 This is March 6, 2023, Development Review Board. So we'll take a minute to introduce the board members. My name is Abby White, I'm a board member. Jean Leon, board member, Kevin O'Connell, board member. Meredith Crandall, staff. Let me make the motion. And Michael. Yeah, Michael was a board member. Thank you. Before we go any further, I'm going to make a motion to. Allow. Abby to chair the meeting for this evening as the acting chair. Second motion. Okay. So I have a motion second. So all those in favor of. This motion. Spays your hand or say aye. Okay. So we have an acting chair. For this evening and for the remainder of this. This case really. Yeah. But I think it makes sense. All right. Great. So I'm going to turn it over to Meredith to review the remote meeting procedures and process. Okay. So for everybody watching remotely, I'm going to be sharing my screen. The items on the screen are more for people who are. Watching via orca, but I'll be saying some things for you to pay attention to as well. Let me get my little cheat sheet. All right. So for anyone who is viewing tonight's development review board or if you want to participate in tonight's meeting via the zoom platform, you can do this either by typing this link into your browser. And that will bring you into the meeting and then I'll, I'll let you in and then you'll be able to see everything that we are seeing on our screens as well as let us see you if you want. And we can tell if you have something to say. Or you can call in using this phone number. And when prompted type in this meeting ID. You'll be able to hear everything and let us know that you want to talk. If anyone is trying to access the meeting and having problems, please email me at M Crandall at Montpelier hyphen vt.org. I will be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. For those attending via zoom, turning your video on is optional. And actually if you're having problems with your connection, sometimes turning the video off improves the audio. For everyone attending remotely, please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. This will reduce background noise. And note that the zoom chat function should only be used for troubleshooting or logistics questions. If you've signed in via zoom and do not have your full name listed. If you could please make sure that your full name is on there that'll help us know who we're speaking with. If you have a question or comment about tonight's main item on the agenda. When that time comes, please raise your hand either physically, if you're on video, or use the raise hand button on your toolbar. And then when you have been called on by the chair, please state your name. Once you're unmuted. And. Preferably your address as well. I'll like to decide depending on how things are going, if we get to a point where we're actually limit anybody, but I don't, we don't have a huge, huge crowd tonight so far. In the event the public is unable to access this meeting and I would get notice of that after trying to get them in via email. It will need to be continued to a time and place certain so that the public has an ability to comment. Now hand the meeting back over to our acting chair. Okay. Thank you, Meredith. So I will take a motion to approve the agenda. We have one main topic for discussion tonight. So I'll take a motion. So both. All right. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Hi. Hi. Great. So we have that for tonight. Comments from the chair. I have no comments. We will try to hear from as many people who would like to speak tonight as possible. So if you're here to speak, we'll swear you in a little bit later. Okay. So next approval of the minutes from February 21st. Except that we don't. We got those very late yesterday and I haven't even had a chance to look at them myself. So I was not going to put the before the board because I usually review them and check for errors first. Okay. So we're moving, moving right along. We don't need to approve the minutes from our last meeting. We'll do both of them at our next meeting. Okay. Great. So. Swearing in witnesses. This is. Next here. Okay. All right. So who is going to be providing testimony in the application. Okay. So this is both anybody in person and anybody remotely will need to be sworn in. If you think you might have something to say during the hearing. Just because it's official hearing. So this is anyone who wants to comment tonight. At any point. So just raise your hand if that's you. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. So if you want to testify this evening, it's better to get yourself sworn in now. It's, it's doesn't have to be used, but that way you, it'll just make things be smoother. Yeah. And that way also, you know, if the meeting has continued, you've been sworn in once. You don't have to go through the process again through the second. You know, if there's another night of meetings. Right. You'll still be sworn in. It's a, it's a, it's a forever contract. But it's not going to be a regular application for this application. Not for everything going forward. Ooh. Just for this application. Okay. So, so if that's you, please just raise your hand. And if you're on remotely, you can turn on your K. Thank you. Just unmute and we'll trust you when you say. Yes. All right. So do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth. Is under the pains and penalties of perjury. Great. Okay. So we are moving right along to the Isabel circle application. And so what I would like to do is turn it over to Meredith, just to provide a kind of come up to be at the table. Okay. Great. And so anybody who's representing the application, feel free to come up at the table and you guys can do a little round of that. And then as you need to be at the microphone. Kick us off. Yeah. I'll kick us off with a little procedural overview and a few highlights. All right. You guys may do need to do a little musical chairs to be next to the microphone when you're changing who's talking or somebody just come up and stand at the standing microphone when you're ready. Okay. Thanks. So Meredith, why don't you just provide an overview of kind of what we're looking at and highlight of some of the key issues. And then we'll hear from the applicant. Perfect. So as anybody who's looked at this particular application, hopefully is aware, this is a bit of a combination application. The biggest part of it is the subdivision. So dividing land into new pieces. But this is being done in a organized fashion with a plan for at least some level of development at this point. To allow for the future development of the parcels. So it's, it's creating, including the remainder, 34 newly defined parcels of land. 31 of those it's anticipated will be built on with new structures. There will also be stormwater infrastructure. That will be on some of the remaining pieces of land and one of the pieces that we're calling a parcel for purposes of the subdivision will actually ultimately be a road. That road and the new impervious surface being created by that road. Because at this point it is not public land. Does trigger major site plan review. So we're doing a major site plan review as well for that and the stormwater infrastructure because there's also a lot of disturbance of land with that new stormwater infrastructure. So, you know, there's, you'll see in the staff report, or you've seen in the staff report. That the major site plan review. A lot of those provisions don't apply because there's new buildings being built. But technically it's triggered. So it's in the staff report. The key thing really that's pulled in there for major site plan is the landscaping review and needing to apply the street tree requirements from the landscaping provision when it comes to this project as a whole. So the project is pretty wide ranging. There's steep slopes analysis in here. There's a few questions for the board to address about how the steep slopes engineered plan requirements get dealt with. There's some questions about, you know, some proposed conditions in here having to do with erosion control and some technical requirements, like getting the tree boards opinion on the street trees that will actually be in the ultimate public right of way, because the plan is to ultimately have that street become a public street, but that requires additional steps beyond what the board can do. That requires city council approval and an agreement between the city and department of public works and the applicant. So we have to keep that in mind as to how the trees will be governed. Are you happy to keep