hodson with Wagner-Hodson Landscape Architecture. Ella Braco also with Wagner-Hodgson Landscape Architecture. What's your first name please? Ella. Okay. And Greg Dixon, Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers. And Mr. Larkin, you're here? He's online, but he's boarding a plane right now. Oh, okay. All right. Well, this is sketch plan, so we don't need just where you in. So let's, we saw you here a couple of months ago. This is a very complicated project, so the question to you is what introductory comments, if any, would you like to make for the board to kind of frame where we go with this? I don't know that we need to make any. It's really been a matter of kind of fine-tuning the plan, so I don't think there's any major changes since. Okay. Then we'll go ahead and start walking through the the staff report. The first comment, do you still, are you still looking for a waiver from the landscaping budget requirements? Tell us more about that. We're, I think just from experience with the first building, you know, we needed to find space to spend some of the required capital. So, you know, I see a lot of these, the additional phases as having a similar situation. So we were just putting it out there that we most likely would need to expand either being able to use it for things other than plant material, just because it's such a tight site and it's kind of a more urban, dense development. Okay. Questions from the board? If I could jump in on this one, I think just. Yes, I forgot to say, Marty is, Marty is at the helm of this project. Sure, yeah. At the sketch level, I think just looking for some direction from you as the board as to what sort of non-plant materials to be okay with authorizing landscaping funds to be used for. I emailed back and forth with Ella, this kind of past month and some items that they had floated the idea range from like sculptures down to like in the dog park looking to use that money towards like fencing and like doggy waste bag receptacles. So just kind of in that, in that breadth of items that will be on the site, what do you think is appropriate to use landscaping funds for? There's also a playground and a community garden proposed as well, so. Okay. Board, thoughts? I think we're gonna have to, my personal opinion is we're gonna have to literally review it on a case-by-case line on a basis because on a project this large with a landscaping budget that's presumably gonna be this large, you know, obviously we only review additional supplemental items that, you know, aren't plantings when the site itself has been maxed out. Then we say, okay, what else can we include? What else can we use include to use up the rest of your landscaping budget, you know? And I get a little unnerved on here like, you know, part of the budget's gonna be like the dog park poopy, you know, stands. I mean it's such a fraction of what you're gonna be. I think that, you know, we're always open to those things and we've been pretty lenient and lax about it, but we need to see it to know that it's a benefit to the overall site after you've achieved the full landscaping, you know, of the site. I think that makes a lot of sense and also these open spaces aren't designed in a detailed manner right now, so they will be as we develop the buildings. So you're asking for a 30,000 foot broad comment from us to say, yes, we're open to that. And I would say I would be open to it, but we need to see the details. Yeah. Does anyone not agree with Mark? Okay. Pardon me. Okay, let's move on to number two. This is regarding setback waivers. What kind of waivers and at what stage would you be wanting those? Well, we've had to and just the way we've laid out the buildings, we've kind of shown them with a similar relationship to the street that the first building has. So that building had setback waivers. So it's really just knowing that we can continue to put the buildings closer to the street to provide more space in the center of the block. So the existing existing building is the sorry, the the Blisby, okay, and Steve's and Burns. Okay. So you can see the hotel has a similar relationship. And as do some of the other buildings, although they're the other buildings are more L shaped. So they just have kind of waivers on three sides or Okay. Questions or comments from the board? Okay. Number three. Okay. What's the deal with the movie theater? Are you playing? Are you planning to repurpose it or? Yes, tell us a little bit about that. Yeah, that's a very recent development. So yeah, it, it's basically going to be a change in use. It'll be much less intensive, I think, as it'll be reliant. It will need a lot less parking than the movie theater potentially. It's going to be indoor recreation, more of a coaching and hockey skating kind of coaching. Okay. Okay. Questions. Thank you for I don't think the mic is on. We actually thought about that, but they're pretty committed to where they're hoping to go. So just to jump on that one as well. I think as staff, we considered that uses with a similar building footprint with a similar traffic kind of generation, maybe wouldn't trigger a change in the master plan. But we were kind of wondering where the board was at just preliminarily in terms of what kind of development there may cause you to ask them to come back with the master plan amendment. What would be so significant that it wouldn't just be a swap out? I think that we have received that application for the change of use there. And I would agree that, you know, with a similar traffic generation or even lower traffic generation and similar kind of peak times of use and the building's not going to look any different. I don't think that's we're pushing up on master plan amendment, but just wanted to get your feelings on what that looks like. My only other concern, besides what you mentioned with the traffic generation parking, because it looks like a number of the proposed buildings are going on what's currently used as parking for the movie theater. So if you've got something with anywhere near an equivalent use, you've already got obviously some need in those buildings to use the parking that you're putting in. Do you have enough excess parking capacity in the plan to support whatever that building's going to generate? Go ahead. Yeah. And I'm working with Marty right now on some of that stuff. And I would contend that the movie theater is kind of a peak of the use of that building, both traffic wise, parking wise, even some utility wise. So I think anything that, or at least what we're proposing right now is kind of a step down on some of those aspects. Right. But you're stepping down the amount of parking from what there is right now with the service slots. That's what I'm just asking that whatever the parking count is for the new building be factored into the parking counts somewhere in the surrounding buildings to show that you have adequate parking spaces to handle all the proposed demand. Yeah, I think that's part of our master plan. Yeah, because there is parking proposed under every new building. So why are you closing the movie theater? Just curious. There, it's not larking closing it. It's it just wasn't viable. OK, they decided to to stop. OK, go ahead, Mark. It's kind of a follow up to John's inquiry. I guess one question I was obviously the the movie, the movie theater shutting down is news post development of this plan. Where was the parking for the movie theater, you know, on this plan? You know, it was a combination of shared parking underneath some of the Jason buildings, particularly the one to the south. There's like a whole floor of parking for the theater and that one building six, building six. But those are that's a residential building. So obviously the movie theater peak operation and the residential peak operation kind of coincide evenings. Yeah. So, you know, is building six under park, you know, plan for under parking under parking? No, I don't I don't think so. It like how are you going to deal with when everyone's home and everyone shows up the movie theater? I think there was sufficient parking on one level for the residential and then the level above was for the theater. OK, it's a it's a dual level. Yes. OK. I think all those parking counts are plans as well. OK, I mean, we're at master plan or sketch, I guess, you know, whatever use is being proposed as an umbrella approval in the master plan for the existing movie theater space. I would want to make sure that we have adequate parking, that it's not conflicting with the adjacent buildings. Yeah, there's also quite a bit of underground parking to the north of Fayette that's not used at all. So underneath the restaurant. Yeah. OK. Zen garden. And I think we just need to see a master plan analysis. Yeah, parking because we don't have parking minimums for commercial buildings. So it's not like that we need a certain number of parking spaces per se. I think just at a master plan level, it'd be nice, like a reassurance that we're not going to build a development that people are going to be super grumpy about. Right. I was more talking about the fact that you have residential buildings, you know, with the concept of being a shared parking area. So I just would like to see an analysis that we should be comfortable with. I know we don't have minimums, but we were kind of sad that the theater couldn't hang on until all this housing was built because it'd be so easy to go to the theater. Yes. Yeah. I know. Well, maybe you can leave it as existing as it is until after it's built, someone can come in and soup in. I think there is interest in potentially having a smaller venue theater as part of the the commercial space in this. So. OK, it's hopeful. OK, I ask a question. Sure. Is the parking associated with the building under the building available for public parking? It's all shared. Interesting. OK. OK, number four, tell us about the rec path. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant the cost, benefits and feasibility of making a rec path connection between the railroad crossing and the prepared rec path along Fair Road and real road. Yeah. So there, you know, the the in road is, as you saw in the previous application, is only going to serve two residential lots. So we view, you know, that as more of a driveway and a low use road. So we think that there's the ability for the two residential parcels and the public to to use that in its current state and actually we're really limited. We can't really widen that because it squeezes between two wetlands. So, you know, we're just thinking that it can be a shared shared drive. If I could jump in on this one as well, I think my comment on this was made prior to my conversation with Tom DiPetro regarding his kind of lack of interest in taking over the in road, railroad crossing. The city does have on the official map, like I said, a road that extends real road all the way down to Holmes. So, you know, Burlington, South Burlington 2075, maybe there's a road there. There'll be a rec path on that road. So you would have that connectivity between the kind of fails. You know, main development spot northward. I think the the in road piece was sort of just kind of at the sketch level, an idea of ways to connect the properties. But I guess not a critical piece should should Department of Public Works say that they don't want to go that route. Yeah, and we are proposing a new or a widened multi-use path down the west side of Fayette. So. OK, thank you. Comment number five, opportunities for improvement of safety. This is regarding the intersection of Shelburne Road and Fayette Road. Yeah, it's it is very wide right there. I'm not sure why it was built that way. But we believe there's probably the ability to neck that down a little bit. Because there's a lot of a little police. Jeff, there's a bring that close. Yeah, the the width of Fayette where it meets Shelburne Road is really wide, wider than what is striped. So I'm not sure if that was intentional by V trans or requirement. But I was suspect, you know, I to me, it looks like there might be the potential to narrow that down and make the crossing a shorter distance. But until we have a traffic person get involved with that, we just don't know. I would also contend taking a look at the the other crossings a little further down Fayette. I think that provides opportunities for a pedestrian, even though it is a little bit longer to maybe go down, use those less traveled areas to cross the streets, maybe go into some of the shops, provide more of a meandering way through this area instead of walking along Shelburne Road. I know runners and stuff like kind of a slower pace roads to be on. So maybe that could also be part of the conversation. Because I'm not positive that V trans would want to see Fayette Road shrunk. OK, yeah, I think this this comment. So I have a comment in here later talking about north south connections over Fayette. This one was kind of specifically talking about the east west across Shelburne and, you know, especially if we have school-aged kids or people who want to use the parks or the amenities like Samansky on the other side of Shelburne. We we're creating a lot of foot and bicycle crossings across one of the most dangerous roads probably in the state. And I know that a lot of that is out of your jurisdiction. Obviously, it's a V trans road. It's out of parts of it out of our jurisdiction as well. But just I just wanted to flag that as something that I'm quite interested in moving forward. And I'm, you know, not certain exactly what our roles and responsibilities are, each of us in addressing that potential hazard, but just something that I wanted to bring up and maybe get a barometer on where the board's at in terms of how closely we're going to be kind of scrutinizing those plans moving forward. Yeah, I mean, that's also not a great. Can you bring the mic in? Please? Yeah, that's also not our property. I mean, it is it's a state road owned by V trans. The crossing there is existing. I understand the concern, obviously, but I don't know if there's much we can do. But yeah, I mean, I'm just saying like to put, you know, however many hundreds of people there and then say, just cross, maybe maybe at some point we say maybe this isn't a great spot for. I don't know, you know, I just we can't go too far without looking at making some serious improvements there. Yeah, or at least, you know, looking at what a traffic study with the scope of that, you know, pushing that to be as as comprehensive in terms of pedestrian safety as possible. As opposed to just traffic flows. Yeah, OK, sure. Thank you. Any other comments? Yeah, I would just say pedestrian safety in this area, I think, would be of interest to me as well. But I also, you know, there's V trans, you know, kind of jurisdiction. Sorry. It's a four lane highway. Yeah, I mean. I so I would just, right, you know, looking for feedback, I think I think it's a good topic to keep in mind while we look at this development. And if there's space for that in a traffic analysis, I think it's worth looking at knowing that we're restrained by probably what what V trans has jurisdiction over, but just express interest in having that on the mind as well. So yeah, and we're definitely wherever we do have the ability to provide safe pedestrian and multimodal transportation. We're we're trying to promote that. So OK, thank you. Number six. This is we'd like you to clarify whether the identified pond is a stormwater feature and for you to discuss how the two existing wet areas are proposed to be integrated into the park, given the relatively steep slopes of the banks. Yeah, so the the pond is a stormwater pond. Yeah, it's also become a wetland with buffers. One that looks like a triangle. Looks like it's not made by nature is a stormwater pond. Over the years, it obviously has turned into a wetland as most stormwater ponds do. That's kind of the intent. The one kind of on the other side might have been used historically, but it is not part of the stormwater system. I don't know if that answers the question, but. Board questions, Marty, questions. Yeah, just just wondering, I think. In my experience, which is limited and not scientific, but stormwater ponds, not always a ton of fun to look at or be around as opposed to like I've I've been in parks that have been built around or built with kind of pond or lake features. And so just kind of wondering how you see these two water bodies playing into the park in terms of aesthetics and also in terms of recreation or other amenities. We did at one point have the sidewalk terminating in a kind of an overlook that jutted into the pond on the north side. And I think we were told that that was not going to be easy to be able to permit. Yeah, I think we also some beginning conversations with Marla talked about even putting a footbridge cross. I mean, these are all things that. You got away with A&R and if those are even possible, Greg, you're going to need to speak up, please. So these are all things that we looked into and weighing with A&R to even see if there are possibilities. But I don't really see us changing much of what's down there. I mean, it's an existing stormwater pond and then an existing pond that's pretty much a wetland. Yeah, I'm not asking like what to free to change the other ponds, but just maybe big picture guidance as to how they would be integrated into the park kind of parcel, if at all, you know, if that's a possibility. Yeah, it's just, you know, like I said, we were trying to integrate pedestrian circulation with the one pond. And, you know, we just can't really impact the grading in the area of the pond. So it makes it really difficult. This this may be technically a lot out of my range when I've seen some stormwater treatments, whether they're feasible here or not. I don't know. They're actually kind of nice with vegetation. In I don't know whether you're still called a pond or whether you're called something else, but vegetation actually embedded in the pond. Is that the kind of thing you might envision? Is that is that viable? I don't, you know, I don't again, I don't know. Yeah, I think it's yeah, I mean, there's a lot of opportunities. Again, with the what we mentioned right now, we're at the 30,000 view of the project. Each one of these projects will be self-developed and have their own stormwater permits that's an existing pond that that'll pretty much stay the same. But I think there's a lot of opportunities to do stuff like by retention or gravel wetlands, which are designed to kind of have vegetation in the middle of them and use vegetation to help treat that stormwater. And I think that's probably what you're talking about. It's sort of like shallow depressions with mulch and then grasses. And and that's what we're looking at in the pocket park between building three and seven where the sidewalk kind of zigzags down the hillside. We were envisioning those triangular areas as, you know, kind of a low capacity, more ornamental stormwater treatment. So any other quit? Go ahead, Mark. I think, you know, so what you're what I'm what I'm hearing here is in the neighborhood park. So if we swipe, yeah, there we go. The triangular existing stormwater pond, you're saying that's sort of an existing depression that sort of is existing and it's going to be functional as a stormwater pond for the property. What about the the one upper left to that the existing other existing stormwater pond that sort of encroaches into the forested area? What is that? It's a wetland now. So now they're both being shown as stormwater ponds within a neighborhood park directly adjacent to the dog park along in road, you know, with some some pedestrian path access to it. Yeah, I think that I would encourage you to revisit that a little more because I think, you know, if you're looking for some opportunity to spend some landscaping budget and that's considered a neighborhood park, you could greatly improve that with some biofiltration plantings. Have it be more than just a depression that gets wet. Yeah, it gets if it's a depression that normally is wet, you have a great opportunity to put some vibrant plantings that will encourage, you know, water, you know, animal life, you know, birds, you know, everything. And I think, you know, I would encourage you to revisit that a little. Yeah, definitely. You know, and we're we're picturing those the garden, the playground, the dog park sort of terracing down the hillside. Right. But if we can supplement and, you know, plant a lot more in the stormwater pond, I just defer to Greg because I know there's always reasons I can't do what I want to do. There's always ways to do what you want to do. Generally, they cost money, though. Well, no, it's the permitting. And yeah, yeah. So, yeah, does the current exist in the triangle pond? Is it currently drain out? Is it designed to drain out? Do you know? Yes. So it doesn't retain a pool. It does retain a permanent pool, but its design is to be a permanent pool. And it's also other ones in line, right? This this guy's in in line feature. If there was if there was overflow, where does the water go from this pond? I think to the sort of next pond down. Yeah, there's so there's a third area that is shown as a potential new stormwater pond or treatment down by the railroad tracks. Yeah, kind of everything eventually goes to a culvert that crosses the railroad under the railroad. I just encourage you to revisit that. I think you have a great opportunity for it, not just yet. That's where that things existing and we're throwing some stormwater. It's a way to really connect neighborhood park with the dog or dog park, the community gardens and the site. OK, thanks. Number seven, staff recommends that the board discuss with the applicant the impact on the project of adding level improved high quality park space and consolidating the six duplexed units into other proposed phases of the master plan. Staff notes that the three duplexes appear to be the only the only for sale units in the project. Yeah, so those were added because we were trying to give a little bit more variety to the housing types since most of the other buildings are, you know, larger