 Charlie Elsa all right Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for Tuesday October 3rd 2017 The agenda is Is Available for those who would like to see copies there's also a sign-up sheet going around please make sure to sign the sign-up sheet otherwise, you're not here if the if the Item comes back up for further consideration. You need to be here in order to be a party to future deliberations Directions on emergency evacuations if there's an emergency you can either exit the way you came in or there are exit doors Right here and we'll meet in the south parking lot, which is right there And others will make go through the building and make sure everyone's okay Second item on the agenda additions deletions or changes in the order of agenda items does anyone have any additions deletions or changes Hearing none item number three comments and questions from the public Not related to the agenda. Does anyone have any comments or questions not related to the agenda? hearing none item number four announcements David Parsons has announced his Decision not to Seek reappointments. So that means he is still a member of the board until he resigns so He has a lot of things going on in his life and we wish him all the best So but we are looking for Another member as soon as we can find that so those of you who have an interest in the deliberations of this board Please consider applying for membership Any other announcements that I do that right Okay, good item number five continued preliminary and final application SD 17-18 of south village communities LLC for approval of phase 2 of Phase 3 Yes phase 3 of 334 planned unit development phase 3 is to consist of the following 22 single-family dwellings for two-family dwellings three Excuse me to three unit multi-family dwellings and to 12 unit multi-family dwellings at 1840 Spear Street Who is here for the applicant? I am Dave Marshall from civil engineering Associates Robin Jeffers from South Village communities in SD Ireland Patrick Lebrun from SD Ireland and South Village and Would you please raise your right hand and promise tell the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth under penalty of Fertury I didn't thank you very much and conflicts of interest this first time we've heard this Conflicts of interest mark none. We have mark. Yeah. Oh Still no video. He says bill no video. I should pay attention to texts No video To get the right 692759461 is the code. We just have to start it Okay, how's that mark have to share screen Sorry for the technical We know if it's on right the instructions are back in them Phone I can't should be green screen a webcast my guns. Yeah, he's joined the meeting No, you want to turn it on the screen and off the webcam So turn the screen on the one in the middle Got it. There we go. I think that's it. You don't have to push the pause button Should be okay How come we can't hear mark? Okay, well, we'll get the technicalities figured out in the meantime, would you walk us through the proposal, please? Very good. Again Dave Marshall We spent thank you for the continuance on this particular application We spent that time working with staff on a number of outstanding issues and out of all that Ultimately, it appears that we are very close in regards to at least staff's review of the position of the application Ultimately, there are still a couple of items that we would like to go over with the board But perhaps the best way to basically work through staff report and to come upon each item as appropriately Is to actually review the staff report and look for those magical red areas exactly so that being the background if you like we'll follow through starting at item number one and provide Guidance to the board on each one of those as far as the applicants position The other thing that we just wanted to point out is that they have a very hearty crowd here tonight I think from many of the comments that the board or staff has received so far that there are concerns with future Ideas on phase one and phase two of South Village a reminder to the board that this is part of phase three And that there will be a time in place for discussions on phase one and phase two But perhaps you may want to talk about phase one and phase two tonight. It's your time But phase three is what the application is about tonight So we'll leave that up to you for your discretion and out of all that we'll get back to item one Great So Marla we worked with Marla as recently as this morning on a couple of the items and Marla jump in whenever you like But nonetheless, we have no problem with item one in regards to ultimately a formal adoption of the single family home Waivers that had been provided on previous favorite phases the issue came up as to whether the duplex and the triplex buildings were considered to be part of the single family waivers and we had always practiced that as in the past but to formalize it There is a request that the waivers for single family homes also be adopted for duplex and triplex buildings So at this point in time, it appears the staff is supportive of that and we hope you are also Item two staff recommends that the board also adopt this condition for phase 3b And that is associated with Okay, so here there have been standard conditions at the board of the city has applied to many projects as it relates to proposed Development areas in the vicinity of wetlands We have proposed one very similar to this but except it basically adds in the extra components that if you remember back there is Portion the original South Village master plan included a restoration program and In that it has certain practices within wetland areas We wanted to basically make sure that the condition of approval Recognize that as well as the conditions that are set forth in