it in mind? One of the big questions here when it comes to the subdivision and this is something that was talked about during the sketch plan review of a very similar plan, but slightly different is the traffic impact and the applicants have provided a thorough traffic impact analysis and study. So that's going to be a big part I think of the board's review. There are some questions about capacity of community facilities that has more to do with the fact I think that not all of our department of public works staff, including the director and the assistant director have had the capacity to dig into the sewer water and the storm water issues. So that's highlighted in the staff report. We're also waiting for input from our parks director who is also the tree warden and sits on the tree board. So I've highlighted places in here where we're waiting for those comments. I have not received them today. It came down to a staffing timing issue even with the application coming in on time and when it did. So my recommendation to the board would be to get through as many things as they can tonight without those missing pieces of information and just expect that it's probably going to be continued until you can get that information because the storm water plans under the regs have to be approved by the director of public works and the, you know, you could do a condition where you approved it on condition of DPW looking at sewer and water, but with a application this big, I think it makes sense to wait since it's part of the capacity of community utilities review under subdivision. I think that's as much as it makes sense for me to bring up, we do have a number of members of the public. They're going to want to comment, but I'm going to let Abby direct things. Thank you, Abby. Okay. Thanks, Meredith for that overview. So I just like to turn it over to the applicant and just have you walk us through your application. This is, this is a final plan review. And so there's been some changes, I think since sketch plan and you were here over many months ago, that was so highlighting some of those changes and in particular focusing on the traffic study. Really helpful. Mark, if you could mute yourself. Cause you're coming in over speakers. Thanks. And if you get a chance, if you could change your name so we have your full name on there, that would be great. So I'm Gabriel. I'm the sponsor of this project and just want to introduce those that are at the table. We've got Jeff's waiver and Jennifer Conley from VHB and Nick Lowe is our legal representation. We also have partners, we have a lot of people who have been working on this project or here with us, Tom and Karen was on from very Metro development. We have a steamer gown. Who did a lot of revitalization of the old North end and Burlington and Jay Lajanes home builder. I'm going to turn it over to Jeff. Thanks Gabe. So I think. Meredith, I'll defer to you, but I guess I'll, I'd like to give kind of a broad overview of some of the projects that we've been working on. We've been doing sketch plan and now, and then maybe step through the staff report and try to. Go through each of those items and how we address those on the plans and how we comply with the development regulations. So when we came here in the summer, we came with a cottage cluster development and it was a very similar. Layout to the project that we're proposing now. So we took a very similar layout with the streets as they were configured to adjust to them slightly within. 50 to 70 feet, but still using a loop street as we had before. And placed individual lots around that. And those lots. Can accommodate that. So we took a very similar layout with the streets as they were configured to adjust to them slightly within. 50 to 70 feet, but still using a loop street as we had before. And put a lot of different designs around that. And those lots. Can accommodate, depending on the size. Between one and four dwelling units. The storm water since the time that we came in the, in the summer. We. Graphically showed where we're going to manage storm water. We've had the chance to go and develop a fully compliant DC. Permit applications. Water wastewater applications for DC. kept those similar to the conceptual cross sections that we showed. But recognize that there no longer needs to be on-street parking for the cottage cluster development. So we took that 22-foot paved with and pulled that all the way through, because now residents have the opportunity to park on-site. Do you have, Meredith, do you want me to plug in and share the plans or do you have? I have them, or if you feel like that way, you can zip around faster on your own, whichever one you want. What's your preference? Sure. Why don't I plug in here if I do have it? But I know sometimes if you know what you're looking for and exactly where it is, you can get there faster. I look forward. Oh, and I guess that's you. Are you on there on the Zoom? Because if you log into Zoom and make sure you meet, why don't I just do it? Why don't I do it? Yeah, if you want to share that, that'd be great. It's good to get a little, don't see it all, Harry. Oh, let me just scroll past. I'm assuming you're going to want to go to the plans. It's still going to be a little slow. Yeah, so while you're pulling up the plan on the second sheet of the packet, it shows that the streets are lined with on-street trees trying to create, even though it's a wooded parcel, the roads go through previously cleared areas. So we're providing it and supplementing it with additional trees to the north, which is on the plan right. We have two stormwater management areas. And then the page bottom, which is the east side of the parcel. We also have two additional stormwater management parcels. Those are constructed gravel wetlands that provide attenuation and treatment functions, and they fully meet the DEC requirement for the treatment standards. Since we've submitted the sketch plan approval, we did some testing, infiltration testing and tried to figure out what the seasonal high ground water was. And it's more tight soils than were mapped by the NRCS when they do the broad base community mapping. So these aren't infiltration practices, but they allow to hold back the one-year storm and discharge that through a one-inch orifice over 12 hours. So it still complies with all of the treatment standards that DEC requires. We also looked at the roadway alignments, the Isabel Circle, that does not exceed 10 percent grade. And we tried to follow that along the existing grade, so it doesn't deviate more than a couple of feet all throughout the profile. And Isabel Loop follows along close to the grade similarly as well. Sure. One of the great assets of this part of the parcel is that we're able to provide municipal water and sewer. And with using gravity, we don't need pump stations. So as far as municipal infrastructure and reliability, it's great that all of these parcels can be served by sewer mains that flow from the page left to the page right. So it kind of the south, that'd be the southeast part of the parcel up to the northwest, where it connects to an existing sewer main on the end of Isabel Circle, where it currently terminates at the parcel. The vegetation is it's on the steeper slopes of this parcel, but it has the this area of the parcel, this 20 acres, it's it's the flatter portion of this parcel. It's a 70 acre parcel. So on the 20 acres, the steep slopes analysis, we perform that. But we're able to provide a DEC compliant erosion control plan and the stabilization plan by using sediment traps. So each of the four gravel wetlands will be during construction, we sediment traps and will use soap fence to provide the temporary runoff protection. And then at the completion of construction, all the areas through seating and mulching and stabilized erosion control blanket will be able to be vegetated. And then at the discharge locations at each of the four stormwater management locations, the gravel wetland that'll discharge through a a riprap discharge. I think I hit the high points and that significant changes that we've made since the concept plan. Do we want to kind of go through the the staff report and try to address each of those elements? I think that'd be great. Yeah, let's do that. So I think the first significant staff comments on page seven regarding the annotation and we can adjust that the parcel line. It's 15 square feet, too small from four. So it's shifting that parcel line less than a half an inch. We'll be able to comply with that. And just to note, significant, I think Jeff means just