apartment buildings. So that was kind of the reason for those. It's also it's not flat right now. It's kind of a big hill. So I think it may have been soil deposited there when they built the adjacent neighborhood, but it's it's kind of a big pile. OK, any other questions or I just want to take the opportunity at the 30,000 feet level just to maybe flag that in my review, I was like, these are a little bit random and and they kind of make up a very small percentage of the housing units that are being offered. And they seem like they're going to be for sale, which I certainly think is important, like in terms of the diversity between renting and owning in this project. But they seem pretty separated and kind of out of place, given that, like, you know, everything else is apartments and then to the north is a lows. So I was just kind of when I was reviewing these plans, I was thinking what maybe just brainstorming what else maybe could go there? What is this project? What could it use a couple acres for? What does it maybe lack or what could be improved upon? So that was just kind of where I was at, like, yeah, viewing that as a blank slate and what what's the best use of that spot. And I don't I'm not saying it's not three duplexes. I just want to take the opportunity to maybe specifically on that location. So is there a different or better or higher use for that location? We were also thinking that as you move north on Fayette in the future, maybe it won't be parking lots on both sides. Sure. Yeah. You know, we kind of thought maybe we're starting a pattern that might continue north. So that's right now. It's just huge parking lots, right? By the way, what is a micro unit? So those are apartments, like they're very small apartments that are like the size of a hotel room. OK, affordable, cheap, you know, but. What is the word when you're in like one room? I know in England, it's studio, studio or they're smaller than studios, right? They're smaller than your typical studio. Yeah, we saw the plans. Yeah, we moved it on. OK. Yeah, we moved it forward. And then they decided not to build them at this time. OK, quite a presentation on them. OK. Yeah. And are those rental units or OK? See, I want to get if you don't mind, I'd like to go back to what Marty was saying about those six duplex units, three standalone buildings. See, I I agree with you, Marty, that they are kind of an outlier and they feel like they're out in the middle of nowhere and that they're going to feel like they're out in the middle of nowhere. I think as much as I'd love to think that we might not have parking lots everywhere, I'm just not sure, you know, if that's sort of like, you know, there's other parts of the city where you put in the first couple of buildings knowing that the other ones, the plan is for them to go that way. You know, it's kind of like this isolated little pocket and without the benefit of it being planned for it to be continuing. So I guess I am kind of wondering if three for sale duplex units is the best use of that space. Not that I'm trying to encourage another multifamily, you know, apartment building for rent. But I just think if you're trying to finish off the neighborhood that might not be the worst idea. I think that site is also pinched by a wetland. So it doesn't have much depth. So so you you couldn't you could get a very narrow, long green space, maybe even. We were just we understood that the city was really looking for housing. So next housing type. Sure. We all we like to see that with all project because it sort of covers all bases. OK, number eight. Staff recommends the board discuss with the applicant the proposed orientation of buildings three and seven. Compare as they relate to the goals of the PUD and whether an alteration and orientation, pardon me, may improve the building's impact on the street scape along the public street real road. So these two buildings are right on the edge of a major grade change. And so having the north south wing on the east street makes sense, because it kind of uses the building to take up the grade transition. And then secondly, we feel like in Vermont, having a southwest facing courtyard is is a real benefit, especially if you're putting a pool in there. So it creates kind of a microclimate. I think our staff in reviewing this sort of similar to the federal project earlier where we're talking about streets that are pedestrian oriented and then alleys for kind of loading in cars and loading out cars. It kind of felt like with the orientation of the hotel and the existing building one, we were setting up for this private road in between to be the alley that loads all four of those. And then real road would be a real pedestrian kind of oriented city street and urban. It would feel urban. And we kind of felt like throwing a courtyard and then like a vehicle roundabout and a couple of parking accesses on that urban street kind of took away a lot from from the urban feel of it and that orienting those vehicle accesses to the proposed kind of middle private drive would be maybe a better use of the private drive and better orient real road towards being an urban street, a public street that people want to walk on and beyond. But then the parking's on the top floor of the building. So, you know, real street is going to have parking garage exposed on it. Understood. Yeah. I'm not telling you what to do. I'm just saying I'm not certain that in my review of this, I felt like it met the rules to the fullest extent of the regulations. And so that's why I was fighting it at this very high level for the board to kind of review and provide their feedback to you because I'm not a decision-making here, just a flyer. Any comments from the board related to that? Okay. Hearing none, we'll move on. Comment. I'm going to just echo what Marty said. I think this is a big deal. And I don't know if the point is being missed here, but yeah, I feel like I'm not fully. So you guys are talking about- Can you do some drawing for us? So we do have a section. So I think one of the big things we're talking about is just the grade change and actually how to fit these buildings into the difference between where real road is and where the other road is. Is it okay if I orient the board to the concern first and then talk about why you want it this way? So the comment Marty's making is this year is an alley. Okay. And this is relative to this building in this building and this is the pedestrian street, right? There's the people. Yeah. And then when we erase all that and we think about these two buildings, this is the alley. Is that- And this is the pedestrian street because this is the front. And so you don't have a real pedestrian street serving both sets of buildings. And I understand that there's some topography here and I know that you guys just went through this with O'Brien and they had a very similar issue where it was like alley, not alley, alley, not alley. And you forced them to go back to do a total rethink and it came out pretty good in my opinion. So I think that's the issue that Marty's flagging. So that second alley that you just marked, is that real road? Yes. Okay. Thoughts, board? I guess one concern I kind of have is if we sort of like flip the orientation of building three and flip the orientation of building seven and sort of have more frontage on real street is like right now, maybe I'm just reading it wrong, I read it as having frontage on real street because it's kind of like creating these courtyard effects for the buildings which you often do see on urban streets. You often see urban buildings having sort of like, not fronting right on the street but having that courtyard feel. So I mean, I think it's, and I guess it's just my review of looking at it. It's kind of like, I personally see it as a six of one, half of this, and another. I think if you flip it, real street becomes more of an alley because it's gonna feel like it's more congested. That you don't have the openings to the pool and openings to the courtyard that just gonna be a line of buildings, you know, I mean. I don't think this is a court. Oops, I don't think that this is a courtyard, right? This is a vehicle drop off area. Oh, so around, that's the roundabout you referred to. Could we flip to page 19 which is the existing conditions plan? Maybe, I will try. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm not in the same document here and I will flip to the existing conditions plan. So both streets are the same width too. So I'm not sure where we're getting that one's an alley and one's a street. One's private, one's public. Okay. So I'm just looking at the existing conditions plan, right? And you know, if we were talking about a couple feet, it's no big deal, right? But we're talking at the front of the building, they're trying to make up 10 feet of difference, right? It's a full floor, yeah, full story. Yeah, so if we flipped it, we would, instead of having a, you know, a little turnaround that could be, you know, relatively pedestrian friendly, we would end up with a ramp down to the lower level of parking or two levels of parking with them. I agree with Mark about the location of the buildings. I like them where they are. Yeah, the way we have it too, the parking gets natural ventilation out of the lower level. I'm just thinking from the standpoint of, you know, if real is a public street, I'd rather drive down the street with the open and somewhat more inviting facade than I would the solid facade. I mean, I guess while real street is a public street and the other ones an alleyway, when I look at them in plan and how they're gonna actually function, I look at them as both public streets. You know, they both seem to me to have the same level of hierarchy to the building and circulation and transportation and public access. Well, if someone's coming into the hotel, actually where is the front of the hotel? It's facing, it's on the north side of that U-shaped building. So you can see the drop-off right there. It's in the parking lot. It's in the parking lot of what we call the Blissby parking lot right now. It's, yeah, it's a portion of that. So what's the, if someone's driving to stay in that hotel, where do they turn off Shelburne Road? Up at the light. Fayette Road? Yeah, at Fayette, and then they would turn in the first street. Huh. Yeah, so. So there's no direct access closer than Fayette Road, no? No, they wouldn't, V-Trans wouldn't let us. But there's a exit. There's an exit, a right turn only. Exit only, an exit only. Southbound exit only. And the access to the underground parking is on the south side of that. So if vehicles enter by the movie theater, they have to make a loop through both alleyways, right? To be able to come back out and go north on Shelburne Road. Yes. Correct. Okay, are we ready to move on? You have a perspective tenant for that hotel? Yes. Do they like that arrangement? Yep. Okay. Yeah, the hotel is pretty much completely designed. So we're ready to move forward. I just noticed you didn't deal with one of the comments we made at the last sketch, which was that if this is a public street, you can't have head end parking through here. Is that public or private? I think it's private. I think it's private. I think that's the same reason the other one's private. Yeah. Even though as you met, sorry. Even though as we've been discussing, they will kind of look the same. The head on parking is kind of the reason for the privatized drives. So that's something to look at for a future phase is what is allowed to be a private street. That may not be allowed to be a private street, even given the number of homes that it serves. So something to look into. This may have been answered. Do you have, I assume there's parking under the hotel? Yes. Yes. How much? Don't have that off the top of my head. 54 spaces. 