the state wetland permit So to make sure there aren't any ambiguities between this statement and the other things that have been previously approved We just wanted to make sure that that language was adopted in in ultimately the final approval So we've shared that language with staff and at this point It appears to be Acceptable at the staff level anyhow exactly we have a letter from staff Outlining that that does that that modification of language is acceptable. Excellent. Very good item 3 talks about ultimately the applicants response to the fire department's comments on the application package the applicant did provide responses and it appears that the Assistant fire marshal has indicated that they are acceptable to the department. So we're all happy with that and As long as they're happy then then at least on the life safety issues. We have that nailed item for Working with the planning and zoning director or at least the staff has reviewed sidewalk issues with the Planning excuse me Department of Public Works director Justin Rob do and this may be an opportunity to bring up on Screen a site plan that at least shows that area. So we did have a hearty discussion previously in regards to the Concepts for sidewalks on both sides of the road and in this particular portion of the village This is a phase 3. This is on the far Western portion. There's a total of six lots three on each side of the road and We can zoom in on this one a little bit My we don't happen to have that sheet 2.01 On the center There we go 2.0 a up If you can go back No, you you you were very close 2.0 a Right there. There we go so What is part of the original approval for what we call phase 3a? That's basically from Chipman to the just a little bit past the proposed bridge now, it's an approved bridge For crossing this particular stream We are proposing three Single-family lots on either side of the road this is consistent with the original concepts in the master plan and There is a recreation path that is proposed to be constructed along What we'll call the south side of the road with north being straight up on this plan and the applicant has proposed a? sidewalk system that would service the three lots on the north side of the road and the reason we had done that is that there had been previous issues with appeals of Approvals of phase 2 in which we had started with much of that project with the sidewalks on only one side of the road and ultimately one of the Residents felt that it was inconsistent with the original concept set forth in phase one so that foods and sidewalks on both sides of the road so ultimately that project phase two was redesigned and Out of all that experience the applicant here Chose to move forward with a design that had those same amenities on both sides of the road in this particular case It happens the recreation path that that serves as a multi-use path on the south side and for this short section a Traditional sidewalk that would basically service these three homes and ultimately bring them to a mid-block crossing At this particular location and further out the last time we met with the board There was a discussion of perhaps extending the sidewalk all the way to What is ultimately called Douglas Street and the concept there being how to create a loop that would allow Public works to basically maintain both sides of the road One of the challenges that is located on the north side of the road is this archaeologically sensitive area, so Outside of and in one thing that the project has been consistent with is where there's been no homes Outside of the recreation path that we haven't put in sidewalks No home no need for sidewalk so that being background we created what ultimately was a maintenance loop We had always utilized To basically allow for Through this either in a clockwise or counterclockwise area. We basically terminated the sidewalk at Open and created a flush curb on the opposite side So similar to how they would they move across the streets at sidewalk or crosswalk locations We basically created the opportunity for them to come back to the main Clean main maintenance corridor on that side so we felt that that was in Keeping with the intent or concerns of public works Despite our narrative and this particular plan public works has still come back and said no We would prefer there not be something on that side. I can understand why But that being the background we still come back with the request for the board to consider The sidewalk on the north side of the road because of again the characteristics of South Village and what we're looking to maintain So that is our initial introduction or reintroduction of this issue to the board so Mike so I'd like to hear from the board on this It sounds and from staff it sounds as though the issue from the city side is we don't want to maintain the sidewalk Well, I appreciate the effort on a loop What the feedback I've gotten is that a loop isn't the way the city plows sidewalks they plow Block and the next block without coming back. So the loop doesn't really get us very much Because it's sort of you have to get to there and then you end up plowing something twice That that's the feedback I've had from DPW So for you it is a it is a consistency issue. It's a marketability issue To have this phase look like a Very successful phase one. Yes. No, it's also a safety issue Okay, so yeah, and that being that you'd have people coming out of their houses directly onto the street instead of to a sidewalk If not approved, these would be the only three lots in the entire development that do not have a sidewalk in front of their home This mark on now Okay, great. So board like to hear from you could these lots be maintained by the owners of the homes Sidewalks be made sidewalks. Yeah, so what John