in red. I have to put it in red if it's something that needs to be fixed or the board has to make a determination on. So yeah, it was short by 15 square feet. So I'm on page nine. There was several comments regarding whether the plan set was stamped. And it fully complies with the DEC requirements, with your municipal requirements and general good engineering practice as a draft set and a permit set. Sometimes we don't stamp them. If that's something that you would like to see stamped, I'm happy to stamp the entire set. And so I don't think this can be just easy enough. Yeah, that's what the board has done before. We haven't seen this in a long time. I don't know if all the members here have seen it where we've had issues when I'm going to stop my share because of the way the regulations are drafted. We're supposed to have a final signed and sealed set. So that's just something after there's any tweaks made during the DRB process. You can just have that as a condition of approval, that a final set of plans complying with the board's decision is provided to the zoning administrator that's been signed and sealed with the stamp. OK, that's an easy one. Right. Moving to I think the next significant comments in red to discuss on page 11. It talks about erosion control measures and the significant slope analysis. There's a lot in the zoning ordinance that discuss that talks about quantifying and tabulating the amount of slopes in very slope ranges. I agree. I think this parcel warrants the analysis of erosion control measures. Those erosion control measures that we design, I think, are adequately address all the slopes that the project is located on comply with the DC construction stormwater requirements. And I think the project fully meets the intent and the requirement of this steep slope provisions. OK, any questions about that? Members of the board, yeah, and this was just a the as long as we get a copy of the permit, the board can approve it, because if the state's approving it, then generally the city's review of that is waived. OK, thanks. We can keep going. OK, yeah. On page 12, there's comments regarding the DPW review of the stormwater plan. I think what we are showing is consistent with what they expect. I think if this hearing does get continued to subsequent one, any fine points that they want us to address, we're able to. It's it's the development on 20 acres of the 70 acre parcel. There is adequate room to provide any measures that that are appropriate. And I think we have thus far, so we had a good conversation with courage, making sure that we're aligned with their review of it this afternoon and just making sure that anything I presented today wasn't at odds with them and they didn't have any objections. But look forward to the next couple of weeks to make sure that we can across season dot the s regarding page 14. And the phasing of the project, the streets. Gabe and I have talked about the best way to build this project out. There's the municipal sewer and water mains that require termination. They desire to sell lots and then natural and this type of market, the slow build out that will occur and that not all the lots are going to come online. However, there is a certain. Logic to based on the scale of it and the relatively small scale of it to complete the entire loop at once as far as the roadway infrastructure goes. I think if there's that, you know, it's it's a multi year process. There may be the need in the future to phase it, but there's a lot that there'd be a lot of conjecture on exactly where those phase lines would be. And I think there's a lot that makes sense on building it all at once. So I think what is proposed is a single build out of the road and providing that loop infrastructure. So now along with the entire infrastructure, the stormwater. Yeah, all of the stormwater, all of the municipal water mains and the sanitary sewer. OK, yeah, thanks for clarifying that on page 15. There's some of the comments that Cori line with DPW made, and I just wanted to go through these with him this afternoon. And I think we're we're on a consistent understanding. The zoning ordinance indicates that it should be designed for less than 30 miles an hour. We're designing for 25 mile an hour speed, provides appropriate site distances, the the K values where the vertical and curves are adequate. There's a little difference between the Ash toe, which is a national standard and the state standard. You know, looking at what happened, I think they rounded them. We we meet the Ash toe standard. The one of his comments that I think is based on the zoning ordinance, how it's worded warrants a little discussion is where Isabel circle carries through Isabel loop and they had the desire to make that a three percent grade through that. We're trying to follow closely the existing grade. And it's a T intersection. So I don't think from a good engineering practice. And I think he was on the same understanding as me that to tabletop that to come and try to keep from 20 feet, each side of that right away, carrying through the 50 foot Isabel circle. It'd be best to follow that through it since the T intersection. There is no through traffic. So I think it's a little challenging to get to the conclusion that the zoning ordinance allows Isabel circle to carry through at 10 percent. But I think that allowing that constant sight line, that constant grade through a T intersection is the best way to go about doing it and I believe he was understanding. But I think in the next couple of weeks, we can certainly firm that up with him in a written manner, but I would appreciate it if the board has any opinions on whether they'd want to see a tabletop intersection and kind of a deviation from the surrounding grade at this point. OK, I'm just going to ask because I don't know as I necessarily followed all that. Did you guys follow what he was just saying? Because I have to be able to understand it as well when I read everything. So so I'm what I'm getting from what you said and what I've understood from my spending a lot of time looking at the plans is you're talking about making sure that the grade is you're coming up. The Isabel circle stays with the with the road because the problem was how steep it was when Isabel loop intersected. But this is a T. So having this be a little steeper than you normally would at an intersection is not as big of a deal because the road doesn't continue this way. Is that what you're saying? That's correct. OK, versus trying to make this flat and this flat, right? That would be your tabletop. Correct. Flatten everything else. But then that makes some of the other grades steeper to then get up the hill that's already there. Right. So you can you can generally follow at a constant grade up the hill. But if you create a tabletop, you're suddenly basically burrowing into the side of that hill, and then the surrounding lots are are higher up than the roadway because you had to flatten it out as you go into that. It's a very low volume road. You have driveways on this. So the desire to try to match that up with the surrounding grade, I think, is probably paramount to having a very low volume road. So good you're showing us. Yeah, I mean, well, as much as any of us other than Jeff can understand what this is, but I definitely understand the difficulty. I have to admit, I went to curry. I was like, please tell me what the set of table. Can you explain the table to just imagine? You're intersection just being flat and I might not. Jen's probably like, well, it's not actually tabletop, because it's not up above it. But but a flat, you have all your grades around that intersection. But your intersection is flat. So you come in. You drive across it, other side of the intersection, then it goes up again. And and I think that intersection wants to be on not not flat or at 3 percent. It wants to be at 10 percent so that all of the roads coming in and out of that are at the grade. So they all flow together versus suddenly everybody having to. And especially because because the T and you don't have which I wish I could point better if you have which which. Which document we're drawing. Any of the plan views. Yeah, which interest. L. A. 100 is. The landscape architect sheet, but it shows it shows the grade. Yeah, so if you if you look at the zoom in on the intersection there. As you can see from left to right, all of those contours on the roadway are generally evenly spaced, right? You have a nice continuous grade there, as opposed to making it to the left of the intersection steep and then making it flat through