54 spaces, if you didn't hear that. Including six valet. I didn't hear it. 54 spaces, which includes six valet parking spots. So half the spaces, if you have a full house, you're out on the parking lot somewhere or somewhere else, right? Yeah, I mean, the whole PUD is shared parking technically. So that's why people would need a place at night for the hotel. The businesses to the north aren't open at night. So there's surface parking there. And again, to just sort of discuss, I mean, we are trying to take a view of this as one operating PUD and trying to limit sort of urban sprawl, create more parking than is needed. And so that's what we're kind of trying to take a look at. Well, is there also parking under building seven? Yes. How much parking is there? 68 spaces. So you have, assuming one car per unit, you have 22 cars competing with their 50 guests at the hotel for such shared parking as there is somewhere not under either of the two buildings, right? Yeah, we're looking at parking globally and not per building. Well, I'm just looking at that. I'm thinking as an owner of a unit or the resident of a unit in building seven, where am I gonna park exactly? Everything's full. Where am I gonna go? There's, How far do I have to go? Across the street. Across the street. Possibly at Fayette, across Fayette. In the middle of February. Yeah. You're going over here. We all know what that means. Or there's a bus stop right on Shelburne Road. Yeah, and I think we've all been to a hotel and noticed that even when you're there, there's multiple parking spaces that are wide open. I mean, I think what we're trying to do as we've discussed is take a look at this as a whole and have it be more of a downtown feel. And yeah, sometimes parking downtown and downtown districts is difficult, but it's manageable. And we're just trying to restrict it. A whole touchy area. Some people have a different view of what the parking regulation should have been. Okay. I'm mindful of the time and we're kind of at time, but I also wanna provide an opportunity for public comment. So we're gonna have to continue this hearing or this sketch plan. Let's take a break and let me see if there are folks that wanna make public comments. Sure. What comment did we finish or leave off or? We just finished. Eight, not cut off. We did not do number nine, so we're on nine. Okay. So we'll pick up number nine, we'll meet. And then after public comment and a vote, we're gonna take a very brief bio break. So, okay, who would like to come on up, sir, please? Good evening again. Good evening, athletes. I say thank you for the opportunity. My name's Doug Goodman. I live at 66 Central Avenue in Queen City Park. And I wanted to say the name Chris Zuckerman. And that's a pedestrian who was run down on October 5th at Fayette and Shelburne. And I think it's really important to address that intersection on my bicyclist. It's an incredibly dangerous intersection. If you ride on Shelburne Road, which has just been improved considerably for bicycling with new striping, you don't wanna make that left turn because you're making a left turn into two lanes. I think that it's really critical that whatever you do there, as you said, you're trying to create a downtown feel that biking, pedestrian amenities are critical. You're putting in more residential. You're exactly on a safe routes to school location with kids going to Orchard School right there. And I think it's critical that, as we're trying to move into a place where we have less parking, I mean, that's one of the issues with the redevelopment at Lakeside in Burlington where they're going in with maximum numbers of parking, they're gonna have some big problems because all those people in market rent apartments who are driving Subaru's with roof racks and bike racks and stuff, where are they gonna park? And you're gonna have that issue as well. And I think it's really critical that you address that, that you really step up on the bike and pedestrian amenities because you can walk to Hanifords, you can walk to the new crunch over there. There's a Tesla dealer. You've got Price Chopper. We're working right now in trying to get a shared use path on Queen City Park Road. So I think connecting the ferrule property and yourselves, safe routes to school, it's critical. And there were also two pedestrian fatalities in Shelburne on Shelburne Road last year. So can't overemphasize it. Maybe the development of the fees, what are they, the impact fees? Impact fees can be part of that because we really need that. And that's how we can move from that automotive economy. Thank you. Thank you. Come on up, sir. Thank you again. Adam Glazer, 99 Holmes Road. I just wanted to bring the board's attention to an unnamed stream that meanders sort of behind the movie theater, comes down across the inroad, across ferrule's property, and then meanders through my property on Holmes Road and comes out at the lake at my beach. It's currently just for my own visual, pretty polluted on a regular basis. And being that this is gonna add a lot more impermeable surfaces, it doesn't seem like there's new retention ponds facilities, maybe a misunderstanding. I'd just love to see someone take a look considering this will definitely affect that. And it also is a collection point from the field of lot one on the ferrule project, which comes in sort of through, across like under Holmes Road and over Holmes Road, depending on how hard it rains, and dumps out in the stream and then right into the lake. So I wonder if between those two projects, someone could actually look at that, the pollution level of that stream and figure out how to maybe make it better instead of worse with all of this, if that's possible. Thanks. Thank you. Other comments? Come on up, sir. Good evening again, it's Tom Easton, 101 Holmes Road. I'd like to echo what Adam just said. I don't mean to duplicate, but I understand this is a 30,000 foot overview of this project and between this applicant and the one that we just heard with the ferrule development. The environment in stormwater runoff is becoming a real concern to many of us in that area. Our property that Kathy and I live at, that's no new stream runs the full length of our property. And as Adam said, there is a lot of sediment, but the comments that were made earlier about the stormwater settling basins, pools, whatever you want to call them, that they're starting to fill in with plant life and things like that, there's still is a lot of sediment that goes down into the stream. And I heard somebody earlier mention the culvert that runs underneath the railroad track. And then eventually that goes into the stream. So you have this new development and you have ferrule development, everything going in there. So my question is, when the applicant does the research and design work, will there be a calculation of how much additional stormwater runoff will be generated by the impervious surfaces of both projects, not only this applicants, but also the ferrule applicants, because I've heard from both sides now that the stormwater runoff is gonna go through culverts and they're talking about the stream. That's where it's gonna end up. So I'd like to know, is it gonna go through different courses to the lake? I mean, I'm guessing that that's where the stormwater eventually is gonna end up, is in the lake. But it needs to be purified some way, filtered so that all the sediments not ending up in the lake, where we are. Yeah, stormwater treatments are part of all projects. All projects will have to get their stormwater treatment practices reviewed by the city stormwater division. So although they're not identified specifically at the 30,000 foot level, we do intend on requiring the applicant and the applicant intends in complying with the requirement to treat and mitigate all stormwater runoff as reviewed by our city stormwater division. So that's a standard part of all development in South Burlington. So we're not getting into the details of that here because we're still at the sketch level, but that will of course happen. And Marty, I appreciate your comments, but we were present when the original Larkin project was presented several years ago. And we expressed our concern about the stormwater at that time. And it may be false, but it appears to us that there is a lot of sediment coming through that stream. And I can't tell you tonight that it's coming from those sediment basins, but I think it's worthwhile and worthy for someone to look at that closely and find out exactly where that sediment is coming from and what it's doing to the lake where it exits into Shelburne Bay. Sure, thank you, Tom. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments? Come on up, Sir. Are there any online, Marty? Or Marla? Nope. Okay. No comments online right now. Hello again. Hello, I'm Greg to come 115 Holmes Road. I would like to sort of piggyback and expand upon the first commenter who had the concerns with pedestrian cycling safety. I currently walk from, as we've discussed earlier in the evening, from Holmes Road, I walk to the grocery store several times a week. It can be, I don't know, often harrowing. I've had to slap many cars as they ignore crosswalks, things of that nature. I do have a concern with the car-centric nature of the previous project, adding probably a few hundred people utilizing these same streets that were trying to make pedestrian friendly. And then a bit of a question mark as the drawings, they all sort of cut off after those three proposed duplexes. As you go up Fair Drive, and I don't know the exact names of the roads, but we're Fayette, and then it cuts over to the right and then through to Hannaford, where there is currently no crosswalk. I believe that to be one of the most dangerous and frustrating parts of the city. And I don't know if there's any, I'm not sure who owns that. If it's the city, if it's Larkin or other. I'm curious if there's any plans to address that, especially with putting in proposed, those three duplexes, which are literally in sight line of the grocery store, one of the most basic necessities. I would love for those people to not feel like they need to get in their car that they could walk to the grocery store. Currently, they would need to go up the rest of Fayette, up to the Burger King, cross multiple lanes. Do you know there's occasional questionable activity that occurs at that intersection, crossing those, then down to the actual Hannaford Drive, walking down that road into probably the most poorly designed intersection in a parking lot that's ever existed. It's dangerous by car, it's dangerous on foot, it's dangerous on a bike, it's absolutely horrible. But the fact that there's no sidewalk down that road that goes along between the Burger King. That was my question. You're talking about a sidewalk, not a crosswalk. I'm talking about anything. There's a proposed rec path that was mentioned that will go down Fayette. I just, I want to know, does that provide any benefit, safety benefit, convenience for anybody to get to the grocery store, the most basic of necessities, without having to get in a car and be yet another car in the Shelburne Road traffic and another person who's making it harder for those of us who try to bike and mark. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments on this project? Okay, so we will need to continue this. Let's talk about a date, please. Given that I would imagine we just need to finish comments nine through, I forget how many there are. There's six, 14. Yeah, so nine through 14 we have to do still. I guess would you prefer to just maybe do this in two weeks and come back on the 21st and just run through it? I don't think, we have your full master plan scheduled for that night, but I suppose we'd have to bump that. Given that this isn't complete. Does that meet our warning requirements? Yeah, so there's no required re-warning of the continued hearing. All right, so thank you, Marty. I would entertain a motion to continue SD 2314 to November 21st. Do we have a second? Second. All right, questions, comments? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, no? Okay, we'll see you back here on the 21st. All right, thanks. Thank you. Okay, pardon? Yeah, quick break. We don't wanna keep Dave waiting, it's already getting late. So a member of the board who wasn't when we introduced the board and that is Stephanie Wyman has rejoined us. So thank you, I know it's getting late. We feel your pain with you. This is sketch plan SD 2313 of Boss Babes, LLC to subdivide an existing 3.05 acre lot developed, pardon me, with an office into two lots of 1.24 acres lot, 1A1 and 1.81 acres lot, 1A2 for the purpose of developing a 9100 square foot veterinary hospital on lot 1A2 at 10 Mansfield View Drive. Are there any recusals or conflicts to report? Okay, who is here for the applicant, please? My name is Sam Beal, I'm with Duncan Dushnetsky Architecture, and while- I didn't get your first name, please. Sam. Sam. And so we thought we'd start by introducing the applicant and they're gonna talk a little bit about their business. Dave Marshall can speak a little about the site plan and then we can address some of Marty's comments. Okay, okay. So introduce the other people, please. Yes, go ahead. Hi, my name's Ann Culp. And my name is Karen Bradley, we're both veterinarians. Okay. And Boss Babes. And Boss Babes. We have one other partner. Is that? We've had to form an LLC and we have another, our other partner's our practice manager, who's also a woman, so we're a entirely woman-owned business and we came up with Boss Babes. Better than Boss Pups or something. Yeah, yeah. There's a more derogatory one from when we're not in the meeting. All right, we got it. We got it. We got it. We got it. And? For the record, Dave Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. I did, okay. So why don't we start, I mean, Dave knows our drill, but why don't we start by giving you, knowing the hours late, the opportunity to be very brief and introducing your project? Well, I'll let Ann lead most of this as your South Burlington resident, but someone, we're different generation of veterinarians. I've owned Onion River Animal Hospital, part of it and then all of it over the last 20 years. It started, we're having our 40th anniversary, so we're over in Montpelier area and we have just really built up from a like two doctor practice to a nine doctor practice. And we are literally where anyone with urgent needs for their pet, especially in these last three years, we have people coming from the Northeast Kingdom. We have been coming from South Hero to us because we will see them and we will get their pets in and we have created a very good climate for not only our employees, but our patients and our clients. So we've identified a huge need in your area and Ann knows many people who, they call her as a neighbor because they can't get their pet seen. Wow. Right, and being a South Burlington resident, I'm so excited for the opportunity to bring this to our community, our neighbors because there is such a need. There's this huge hole for, our general practices are overwhelmed, the emergency clinic is overwhelmed. So there's this hole for these pets that are sick and need to be seen, but aren't dying, right? So your legs hurt. Kind of like where you would go to Clear MD for a human hospital. You would go to the what? Clear MD, like a walk in urgent care. So that's what our model is that we're trying to bring here to South Burlington is to capture those pets that are just in this limbo that aren't getting seen and taking what Karen has started and what we're continuing to do so well and trying to bring it here. As opposed to primary care for pets, you're not doing that. Well, we would do some because you can't, so if an animal comes in say with an abscess tooth, you can't say, great, go find a vet to take the tooth out. You need to be able to provide that service. So we would have some routine, but it would basically be on the model of you need to be seen in an urgent manner and urgent is different from emergency as we know. Right, okay. Thanks. Right. And we know anytime we're talking about animals, noise is always a concern. So one of the things we've worked really hard to do at our current facility is work with a program called Fear Free. So the idea behind it is we're trying to create positive environments for these animals. So working with them, not against them so that we have so many pets that love coming to our office, which is great. But part of that is any pet that's hospitalized and it's medically indicated, we do give them mild sedatives so that they're less stressed in the hospital because barking really is a stress response. So we could have 10 to 15 dogs at our hospital at a time and it's very quiet and peaceful. In our site plan, we do have a fenced in yard as part of our design and that's not meant to be like a have at it, hospitalized pets, run around and have a good time. It's meant to be a secure walking location for those pets to go to the bathroom. So they're out there one at a time on a leash. So another very quiet situation. Okay, good. Thanks. It's definitely safer for the animal to take it off a leash with an offense than not. Right, okay. Any questions in general from the board before we dive in? Just in general, I'm assuming there's no use issue in this zone. I mean, they're fine for that. They're permitted use or conditional or what are they? Oh, there's Marty's too, okay, good. All right, Dave, do you wanna say anything before we get started? No, I think at this point, Marty's put up on the screen, the existing condition plan north is directed up on this particular plan on the left-hand side is Heinzburg Road at the north end or the top of the plan is actually a shared drive with Vermont High Laser Vision just to the north. And we call that Mansfield View Lane. In this particular case, got a one acre lot to the south. It's a residential rental building, one unit. And with that, this particular lot's 3.1 acres in size and the front portion closest to Heinzburg Road has been developed with 7,200 square feet of office area and supporting parking. And then off to the right or east side is the remaining undeveloped portion. That's been before the city's Development Review Award a number of different times. Originally it had an approval for three total buildings. And then we came back in 2019 and tried the same thing, but ultimately COVID destroyed our stormwater people and we never could finish the last question on stormwater. So that application got withdrawn and hence we are now here with a clientele that's very excited about being located in this particular part of the city and feel that this is a nice infill component with regard to the development pattern that's already in place along this particular portion of Heinzburg Road. So what's slowly coming up on the stream right now is actually that infill portion of the proposed building that occupies the bottom right of the site and with parking on the left-hand side. It ultimately will have a circulation pattern. This is different than some of the applications that have been before the board before, but here what we're trying to do is actually integrate rather than have these things considered fully separate, that this is actually an integration of this particular proposed use with the existing infrastructure of the office building to the west. Things that got hashed out a lot before was this interconnectivity obligation set forth in land development regulations. We'll touch base on that again within the staff report, but on the top of this particular drawing you'll see a wavy road. It's essentially an extension of Mansfield View lane to the east, to the property line, and what it's intended to do is comply with the requirements set forth in the land development regulations as far as connectivity. We won't rehash the issues of why we didn't want to do that, but we acquiesce, we recognize that the land development regulation requirements are quite clear in regards to the requirements to provide that connectivity from property line to property line. There have been other situations where maybe somebody provided an easement because of the infrastructure not being in place on the adjacent properties, but here the idea of ultimately this east-west connection is becoming more of a reality as this particular property gets developed. And with that, our obligation is to comply with the rules and provide that particular connectivity capability. What hasn't been flushed out on this particular site plan is actually some of the open space amenities. One thing that has been brought forward very recently is some sketches from the landscape architect as far as ideas on how this particular park feature would be integrated into the site, and there will be a time and place to bring that up. But with regard to the bigger picture, and gee Marty, I don't know if we want to go to the first page, Sheet 1.0, what that particular Sheet is going to be is the overall Meadowland business park, and it's going to happen to show us A where we are. You can see the highlighted yellow project location on the left side of the Sheet. That's again, Hinesburg Road running north-south on the left-hand side. But what we have is a number of different buildings that surround this particular site again, immediately on the north for my laser vision in the north-easterly direction. That's where Keller