saying is these sidewalks by the north home lots We talked about that and the question was if there are other how was the city feel about The public I mean the private owner maintaining Something within the public right away. I mean in the olden days was done all the time I don't know what you're done. Yeah, I don't know how people look upon that now But if that's I mean we are fine with that, right, you know That's acceptable solution to the issue and as long as there aren't any legal components or roadblocks. No pun intended Then we would you know, that would be an acceptable solution in the big picture Can we ask staff to go back and check out with DPW? Great on to comment number five. Thank you very much so item 5 talks about detailing of pavement marking systems and I think at this point in time We would be acceptable to a condition that the final details be worked out with public works in regards to how all of the streets and and Safety markings are handled. We took a stab at it, but it looks like public works would like some additional Communications in that regard and that's acceptable to us prior to the issuance of any zoning permits for the project Moving on to item six This is discussion point is related to the original master plan approval condition 18 in which the applicant is required to pay to the city $20,000 in support of Intersection improvements or traffic calming improvements located within Dorset Farms and The applicant is obviously has always been understanding of that Preparation of approval proposed in staff report. We felt if we added a couple more words could ensure that Or help allay fears for the Dorset Farms Residents that this money will actually be fully allocated Towards those two purposes and that it doesn't go somewhere else So that's all we were looking to do is just add a couple of words to that particular component Otherwise, we're still obviously fully obligated to condition 18. This particular one helps you sent earlier on Note 6 didn't make it into the memo. So if you wanted to read those Oh, I'm sorry the comments that you made today today didn't make it into the memo. I got to the board. So if you wanted to Okay, so It's very simple in the fact that under the at the end of the second sentence a second line I should say it says the applicant shall make a we just changed the word a to the $20,000 payment to the city of South Burlington and then insert Associated with the master plan condition number 18 prior to the completion of the base course of asphalt paving on Midland Avenue So no changes thereafter. So all we're trying to do is just tie this particular payment back to condition 18 and we're good to go So item 7 talks about a number of design review standards and the recommendation that it be Adopted and included in the approval Anything in detail you want to add Robin on that? No, we're we're in agreement So item 8 the statement is the applicant is required to submit a building construction costs for the multifamily buildings to demonstrate Landscape budget compliance with table 13-9. We have no issue with that request item 9 let's talk a little bit more about master plan I'm gonna let you talk about that one. So if you can read that out loud Because the master plan has been amended so that the recreation path is now located along Midland Avenue And not along the southern most lots in phase 3 staff recommends the board modify the condition So the recreation path be constructed at the same time as Midland Avenue connection, which is required Market rate unit and be substantially complete at the closing of the 205th market rate unit Or six months which ever is later and we're in agreement with that condition So can we get an overall plan up on the screen if we may this will I identify item 10? this is a E-9 one address issue or conundrum that Marla worked hard to figure out a solution on Which one do we want to go for? Any of the lotting would work. We can go back to the one you just Had up there Keep going This is fine This is the big picture to orient you on this particular plan. This shows phase one It shows a portion of the Dorset Farms neighborhood This is phase two just for reference just off the plan And this is what we call Midland Avenue on the plans This is Midland Avenue actually as named within the Dorset Farms neighborhood and this is the wetland crossing that ultimately leads into the heart of phase 3b and we reviewed this portion earlier and one of the challenges of emergency responses is that if for example Prior to this road all being completed all the way through if a new an initial phase Calls for just these homes and the supporting roadway system and utilities to service this area and we've named this Midland consistent with ultimately the big picture and Emergency response comes out and comes from Dorset Street side and comes in and says holy Can't go that way roads not in place so One particular solution. This is called Chipman Street right here is just on a temporary basis to name this chipman Until ultimately Midland is built all the way across. We're hoping that there aren't any issues Because the plan is to build all the roadway all the way across As part of the initial phases of construction But if something falls apart in the middle there is as far as the Those buildings are required to have an address as soon as Good, so the condition of approval as written is acceptable to the applicant But would have an address that they would know would be a temporary address on Chipman Avenue Later, it's going to be middle of that. Okay Okay, thank you. We'll make sure we tell them ahead of time Yeah, can we give them Robin's number when You write that right in the condition Ray and I have already been through this one Moving to item 11 on page 17 Staff recommends that