the intersection where the contours are spaced further apart and then steepening them up again. You'd want to flatten that out through the intersection if the road from the bottom of the page passed through the roadway going left or right because you don't want to go car to go sideways. But it's the end of it's at the end of the road. The cars leaving the subdivision will turn to the right and follow that grade to the right. The cars coming down down the hill from left to right, that they're not generally making a turn to the right. It's a 10 percent. So if it's just like the low volume, it'd be safe if they would. If it does a high volume road and artillery road, you would want to flatten that out. You'd want to have vertical curves on each side, but it's it's a very low volume. Road. So I think that constant grade through there makes a lot of sense. All right, let's pause. Any thoughts or questions from the board? Thank you for answering the question. So just to clarify, within the Elizabeth Circle development into the new, we're talking about a similar grade all along there on both the circle and the transition from grade wise. So coming into the development into Isabel Circle and then right into that loop. That whole that this grade is. So here, this is 790, right? This is 780 here, 790 here, 800, 810 here, it's 800. So it's all this is going up and this is going up. That's and then it kind of levels out here for a while. Yes, there are about 810 for a while here. It's a little steeper here at the peak because it's just the way it the way though, that's why all the water tends to either flow this way or this way because of the way the grade is. But this is still much, much flatter and even than other parts. So, Peter, you said you can't hear the board member questions. We all have to make sure we speak more into the microphones and all of our microphones are on. OK, perfect. Thanks, Peter. We'll keep an eye on that. And any other questions from the board about this part? The Public Works Department hasn't their comments are pending. My understanding. Yeah, we've gotten some from Corey. So we're that's what we're addressing. And I think we'll need to follow up probably from DPW with Corey on the road. And then we still need stuff from DPW on water, sewer and storm water. These the current status is it looks like things are there aren't any major speed bumps from what I. Yeah, I mean, Corey had some little things that that Jeff suggested. And I think you you said you and Corey met today, so we'll get a written follow up after that. That's going to be a really important activity in order to get this, you know, understood in the larger the larger sense. To just something that occurred to me. I mean, maybe it's maybe it's in all the documentation. We had a lot of documentation. What are the potential number of of of units that could be built with this current configuration? Just actually 84, 84. That is if each of the based on the gross density of each lot, if that was built to the maximum gross density of that lot. Or the 31 develop expenses that now the project as as presented to us now does not have structures as part of that application. We're just looking at the land, the subdivision, the subdivision aspects of the land. So we want to keep in mind, however, that that that the project, though it is limited to the land development and and grading and so forth, is is just a prerequisite for obviously a housing development that that will fall. So that's that's my only comment. Thanks. Yeah, it does seem as I mean, we will want to wait to get the comments from DPW before we, you know, vote on this application. Certainly. And I guess the one reason I like the grade is the other comments, I feel they're pretty the outcome and the desires. Probably everyone would be on the same page. This one, I could see differences of opinion based on my conversation with Corey. I think he's, you know, as I work through the reason of this, make holding that grade through that intersection is probably the way they'll fall. So, you know, between the back and the fourth of the hearings, you know, I definitely would appreciate any board members opinions at this time so that I can bring those back to DPW and be like, well, there's there's members of the DRB that that. Yeah, is there anyone who has any concerns about the approach that he described? Be a 10 percent cross slope on the road intersecting. So Isabel Loop intersecting Isabel Circle, that's the that's what would happen at the end there. Once once the car reaches onto that road. So it'd be a two percent normally crowned road. And then as it ends, it transitions to match that cross grade. OK. Well, I just wanted to I know I just wanted to pause and make sure that we really were thorough. And if this was a sticking point, we wanted to make sure to get everyone's point of view. So I'm not hearing any kind of major qualms about the approach. So I think we can. Yeah, we can keep going. Yeah, and yeah, other other comments related to the city street lighting requirements and associated electric meter, which we will provide street lighting one light. And we have a photometric lighting plan showing a single light at each of the intersections. Yeah, I think there were very specific fixtures that the city had in mind versus the ones you gave a spec sheets for is all OK. So I think that was the point just to make sure that if the city, if it was going to end up being city street lights, they want them to be consistent with the other street lights that the city is currently installing. That's all it was the fixture type. So that can be something where that doesn't easy. Easy ask. Yeah, that's an easy ask. I think at this point, some of the comments transition to traffic and all that, Jen, speak to some of the traffic report and some of those. But why don't I just, you know, can I just give a brief overview of? Could you speak? Yeah, you might. You do might need a search side or you might need to lift the microphone up with the way the cable is and go behind the laptops. Sorry, musical chairs. OK, thank you. Yes. Happy to give a little bit of an overview on this. A part of the traffic study, we took a look at a couple of things. One is were there any deficiencies or concerns in the existing roadway network? And then we looked at what the impact of the proposed project would be. As you saw, if you looked through the traffic report, given the 25 mile an hour condition, there were a few locations that we identified that site lines were deficient for the most part. That was due by vegetation. So that certainly is an easy maintenance issue to clean up those vegetation issues. There was one location that caused us a concern, however. And I think probably everyone here is familiar with it, where there was a rock outcropping that really limits the site distance. And that is located. It's just east of Judson and at that location, and that's the graphic from the report. And there is yet a little bit of an issue on the inside of that curve. And one of the things that we were struck by is that also was a location where there's a break in the sidewalk and really that the continuity of the sidewalk and getting people to cross from where it breaks at Judson to cross over and have that sidewalk provided on the outside of that curve would be the safest place for pedestrians. So we just identified that disconnect of approximately 200 feet of sidewalk is really being something that would be important for the safety of the roadway. And then we took a look at really, as I said, the traffic impact of the proposed project. We collected traffic volume data during the summer. We did adjust that data to reflect VTrans standards. We followed their their steps for adjusting to a design hourly volume, which although it's not the highest hour of the year, it's a very conservative condition. In this case, we increased those volumes by 22 percent to reflect that design hourly volume. We counted just to get the kind of the most impactful or the highest volume location in this neighborhood at the intersection of Berlin in Hebert itself. So that's really where all everyone from the subdivision is coming out onto Berlin Street. So once we took that volume and we increased it up to that design hourly volume condition, we took a look at what the impact would be of the proposed subdivision. Now, as is currently envisioned at about 57 dwelling units, that is a range of between 45 and 60 peak hour trips. And as I tend to explain to people as they say, how is that possible? How is it that low in the peak hour? I may drive to work