Williams building built by Black Rock Construction is located. To the east is an undeveloped Lot 7E, can't read that. And they share a driveway that comes off of what's currently a dead-end road called Randall Street. So to orange you on this particular plan at the top is the intersection of Meadowland Drive with Brute 116. It, as you leave 116 and head eastly, you go around the curve, go down a long stretch. In the middle of that stretch is the Randall Street that was built in 2015, 2016. And then you can continue on to the remaining buildings in this particular site. Randall Street actually is designed as a future U-shaped roadway that as you look at it on this particular plan and you come from the Meadowland Drive intersection into Randall Street, that it kind of heads southwest and then south and then is all designed to come back to the Booska Movers on Lot 10. Unfortunately, Lot 10 does not show the Booska Movers development on it. It should have, it does not. I'm sorry, 1G, Lot 1G, not to lose you on this, but nonetheless, so as far as any type of master plan concepts for roadways, that particular Randall Street is the only one that's ever been presented since the Meadowland Business Park was originally approved by the city in 1996. So that being the background, that's the big picture and we have the little picture and maybe now is a good time to go into the staff report. Okay, thank you, David. So the first staff comment is staff recommends that the board and applicant discuss the request to waive master plan review for this project and that the board provide a response to the request. So in this particular case, this is a lot of three acres. I think the way the land development regulations were written is like, well, if we have a small lot, not a large lot, then master plan is really a redundant feature. In this particular case, this application is seeking to develop the rear portion once and there wouldn't be any additional development. So you essentially getting a master plan with this application. Okay, questions, comments from the board? Does staff have any issues with that? No. I don't either, I'm just making sure that. Yeah, no, it's less than four acres and it's proposed to be developed in less than three years. So it seems to qualify for a master plan waiver. Just make sure you are okay granting that. This would be a good place for me to add my random fact of the day. Meadowlands business park is a large, and the way it has been developed is a large factor in why the city requires master plans now. Disappointment with the way Meadowlands has been developed over time without a master plan is a large contributing factor to why master plans are never. I don't have any issues with this project. I'm just pointing it out because Dave was mentioning about how the streets, there's only one plan street and it doesn't connect and it was supposed to connect all those things. There's a bunch of standalone single projects. Yes, yeah. I have a tangential question, because I was wondering, I mean, I didn't, you all are, I guess, more steeped in it than I am, but I didn't understand where all those lots came from, where, when were they created and by whom? So, you want the long story short story, Frank? Well, the short one, okay, I hear. The cleverly condensed but thorough story. So in 1996, there was about 10 lots created, very large lots for whatever use. And since then, there's been some carve outs of primarily lot one, which is originally a 50 acre parcel that fronts on both Heinsberg Road and Meadowland Drive. And with that, there's been some incremental development as that lot has been resubdivided. And actually, lot one A, the lot before you tonight is one of those original carve outs from lot one. Well, okay, but in the meantime, the lots are being developed or not being developed independently of each other, is that the story? That is correct. And there is no comprehensive plan for roadways or anything else. Just the original. Among and between these lots, right? I'm sorry, yes. Just the original subdivision plot is essentially all that you have as far as the master plan. Yeah, the best we got was when BlackRock developed and proposed the little loop road. And you have nothing to do. I mean, is the owner of the overall land we're concerned with here, the owner of any land adjacent to it? No. So you have no say or no control over what happens and those are the lots whatsoever. Other than through the Meadowland Business Park Owners Association and making sure that we all share expenses, that's pretty much the only master planning we have. Oh, are there any rules in the master association? There is. Are we, do we need to be cognizant of them? Are you cognizant of them? I am. I can't imagine. Frank, I don't believe there is anything special in regards to... Do they bear on this project in any way? No, no. I'm more happy to produce those for you. Mark, did you have something you wanted to say? No, okay. No. Anyone else? John? Yeah, go ahead. It says that it's a 3.05 acre lot. Exceeds the minimum lot size of three acres required and we're looking to subdivide. So it's three acres the minimum to be able to subdivide or it's the minimum and we're creating two really non-conforming lots. That is correct. We're creating two non-conforming lots via the PUD mechanism, which does allow us to do that in theory if it is approved. Good catch, John. Yes. If there's no, I guess if there's no plan or expectation or the development of the other non-conforming lot, why did we need to subdivide it at all? And why not just develop it with the, I mean, what's the point of the subdivision exactly? So the last time we were here, Frank, we were proposing three buildings on one lot, but the way the, I understand the way the land development regulations have since been amended that we can no longer have multiple buildings on one lot that you need to have one principal building per lot and the ability to infill this back area is no longer allowed the way we had originally proposed before you in the past. So we now have to ask special favor in regards to the waiver of that particular minimum lot area in order to basically develop the same way we had been approved in the past. So essentially the PUD is meaningless. I didn't say that. Except there's a, I get it. All right. Yep. Okay. Any other questions before we continue? Pardon me. Number two, maybe we've answered this. Any future subdivision or development? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. Thank you. Number three, this is regarding increasing connectivity. Staff recommends that the board discuss with the applicant the various standards that require inter lot connectivity and how these standards relate to the proposed project with a focus on the implications of constructing a 35 linear feet constructing 35 linear feet of road on a neighboring property. So as we indicated earlier that we are meeting the standards of providing interconnectivity from lot line to lot line. In this particular plane, it might be good Marty to zoom in on the area just east of the lot before you. So underneath, unfortunately the call out HRG office building LLCs is a shared driveway for that services not only the white space. All right. I thought I could show it better on the other plan. Maybe I was wrong. This is what happens when you let Marlin drive and Marty talk. These things go all crazy. We're getting closer. So this is the existing condition plan. And did you want to show the proposed? Yeah. Well, really we need to go back to sheet C 1.0, which is the overall and I'll give you a little bit better flavor of how people move from metal and drive up Randall street. So again, that's that that roadway that has a little hook on the end that runs southwesterly off of metal and drive. And lot one C is labeled here is the developed portion of this particular area. That's the first lot that was an only lot so far that's been developed off of Randall street. Lot one E to the south is designed to share a driveway with lot one C coming off of Randall street. So right now the existing driveway for lot one C goes into their parking lot and ends just short of the blue property line shown on this plan. And right now the question is, is hey, can we have you go on to two different properties that you don't own and build some more roadway? And right now within the land development regulations, if there's a situation in which you need to mitigate traffic and you need to find appropriate offsite mitigation, then that's where offsite improvements are appropriate. But in this particular case, the general movements from these particular lots all are westerly to Heinsberg Road. There's very little demand for anybody to go eastly to the developed lots within the remaining portions of the metal and business district. So we're very comfortable with the application before you as far as complying with rules. And we feel that the extra distance east of the property line is a reach beyond what the land development regulations require. Questions? Mark? Question for staff. When do we get the authority to make the connection since the Keller Williams project stopped about 10 feet short and clearly is curving into another bank of parking, but stopped short? When do we get the ability to require that intervention? Our thinking is now or never, probably. So on that existing conditions plan, the Keller Williams property, you can see where it says 1C, there's one building. And then there's a second shaded box to the top. That's a second building that does not exist now. The third bank of parking, if we're going away from the buildings, 1, 2, 3 does not exist now. And the additional roadway that curves into it also does not exist. So that makes it seem like the road is closer than it is. In reality, it's like 35 feet from your property line to the edge of the existing driveway. If Keller Williams ever were to add that bank of parking, maybe that distance would shrink. We don't have parking minimums anymore for commercial use. So it is somewhat unlikely that even if the second office building were to go on lot 1C, that they would need or want additional parking. That's our thinking is that the odds of them paving more towards your side of the property line are pretty slim. The point of the regulations requiring interlock connectivity is to get connectivity, not just to get lip service to the property. At that point, that's not really serving anyone. You would almost rather not build that at all. So I think our point is, if we're going by the intent of the rules, staff cited several examples. The intent of the rules is to get connectivity, not just the appearance of connectivity. And at that point, it's almost a lose-lose where we're asking you to expend quite a bit of money and an appropriate service to do nothing. So that's where staff is approaching us from is our authority. It appears to us would be now or never. This is under the assumption that we don't really foresee future development happening on the Keller Williams property. Can I ask a follow-up? You may, yes. Because clearly, I was on the