at that peak hour, but my husband might drive to work earlier than me and not be in the same hour as me. So although we're both leaving and the school bus might come and the mailman might come and there's a number of trips that come to the house, we aren't all happening during that same hour. And so the times of most intense activity are the morning commuter peak hour and the afternoon commuter peak hour. In the event that they reach the maximum density and that is built out at this location, we wanted to kind of do that worst case scenario. What could happen here? And that's a range of between 64 and 84 trips during the peak hour. Now, again, at a level of about 64 trips, that's one trip in a minute. So if you sat here with the timer and set up, there goes a car and waited for a full minute until you saw another car. That gives you an idea of what that level of impact of about 64 vehicles would be. We then took a look at if these vehicles were all added to that intersection that we've made into a conservative case. And we ran that level of service analysis and level of service is graded like a report card with a level of service A to F, A being excellent and F being failure. And when we look at a five year time horizon and again with these conservative factors, even the most dense development here still results in a level of service C condition at that intersection with less than 20 seconds of delay for the people that are pulling off of Hubert. And that's important because that is considered acceptable by the state of Vermont and by, you know, actually every state that I am aware of that is considered an acceptable operating condition. The increases of delay associated with the project itself, even at that most intense are only about three seconds per vehicle. So your experience of delay as you're trying to pull out on Hubert is only going to be about three seconds higher than it is currently. I think that gives you kind of the overview of the traffic study. If you have any specific questions, obviously, I'd be happy to answer I'll bring the slide with 200 people's sidewalk. Please speak out. Is that also part of the bike lane on that? I'm that I'm just referring to the disconnect in the sidewalk itself, not particularly about a bike lane connection. And and just to just going back to the staff report. So this is that gap is something that the Department of Public Works is aware of. And it's been on their master plan list. This was noted in the staff report and in Cori lines comments that remedying that gap is something that is on their master plan of projects that the BW has to do. They don't have a specific date for it filled in. But that is something that they know has to has to be done. And they were quite happy with adding if they hadn't been added already since the initial review of the report, making sure that those areas were mowed to push back the sight lines where that was a feasible option. And so those are the fixes that DPW could advance. Yeah, the sidewalk and vegetation. It was a rock outcropping that. But we're addressing the rock outcropping as far as pedestrian safety is concerned by providing that facility on the opposite side of the sidewalk. That's the side of the sidewalk. It does still limit the sight lines for motorists. But again, we were more concerned with that critical if I'm not walking my dog and I'm doing it in the street around that corner. There's a high risk to a pedestrian. Are the walkways on both sides or one side of the street? Which of the new or the existing existing does not have existing. There's not Isabel Circle, so Hebert has the two. And then once you get to Isabel Circle, that there weren't any. Yeah, it's just the single side that I'm proposing in this case. And what's the width of that sidewalk? I apologize that I don't remember that off the top of my head. I could take a take a look and see. I believe it's just standard sidewalks. So I would guess it would be five to six feet, but I don't know. Yeah. And then DPW will be reviewing that and sign off on it. Yes. So you're talking still about the new sidewalk. Yes. And the in the loop. Yeah. So that's Corey's taking a look at that. And for most of that stretch of sidewalk, five feet is fine. I'm trying to remember he said that at one of the things he raised wasn't an issue because you don't have sidewalk on the side where you're looking at potentially four units. It's all on the inside of the loop, but where I think there were. So he talked about maybe needing to widen it to eight feet, but that's for the higher driveway sandwich and there's no sidewalk there. So when that comment came up, but it's actually not an issue. The sidewalk is fine. Sidewalks five feet wide in all locations. His comment was related to the depth of the sidewalk. So is that the depth? Oh, my, I'm sorry. According to the trans standard, it's it's made thicker across commercial driveways. So they're considering a four unit home to have to be a commercial driveway and require it thicker. I missed that. OK, so any any additional questions from the board about the traffic study? All right, not hearing any. We can keep going. I think did we I feel like we covered most of the major issues in the staff report. But yeah, there are others that were missing. I'm just I'm scanning really quickly. OK. There's there's the question about maybe getting the board's thoughts on the question of having requiring at least two access points. So the applicant is requesting a waiver of that because of the site conditions. So that's talked about on pages 19 and 20. So that might be something that the applicant might like input. Yeah, let's let's let's talk about that. So tell us more about kind of your request for the waiver. So regarding the access and the slopes and the limited area that the project occupies, which is in the northwest corner of this parcel, access from a second point is not feasible practical. So additional roadway would need to be constructed that would significantly increase intensity of the development or impact additional forest possibly wetlands. So when you look at the scale of development and the ability to access this adequately through Isabel Circle, we feel that if there is no other feasible way to make this project work. Yeah, give me a second. I just it's faster for me to scroll if I'm not actually sharing because the files are so big too many things at once. So in other words, don't continue. The right. So yeah, no. So so here's going to be the extension of Isabel Circle, right? And to get back over to Hebert, would require going around the because this is city parkland here, so it would require going around that connecting through and getting over here or maybe somehow doing something down to here. All of and there's a lot of steep, steep stuff here and a lot of wetlands that are you can't see them here, but they're marked on other parts and regarding like to Hebert that I do not believe there's access like this parcel doesn't run on that road. So there's not even legal access on that side of the parcel. Right. Considering the 302 and route two and River Road connections down there, there's a lot of other parcels along there. And then additionally, even if you could get through those parcels, the zoning ordinance discourages connections to our two roads. So that's kind of the the the the paradox there related to the desire to not connect to state and our two roads. Yeah, because then this becomes a pass through for major lines of traffic so that you're really increasing the traffic on that connection between Hebert and Berlin Street, because you start having people using that as a shortcut. Parcel between 31 and 6 in between. That's the that the national public city. But I don't know if it's land trusted, but but but it's OK. I. But this here. Yeah, that's the city parcel. Twenty acres owned by the city. Yep. How many acres? It's 20. I think. Yeah, I think it's around 20. It's there's there's a few. There's a little question about there's been a couple of surveys. But yeah, it's it's owned by the city. It's a city park land. Catherine, do you have a question? Yeah, quick question. Earlier when talking about the missing sidewalk, there's some reference to the city's bike and pedmaster plan. And right now we're obviously talking about vehicular access. But can you confirm if there's any other pedestrian access or trail connectivity or any other way for people not in a car to get in and out of the site? Not in the park. There's a lot of meeting with the homeowners and talking to people. There's a lot of unmarked, self-maintained trails throughout there. So I can't say whether there's not, but it is used. The remainder of this parcel is used as recreation. So I don't know along three or two whether whether they can hike up into it. So you just to confirm that you basically can't really comment on that aside from the existing recreational use. OK, sounds like I mean, I can just say, and I'm sure some of the neighbors here know more than I do, but just going throughout this neighborhood. I mean, there's trails from where this road will be directly into the park. There's trails that continue along the backside of where the condos are in the unused part of the land. So if people needed to help it somehow, they certainly could do that. That's not part of the concept. Yeah, well, yeah. And there's no there's no like bike lanes going up Berlin Street there or anything like that. That hasn't been part of the. Well, along there connecting to Hebert, there's a marked bike lane on there up at that's at that part. There is OK. So I guess I guess I'm I miss that even though I drive up there all the way. But they don't have them connecting down the side streets. OK, so we talked about the two access points. Um, anything else that you want to highlight? Um, so one of the comments was to crown the road. We suspect we'll be able to modify the cross section to crown the road. And according to their desires, it does not alter where the stormwater flows to it generally has with the exception of the stormwater flowing off of the from the center line of the road, each each direction. All of the the runoff still goes to the same stormwater management practice. So that that change will not alter the stormwater management plan. One other it is a relatively minor comment, I think, but it seems like a little bit of wasted money was that the and I just wouldn't want to see it be a condition of approval to provide secondary or redundant. There are additional spare conduits for future telecom use. There will be conduits provided for the the phone and telecom and cable that will be initially solved as part of the project to add an additional conduit for who knows what the current state of directional drilling and the fiber optics. I feel that it'd be appropriate for should an additional telecom provider want to provide that they could without damaging very much infrastructure at all, provide that through directional drilling, which is basically drilling horizontally under driveways, typical boxes. OK. Thanks. Any any thoughts, concerns about that from the board? OK, that seems reasonable. Question about the the design speed of the new stretches of road, you said 25. OK, great. Thanks. The renewable energy and energy conservation section. The lots are laid out to take complement the existing tree cover, the topography, the neighborhood. Based on the modest development intensity, there is lots of opportunities for solar being that each building is not being individually planned at this time. It's hard to to speculate which way the roof lines are going to go, which way the long axis is going to go. So related to section 3508, I feel that this project definitely meets the intent of it. But we're unable to offer more specifics related to that. OK, thank you. Yeah, I think getting to the tail end here, I've not I don't see any other significant items to get to try to comment on address. There is a part here looking at page 25, passive recreation on parcel 32. I'm wondering if you could just talk more about that or if there's thoughts on kind of additional conditions on that parcel. I need to make sure I understand which one is 32. So this is the making sure that so what we said 400 square feet per dwelling unit of common recreational area. And so you've got enough in that commonly owned parcel that has the stormwater improvements on it to get your 400 square feet. But if it's not maintained in a way to let if it just goes up to brush around there, that's not really going to provide for the recreation, the walking paths, the place to walk your dog. So my proposed condition was to have the homeowners association responsible for keeping aspects of it mode or brush hogged to prevent growth of full woody vegetation. If that's going to count for part of your passive recreation, because you do have that, you also do have the the nearby city park. So yeah, I think we certainly I think we certainly can do that. I mean, my understanding is that those will need maintenance every so often. Anyway, right. So and and to to to mow or to clear the brush for the type of path that's being used and being that it's a home or an association, I think that is an appropriate condition. OK. Great. Sounds good. Single access point still needs to be signed off by WPW or fire to fire. Well, the so we had no there were no issues from the fire chief with this design. OK. There was no request to have an emergency access faster, especially because this does have the fire hydrants. And I'm just thinking now now when when when there's an EMS call out, there's two vehicles, one of them could be a ladder. Standard Vermont, like two by two, created inlet. And then on this well side, there would be driveway culverts and culverted into the drill in the drainage system. OK, thank you. We finished up before I could get to the right pitch. I just wanted to raise an issue on page 26 highlighted in the staff report to see a draft owners association documents prior to approval. It seems as if it's it's fine to have those just recorded in the subdivision plat. That's my view of it, but curious to hear other points of view from the board. But what's your what's your question? I'm just trying to provide clarity on this question specifically of the H&L. Of the well, the the H&A, yeah, yeah, yeah. Whether or not the board members want to see drafts of those documents or if they just feel comfortable having a requirement that they be filed with the subdivision plat. Yeah, I think that I think I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves. I think we should rely on that process to take its its natural force. I mean, they are pretty standard. Those those agreements, but the specifics of how it fits within this project is going to have its own variants. OK, I've read it premature to be looking at H&A when we're talking about subdivision. OK, just double checking. Michael, you can still hear us, right? You're all good. Yeah, you dropped out for about a minute and a half, but. OK, we we we we step back on that one. So awesome. Thanks. OK, Meredith, anything else that you that you think is worth drawing attention to here? I don't think so. I think we've hit all the high points where we need to make sure we had a little discussion, especially as long as the board is is OK with where I had made some suggestions and you guys can go back through that if you need to. OK, run up. Well, I think I think we're going to be relying a lot on the DPW process. I mean, this is all good. It's good to get perspective. But ultimately, it's DPW stamp that's going to really make the difference here. Yeah. OK, well, thank you for that thorough walkthrough. So I think what we'll do is we'll shift and take comments from anybody from the community who would like to to speak tonight. And so we'll we'll kind of go back and forth between room and Zoom. And I just ask that you really take no more than two minutes and come up to the microphone or raise your hand and come on up and state your name and just share your comments. We'll start the room. We'll start in the room. Yeah. Yeah, do try to remember to state your name and your address. And if you haven't signed in, make sure before you leave the room to sign in that way, we can make sure to send people copies of decisions and things like that. Tina Muncie and I live at 27 Hebert Road. And I I'm not sure where this falls in the line of consideration, but what I because it's really not their problem is that I want to point out to you that Hebert Road and Isabel Circle is not even wide enough for a centered lane for a line to be drawn down the center of the lane. And there are a good many children who get on the bus at the end of Isabel Circle on Hebert. There are no sidewalks. You've discussed the sidewalk, which doesn't even come around the corner on Hebert. It's interesting to me that the development has to put in a sidewalk. So now I'd like the city to consider two things. Given the number of people who would be now at the end of that street, it needs to be a wider street and for the children, it needs to have a sidewalk. I have a response to that. If you want, just let me know. Meredith, do