board at the time. How did we screw up not requiring to connect to the Mansfield property? I'm not certain. I'm not certain. I don't think you were zoning in. You were default. I think it may have come from what you mentioned earlier, where there was no foreseen connection between random was supposed to be a loop, a self-contained loop, and there was no real, there was no vision for east-west between Meadowland and Heinsberg Road, other than just getting on Meadowland and going up to the intersection with Heinsberg Road. I remember all the discussion we had when you came before us with the three buildings to connect on through, you know, and you're reticent to do that. But obviously, I don't recall the conversation when Lot 1C was approved, how the parking lot had the third bay, but not the road going to the property line. I mean, that sure is like a big miss on our part. Right, I think, I don't know if it was missed so much as maybe, I don't know if that was part of the regulations at that time, or like I said, maybe not part of the master plan, not that there was one. One thing that we did notice in looking at the plans for Lot 1C, and I don't know if I included this in our materials, but there is on the plans for Lot 1C a dashed, it almost appears to be an easement. It's dashed, it's like 15 feet in width maybe, and it kind of, it gently bends from the edge of the parking access aisle to the property line. And I, in many hours of research this week, could not figure out what those dashed lines were if that was an easement, or if that, I do not have an answer for that right now. But that was something that I was like, hey, maybe that was supposed to be a road, maybe that's, but I don't have any evidence to support that claim. I'll fill in some blanks. So opportunities are still out there for the city, ultimately to get the connection. Lot 1E is undeveloped, you know, when then application comes before you, there will be the opportunity to make them comply with the requirements also. So there's many incremental parts of the city that said, okay, you build to X, and when somebody else builds, then it'll all get interconnected. So just to interject, Lot 1E, that road that connects into those parking lot bays is connected to that on one seat. So the property line runs right down the middle of that common or the existing driveway that services the Lot 1C. It's also designed to service Lot 1E. So even if they want to put a postage stamp size parking lot on it, we can require the road to connect at that point. But will you? Will there be sufficient nexus? I would say so, I don't remember. I don't remember the conversation back then. I don't remember every project, Marla. So, and then just to answer Marty's question about the dash lines, there was an emergency access easement granted to South Burlington Realty across Lot 1A to enable what they thought at that time would be a great second means of access for residential development. Now, the IO district doesn't promote residential developments under today's rules someday under the new comprehensive plan, it may. But in the meantime, that was the intent. So it just goes back in time to different ideas on how to basically solve future problems. And that was one of the requests from South Burlington Realty to enable people to move from Lot 1E, before they beware those lots, westerly out Tynesburg. You know, I have a general question about this connectivity requirement. I mean, do all these so-called connected lots have reciprocal private easements over their property? How is that arranged? Based on, prior to the city adopting the connectivity rule, there was nothing to that effect. You had your own lot, you had your access out to the three roadways within the middle and business park. But how is the city assuring that the connectivity is worth anything? Well, ever since then, any time an application came before, you were obligated to provide some form of connectivity to the property line. Meaning an easement. An easement or physically constructed. For all your adjoiners who had access to that road. That is correct. Does that, does that happen? Do we? I mean, I do recall the conversation, at least on a, you know, we use that 30,000 foot term, but I think it was more down to like 10 or 15,000 feet about that interconnectivity between those lots and concern that that would become a through fare to metal and business park. And I think that conversation was pretty much, no, it's not. It's basically between those two lots at the most or the people in one C may be going out to, you know, but no one admitted that it's still much quicker to go to metal and business drive, you know, for access to any of those lots, leaving or coming, you know, that's like trying to go through the connectivity to Cytermill from Pinesburg Road and thinking you're gonna make your way to Dorset without it taking half an hour and getting lost four times. Right. And that's the whole design as far as the traffic coming component. Right. It would clearly work. It would clearly work if it's ultimately happens. Sure. Okay. Okay. I hope there's not gonna be a test on this. Let's look at it. Actually, I'd like to address the chair on that issue. Who's speaking, please. This is Rand Larson, the owner of the building that is immediately attached, speaking for the Ice Surgery Center, New England Vision and Vermont Eye Laser and a new client that... I'm afraid this is not public comment yet. Can you... Is it public if you're talking about my property that you wanna go across? And it directly impacts the gentleman on the board who just asked the question if that provision existed when we built our building. So I think it is germane to the discussion. I'm not saying it's not germane. I'm just saying this is not the time. It is 10 till 10 and we will be concluding testimony from the applicant probably in about five minutes and we'll open it up for public comment. So hang in there with us, please. Okay. I just wasn't sure this was public comment when I'm the party that you're speaking of. Well, let me just say you're not the applicant. So hang in there with us. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are we ready to move on everyone? Okay. I'm gonna read number four. Staff recommends the board discuss the dichotomies between the IO zoning district standards and the PUD standards and ask the applicant to describe how they might modify the project to demonstrate compliance with these standards. So there's an overarching statement or purpose statement within the industrial open space district. And it talks about large buildings and large open space areas. And ultimately within the allowed uses of this particular area even though the purpose statement didn't include animal hospitals, it does include animal hospitals as an approved use. So in this particular case, the other hierarchy of the purpose statement ultimately is the land development regulations themselves and the details associated with that. And when you apply under a general PUD, it then waters down the expectations further. So we're very comfortable with where we're at in regards to the fact that this is an approved use that provided that you're happy with what the building looks like that we are in a very comfortable position moving forward. Okay. Yeah, I think maybe I worded this one a little bit weird. I guess my point was when you come in for preliminary and final subdivision or in this case, you have to demonstrate that you are meeting the intent and standards of the IO zoning district in addition to meeting the intent and standards of the PUD mechanism. They are sort of conflicting at times where the IO is asking for like sweeping views and large lots and light industrial and you're proposing something that's a little bit tighter and with shared parking that maybe makes sense but we're just flagging that for you is maybe something that could take a little bit of wordsmithing or maybe a lot redesigned or something just to be able to check both boxes without contradicting yourself. Do you see something about the current design that doesn't match? Is there something that you feel is discordant? Just curious. No, no. Okay. No, and at this time. What we had talked about is the IO being large continuous open spaces and the design here kind of has the open space on the left lot being on the south and the open space on the right lot being on the north. That's not really a contiguous kind of configuration. One of the things we had talked about when we talked about that standard. Okay. Questions, comments from the board? Okay. I have a feeling that this public comment is going to lead to some discussion. So I think we'll stop to testimony at this point. We're gonna obviously have to continue this hearing and I'm sorry we got started late. Do you have any comments to make before we open it up for public comment? Okay. So are there any other people attending virtually who intend to offer public comments? Yes, I would like to offer comment as well. This is Tom Dowan, my wife and I are owners of 1,100, co-owners of 1,100 Hinesburg Road. Okay. Are there any other people? So we have two people commenting. Okay. What's the business at 1,100 Hinesburg Road? Ramana, I agree with your vision. Just to the north. Okay. Yes. There are a number of businesses in that business. I just wanted to know what building we were talking about. So I'm sorry, Tom, is it? Yes. Are you the person who asked a few minutes ago or is that a different individual? No, that was me. It was Rand Larsen. Okay. I'd also like to point out that we received no notification of this hearing or anything about these plans whatsoever, which I find somewhat puzzling. Is that you, Tom speaking? Yes. Okay. All right, let's go back to Rand since he was the first person to express interest in commenting. Please talk to us about your thoughts. Well, first of all, let me say that Dr. Julie Larsen and the other three female physicians in the practice are all in favor of the boss babes. So please do not take any comment that we make that is trying to prevent them from their growth. I think they actually agree with us in our concerns. I'm going to turn the clock back to 2006 when we actually play in the building. And just so you know, we're not just an office building. We are a state license and federal license hospital center. We fall under the same category as a UVM hospital. We are a surgical center that is licensed by the state of Vermont. And the primary concern when we built the building was for the elderly that we serve. And so that's why we're the only underground parking that exists outside of the city of Burlington. We did that to provide shelter for the patients that were coming for surgery during the winter months, which unfortunately is longer than any of us would like. So the first concern is with the traffic patterns of the elderly, they park underneath and they exit. And I don't know the exact width, but there is a retaining wall makes it very difficult to exit the parking lot in turn toward Tynesburg Road. And most of our patients are 65 plus. I would like to say that