you want to do a quick response to that? Yeah. So to Corey and line made some some a comment in here in his comments about the fact that he really doesn't have the information right now to talk about further extension of the sidewalk and exactly where existing Isabel Circle, especially where that will be bumped up in the like the road categories that they use for their master plan right now because the the measurement there is more the average daily trips. It's a little bit different. The city is is aware that this project will could change what the road typology is for all of Isabel Circle. And so I think reaching out to Department of Public Works directly and let them know that this is a concern of yours so that they can factor in trying to do do studies and see what the average daily traffic is now to be able to change how they view the street and whether whether it hits their trigger points to then ask City Council for that kind of of, you know, investment they would need to do additional work on on existing Isabel Circle is one of the things that because it's it's part of their requirement to relook at city streets and recategorize them as conditions change. It's a mix. So you're going to want to talk to DPW. It's not it's not something that I know a whole lot about. But it's there's there's different factors that move it through the different typologies to definitely reach out to DPW, though, and and let them that way they have in writing your concerns. They get concerns like that they can take it to to move forward with other requests that they have and adjust their plans accordingly. Thanks, Meredith, for that additional information. All right, we'll go to Zoom. Is there anybody on Zoom who would like to make a comment? You can use your raise hand button or turn on your camera and actually raise your physical hand if you can't find the raise hand button. OK, I'm not seeing anybody right now. Anybody else in the room would like to speak? Yes, come on up. We'll go to you next. Hi, I'm Trish Eden, a 29 Hebert Road next to. Our young lady there that was just here. And if you as you all realize coming down from or coming on from Berlin Street on to Hebert Road, you have to be so careful. Coming in is their cars coming up and lots of times there's not really enough room when you're trying to scoot around. Here's another car there and where the sidewalk is makes it a little bit more difficult and it is a snaky coming down and going through the whole thing ups and downs and snaking around. And what I have found is you have to be so careful at some of the particular areas where there's the turns and stuff because people are cutting corners. Instead of, you know, making up, you know, nice, gentle turn to the left. They're cutting right across and lo and behold, there you are facing another car on your side of the road. There's not enough room for two cars to really work in the winter. There is no surprise where you have the intersection of Hebert Road and Isabel Circle, where there will be a situation that it's icy on there and people coming around the corner or whichever go up and you better have either four wheel drive or you better have good winter tires. You'll start up and you'll slide back down back down to the end of Hebert Road dashing, trying to make it up over the hill back and forth and around. So it's a real stinker on that. And a few years ago, we did have a school bus that came down Hebert and was headed towards Isabel, went off the road because there were some issues with the road. And last week, we had a situation that there was we had a snowstorm and I happened to wake up early. No, it wasn't. Oh, what was it? Yeah, early in the day and, lo and behold, here the car had come down Hebert Road on to Isabel and their tires were not the greatest and they almost wiped out the fire hydrant. So nobody was around for it. I must thank Montpelier PD. I called down and said, we've got an abandoned car down here in the middle of a snow bank. And if the car comes down too fast, they're going to hit that car. And so, I mean, it's always it's it's a skinny road. And sometimes we have tractor trailers that have to deliver products and they come down Hebert, they go on to Isabel Circle. There's no real place for them to turn around. So if I'm there and we see there's a tractor trailer that's having a problem, I just my driveway is wide enough. So I just let them know, hey, back up into my driveway. And that way you can get back up on Hebert Road because you're not going to make it come and backing off Isabel Circle onto Hebert Road without going off either into bees backyard or front yard, whatever you want to call it. So I mean, there is a problem there. We do have a lot of students. And if there is this project development done, are we going to be providing busing from the corner up there all the way down to accommodate the other young people coming up? So I mean, even when the traffic study was done, I saw the person that was there and that was at the quiet time because we have so many cars that come down and think, oh, this is going to take us down to the very Montpelier Road. Guess what? You're screwed. So they go down the end of Hebert, turn around down Isabel Circle, back up and they are pissed. So I just want to see if something can be done and write the summers and stuff. Brian Hutchinson on Isabel has been wonderful in regards to mowing the public park there for the kids so they can go and play and fly their kites and do their bicycling and everything else. So if an HOA is going to be coordinated, they're going to have to be able to make sure that we have some facilities for recreation. Thank you very much. Thank you. Double checking Zoom, nobody on Zoom. OK, anybody else in the room? Acting Chair White and other members of the board. My name is Ivan Brown. My address is to Isabel Circle. The first page on the development application and the plant indicate that 31 lots are created. The package states that the application proposes individual lots for each home. It also states this development is expected to create 57 dwelling units. 57 dwelling units on 31 lots doesn't mean an individual lot for each home. It means multi dwelling unit parcel development or creation of unlanded parcels. The sketches for the Country Club Road site show multi dwelling unit development near the entrance of the site and trend towards single dwelling unit parcel development in the back. Similarly, some single dwelling unit landed parcels would be reasonable for the end of Isabel Circle, not 57. That's too many. Hebert Road infrastructure. Can't accommodate that for a number of reasons. It has a 16 to 19 percent slope on its approach to Berlin Street. It lacks sidewalk, not just between Judson Drive and 17 Hebert Road, but also between 21 Hebert Road and the eastern end of the right of way going out toward the park. If we had a sidewalk going that way, we would have connectivity for pedestrians through the park and to this development. And I'm not opposed to any development on this site. Whatsoever that would be unreasonable. I am opposed to this proposal. The subdivision plat on its own. Before we get into what is built on it is close to reasonable. But we are looking at a 70 page package here and that package is top heavy. It over burdens infrastructure and is adverse to neighborhood quality. I'm opposed. Thank you. Yes. Hey, how are you doing? Christopher Viersma for Isabel Circle. Sure. W I E R S E M A for Isabel Circle. Yeah, so here's the thing. This neighborhood, I live on Isabel Circle. I don't want to drive. I'm tired of driving. We all are aware of global climate change, right? So I want to walk and I don't walk downtown. I'm 36 years old and I should be walking downtown. I should be riding my bike downtown and I don't do it because District 3 is not pedestrian friendly whatsoever. You know, the city. We need to put some priority into making District 3 pedestrian friendly. That was a great question from Katherine about that. We heard that there was nothing in the plan to bring bikers, walkers up to this neighborhood. Berlin Street is terrifying. You know, I have two kids walking, biking down Berlin to get downtown. It's scary. So I just want to, you know, think about this as District 3, right? Think about this neighborhood as it's car dependent, right? Most of us are driving. We're talking about all these people moving to the end of the road and having to drive being dependent on cars, right? So that's what I'm saying. Sometimes I have to go downtown four times a day, right? That's a trip to work and back to the