that's a younger part of the segment and Dr. Dowan can certainly comment on the age of our patients. But we run a surgery center on the first floor and that surgery center, as I said, is federally in state license and makes us a hospital zone. And so our concern is with the amount of patients that's coming. We do 25 to 30 surgeries a day in the surgery center. And oftentimes people will be dropped off and their loved one will go find a cup of coffee or leave for a little bit and we'll call them to come back. So we already have a fair amount of traffic upstairs. We have another surgery center, which is New England vision has also is the home of Vermont eye laser. And just so you know, the building was built with twice the thickness on both floors than a standard building because we're subject to the vibrations of traffic. The laser that is used on the eyes actually cuts a thickness less than a credit card of thickness. So it is very, very important that we maintain our distance from Hinesburg Road and that we minimize traffic. Vermont eye laser in New England vision sees 110 to 130 people a day. Depends how many practitioners we have there. And we just signed a letter of intent with a medical practice that would be bringing probably 50 to 75 patients a day. So we, if any problem that we have is gonna be too much traffic. When we built the building, we were asked by the engineers if we'd share a driveway. And we said yes, because we are good neighbors and good community participants. And an engineering office isn't like a retail operation. They do not have many people coming in there. I think at the time they only had six or eight of their employees. So our agreement was only signed for that building and to allow that we could share one driveway. Our biggest concern about this is it's like the question that no one's asked. Why are we doing something that really is not common sense? There's a turning lane to turn into Mount Mansfield Park right up the street. If you allow additional traffic to come in our driveway, you would not only make it more difficult for Fox Runs residents to exit and enter their house, but you'll really cause a great deal of traffic for our patients who are elderly and don't see well. So we are in total agreement with the need for the veterinary clinic. We applaud it and we don't wanna be perceived in any way as trying to stand in their way. I have met with the representative you're speaking with tonight. I think he agrees with me. It's not a very wide and we're right up against the wetland. We have these proper retention pond there. We get licensed every year and I'm also concerned about that wetland and that's right in there. But I do think there's a bit of history that everybody's missed and there is no agreement that we have ever signed. We predate, I believe, this connectivity and we would be totally against adding more traffic to an already complicated traffic area. And I'll yield to my partner, Dr. Dallin and Dina Dallin. Thank you. I know it's getting late. I don't wanna reiterate everything that Rand has said. But again, the only other concerns besides the traffic, the increased traffic. And I do think it's gonna be problems with people piling up in front of our building with a lot more of traffic coming that way. To me, it doesn't make any sense. Further, I would think that there has to be an Act 250 application in a traffic study before V-Trans would allow the change in use of that curb cut. The curb cut is 100%, I believe, on our property. And the easement agreement is with the initial building that was there. There isn't anything in the easement agreement that allows for any expansion besides what was agreed upon when it was signed. I too support the business that wants to go in there, but I can't support. I don't even know enough about this having had less than 24 hours notification of this and no notice of this being in front of the DRB today. Thank you. It sounds like you have a potentially preclusive problem. Say that again, please, Frank. Well, I guess my question went to the point. These people have a private right. They claim that they do not have to yield to the connectivity rule. And that would blow your site plan to smithereens as far as I can see. Do you have another way in? Right now, Frank, we have an agreement with the two gentlemen that are stated here that allow for a certain amount of traffic to come out of lot 1A out to Hinesburg Road. And this particular project stays well within those limits. The issue that I think what they're raising is we as a board, do we as a board not have the right to require that connectivity to lot 1C? Oh, you mean you do have the private right, as well as you? Yeah, for their project to go in using the shared driveway. The question is whether there's anything in their original approval and subsequently Mansfield's properties approval that prevents, precludes any sort of connectivity to other lots through this. So I think we need to do a little research to find out if we even have the authority or the right to request that connection, even if it terminates a property line in hopes of making the connection next project down. I like that. Sorry, excuse me, I think that Marty was saying that he has done as much research as is possible. And if there's an agreement that someone would like to supply to us, we'd be happy to get it. Yeah, I think that's a good point. I also need to interject here. I don't have any contact information for the folks online. I know you weren't here at the beginning and I totally understand. You don't want to sit here from seven o'clock, but if you could please sign in virtually by sending me an email with your email address. And first and last name, my email is M-K-E-E-N-E. So first initial last name Keen at SBVT.gov. Could I address the board one more time? Yes. I guess maybe I didn't make it really clear. Our agreement in Dr. Dallin, we signed an agreement to allow only the eight to 10 employees of the civil engineering group. That was the only intent to extrapolate that that means that the rest of the lot could be, could enjoy that is just wrong. And the other point I want to make is, this is not a needed with preventing them from going across our driveway because we're already under a lot of traffic doesn't hurt their business because there is a turn lane. And I've had discussions with one of the state senators and Vermont trans and they don't understand frankly, why when you have a turning lane, which makes it safer for everybody, you would try to do this. When I was first introduced to this, I was told that this was gonna be an eastbound lane one way and would not have any exiting, which is still problematic, but it's more problematic if it's proposed now to be an exit lane. So I will make sure that Tom Dean and I get our information to you, but we will support the project. We just will strongly object to endangering our patients in adding more traffic to a building that is sensitive to vibrations. We just have to in the name of safety for our patients. So there is a viable option. We're not standing in the way of anything. I just wanna make that clear. What is the viable option? Could you make that really clear to me? Cause I'm a little lost, but. Okay, Hinesburg Road. As you travel north or south, there's a turning lane to go on the Mansfield Business Park. There was not a turning lane at our driveway. There was not a turning lane there. So anybody that is turning impedes the traffic and makes it more difficult for Fox Run to leave. And I think there's a couple of hundred homes in there. So when I talk with VTrans, they say, well, why don't they just use the turning lanes that are currently there for the business park? And I said, great point. I've obviously got my point across to you. There is a viable option of going in and then requiring that that road that comes down on its Randall Drive or something to be extended to service the property. That makes complete sense. It just doesn't seem like you should recreate a wheel that's not as good as what's 1500 feet up the road with a state legal turning lane. And VTrans also reminded me that it's not within the jurisdiction of South Burlington to jurisdiction over a state highway, which Hinesburg Road is. So we're not standing in the way. We're just asking you to go 1500 feet up to a safer place and don't add more congestion. And that's the whole purpose of a turning lane is to cut down the congestion. So that's all we're asking. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Do you have anything you'd like to say in response to that? Oh yeah, we'll be producing a traffic study that indicates the safety of that particular intersection of Fox Run, Mansfield View Lane and Route 116. And we're happy to produce the agreement that indicates what our ability is to utilize the common easement area. Okay. So we need to schedule a time for you to come back to continue this sketch. Sorry, we need to pow wow silently for a moment on schedule. Yes. Availability of time. Go ahead and pow wow. How are you feeling, John? Okay. And so that means we're not rescheduling right. Yes. Right. Right. So you're saying that. Yes. Right. Yeah, I think three years are in and that would be less than five. And then squeaking right into there would be. Probably too much. I did too. I separated my. Okay. Okay, we're ready. All right. Thank you for your patience. Toss a date up. So we can, we think that it's reasonable to continue this to the next meeting. It doesn't require you to revise your plans at all. We just continue the conversation. And that'd be November 21st. Okay. Does that work for you? I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing until November 21st. Second. Oh, so moved. Okay. And then. All right, thanks, John. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? The motion is carried. Thank you for your patience. And we'll see you back here in a few weeks. Very good. Thank you for slotting us in. And we're not calling it a boss-based animal hospital. Meadowlands Animal Hospital. You would? We're not calling it boss-based animal hospital. Meadowlands Animal Hospital. I just wanted to make that clear. Okay. The minutes. Let's see. 19. September. So there's two minutes. There's September 19th and October 17th. Oh, there's two? Yeah. For some reason, I only saw one. Would someone like to move passage of the minutes? Any issues with anything? The only thing that I noticed, first set of minutes, item 11. Okay. My name is particularly misspelled. I'm not sure how you pronounce that. M-O-S-T-A-C-O-L-L-I. It's correct up in the attendees, but. Mastakoli. Mastakoli. So any other? Other than that. Corrections to the minutes? Okay. We will take Mr. Mastakoli's correction. Any other changes? Okay. Do we move to pass them? No. Yeah. We have, okay. It's late. Make a motion to approve both minutes as amended. Okay. Second? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. And it's carried. We are done. Thank you for your patience tonight, everyone. All right. Thank you very much. Let me close out the meeting. Marty, you did a great job tonight.