store. That's four trips. If we're all doing that, which I'm sure we are, you know, that's and then a hundred more cars. Anyway, I just want to bring that up. Just kind of think about that, right? This is Montpiller. And I think that we've articulated that that is a priority, right? So the other I just want to address the developers, Gabe, you know, Vermont College of Fine Arts has some buildings for sale. Excuse me, you should address your comments to the board. Oh, sure. So all right. Well, to the to the board for any developer interested in building housing and making some money, the Vermont College of Fine Arts is selling their buildings. There's some an idea right there. OK, thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from here in the room? Hi, I'm Rebecca Miracle and I live on 35 Hebert Road. And I just want to underscore the concerns of the traffic and kind of flabbergasted that someone would think that 60 cars and an hour is reasonable given the road that. She mentioned, well, either waiting time. But when you pull up from Hebert Road on a Berlin Street to the left, there's limited visibility to the right. You have good visibility, so you have to look to the left and then make sure you get plenty of room on the right and then get out quick before someone comes down from the left. And when you come down the road, there's a sharp turn to the right. And. I'm sorry, I think I'll come prepared next time, but I have an image of an accident I was in on that turn. It was in the winter and my daughter and I were driving up to come up Hebert Road and a car came down, could not stop or even slow down and ran right into us. And I don't see how 25 miles an hour is even possible on that road. And there's only one sidewalk on one side of the road and not on the other. It's very narrow, very narrow road. Again, not suitable for bikes. It's not safe. And that's just the first curve. And then after you make that sharp left curve, then you get to catch the next right curve. It's a very slow moving road with a lot of blind spots. And I can't imagine that many cars. Thank you. Thank you. Um, I hate to pause me because I've been wanting to talk, but we do actually have somebody on Zoom who wants to talk now. OK, we haven't had anybody on Zoom. So, Maury, Lynch, Maury. Yeah. Maury Lynch, Sixth Hebert Road. Again, just pretty much the same things that other neighbors have pointed out. One other thing I wanted to address with the traffic study that was done in the summertime is, you know, the additional the addition of, you know, potentially 75, you know, new new parcels or new structures. We would be talking also about 75 new homes that need fuel delivery or some sort of heating delivery and whatever other deliveries they need. And fuel trucks come into this neighborhood every single day, multiple times a day. And, you know, we all get our choice of what company we want. So it's not like there's a particular day that one company or another company comes in. So just that's an additional piece. Additional part of the traffic is not even accounted for by measuring traffic. And even with a 22 percent increase over the summer traffic, you'll have additional traffic in the winter. And I will also echo the concerns of narrow roads when it snows. And there's not really much to do about that. It hits nose here in Vermont. But, yeah. So thank you. Thank you very much. OK, we'll go back here in the room. I am Chris Ellingwood at Three Taplin Street. I have a question for the board and the question is, so I'm interested in the stormwater aspects of this. And I was thinking tonight there might be a larger discussion. But it's finding out DPW hasn't reviewed the stormwater aspects of it yet. And I wanted to ask what would that process look like going forward? And would there be an opportunity for public witness of that process or public input into it? Thank you. So, I mean, the Department of Public Works reviews the plans that have been submitted and then provides those comments to the board. So that's where the public aspect part comes in when those comments come in. And when when I get those, you know, they'll be added to the application file. So you can always check with me to see if they've come in before that, you know, and anything new that we get between now and what I'm assuming is going to be a continued hearing. We'll get posted in the packet that goes up for that next meeting, just like everything that I had by like Wednesday night, Thursday morning, got posted on the city website, but it'll also be in the planning department office as soon as I have stuff in writing from them. So thank you. Yeah, you're welcome. Any other comments from Zoom or here in the room? One from our applicant. Yes. Just a clarification. There's a question from the board member regarding the size of the, you know, reasonable parcel, and I just want to clarify that it's eight acres. I might have said a different number. OK, that the municipal parcels eight acres. OK. Thank you, Jeff. OK, any other final comments, questions from the board? I do have one question and Catherine had raised us earlier, but I'm wondering if as part of this design, you ever explored kind of other access points for a bike or pedestrian as part of the development of the parcel? Regarding the access, I think the intent was always to try to leave the remainder parcel to be recreated, how it was, which included mountain biking and walking. So we did not explore those specific routes that exist. And so I don't know whether they exist or not. And perhaps based on the board's comments, you may want us to go try and figure out what those existing routes are. So I think there was the intention, intentional not exploring that. We just kind of wanted to leave that remaining portion of the parcel as is, which seemed that everyone was happily using it for recreation and getting on to the property. OK, thank you. OK, so I think it feels like we're going to need to continue this one until we get the comments back from DPW. DPW and Alec Ellsworth from Parks Department and the Tree Board, the Tree Board Parks Department. OK, I also think that it would be useful to get some feedback on the there's a there's a biking pedestrian there's a there's a biking pedestrian plan, correct? Yeah, there's a pedestrian plan. So if you if the board would like more input from Corey on the details of that, I can put that request through the Department of Public Works. Yeah, and, you know, if if you want, I can if that works for the rest of the board, I'm very much in favor of that. OK, yeah. So get more more information on what the DPW bike and pedestrian plan and road typology has to say about this neighborhood and what the plans are and where things fit. Is that what you're asking for? OK. No, I have a timing question. The delay from DPW was due to people not being in the office. My understanding of illnesses and vacation previously scheduled vacation time and then, you know. So what's a reasonable period of time to? Oh, I mean, that's I think we could continue this to the next meeting date. So that'd be March 20th. I'm anticipating. I mean, they were hoping to get comments, you know, by this by tonight, from I know from Alec and from others, but it just happened. So it's just it's it's it's in process. It's impossible. Yeah, it's in process. So I definitely think that continuing it to the 20th would be doable to get that input. Oh, and Corey's been here the whole time. You always push back another. April, if that's the if we need another continuation. Yeah, if we needed to. But but I expect to get, I mean, Jeff met with Corey already today. Yeah. So I'm expecting that we should be able to get that information from them before the March 20th hearing. OK, so I will entertain a motion to continue the hearing till March 20th. Wait, who said who said what? Where's the original? Motion to make the motion. Thank you, Joe and Catherine, you can get the second. OK, all right. All in favor, say aye. Aye, aye. Great. OK. So for everybody attending, same time, same place, March 20th, there will be a different zoom link for anybody who attended via zoom that will get posted with the agenda for that March 20th meeting the week before the meeting. Or if you give us a few days, it should show up as well on our pending applications page. Feel free to just email me if you need direction to where that is on our website. OK, thanks. There is no other business for tonight, so I will take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. OK, Joe first made the motion. Catherine Alder than favor. Aye. OK. Yeah, good job.