the board grant a waiver to reduce the minimum roadway width from 24 feet to 20 feet for the private roadways and The second sentence staff also recommends the board require the applicant to narrow the roadway to 18 feet at the wetland crossing So when we're looking up on the board, I made reference to the wetland crossing just west of Dorset Farms That particular area was designed as being 20 feet wide That's what we basically got all of our state wetland permits on but In reviewing the issue both with staff and public works All parties are acceptable to moving it to 18 feet Okay, so that deals with the what we call the alleys and the wet 20 foot width is consistent with what we used for alleys on phase one and Staff was correct in the fact that it was appropriate to formally seek that waiver from the board Okay, I'm 12. I'll let you work with Staff recommends the board adopt the South Village Community's design review standards as a condition of approval and we agree with that and that actually Reflects back to that early condition with the design standards that we submitted I'm gonna let you do item 13 Fired up The applicant has indicated that they are developing a proposal for the mix Which they plan to submit as a master plan amendment in the future staff and the applicant have discussed how to assure that Until and unless the applicant receives approval for a modification under a master plan amendment that the requirements of 18.0 to D Three are met staff and the applicant have agreed To recommend a condition in this phase three preliminary and final plat decisions settling a requirement for six affordable units in phase 3b with no more than four units in the multi-family dwellings Such a limit represents a proportionate number of affordable units in the 60 unit phase 3b When considered as a fraction of the total of a hundred and three hundred and thirty four developable units, and we agree Distribution in phase What is this 3b? Yes, what is what is the housing type rate down in space three because I thought when I looked at it, there's two multi-family buildings several Things and then several single-family lots We have not specified the units we came to the agreement that not more than four would be in the multi-family So that would make to either be in single-family or the town home style units Seem to be an equal distribution of units amongst the housing types There's three different housing type They should be distributed equally among three different The types of houses in that phase if we're not getting a full distribution or full presentation of what the affordable Proposal is going to be for the whole master plan if we're only getting 3b and we're agreeing to this, you know If there's I forgot how many units are in Phase 3b, but like I said, but I looked at it It looks like there's an equal number of multi-family building type dwellings townhouse dwellings and single-family lot And in my opinion, it should be sort of an equal distribution amongst those three housing types Not a disproportionate amount in the multi-family buildings. So Mark Dave Marshall here one thing that we Haven't shared with you was ultimately what the goals are for the entire three phases of the South Village project and When you actually look at it as a whole and then distribute both Geographically as well as by unit type What our goal is is to basically satisfy those particular components But staff wanted to make sure that at least there was a placeholder in phase 3 and that not the entire 60 units was developed as market rate so that we didn't come back and say oh gee We missed that opportunity and now we have to put everything in one place This is really got to keep in mind that the applicant hasn't has not exceeded the 269 units that are allowed without having to do with any affordability Yeah, it's only once we exceed that particular point that we have to show you show the board Some means of distribution it may turn out that we only go 10 units beyond the 269 and you've already got six More many more proportionate proportion wise than what's required So this was kind of a middle ground in regards to Something that the applicant lead technically didn't need to do but out of good faith chose to do In support of this particular discussion point So that's where the applicant has come from and we're hoping that the board would recognize Those background issues also But the whole issue of didn't need to propose this and operating in good faith Because you haven't hit the housing number There were what I was triggered distribution the reason the whole discussion last meeting was about Without the fact that it's it when you do have to distribute the affordable housing units They're supposed to be distributed equally Amongst three different phases and amongst the whatever all the different housing types so that there is an equal distribution So You know saying that you don't have to even really trigger this discussion We're telling us what you're where you're going to put them so you get the need for them It's a little disingenuous because the whole point of putting a plan in place Just to ensure that we don't end up with them lumped in one location in one housing type and the disproportionate number in a pipe and location So I guess I I'll defer to the agreement that you have with staff unless the rest of the board Feels way I do but to me it seems as though we're only going to be seeing this part of it It should be equally distributed in this part so that when you go to the other mess other phases You're not disproportionately trying to catch up And that's all I have to say other comments from the board. I think Mark has a good point So and it's in the spirit of what we discussed last time. So I Personally Personally would like to support Mark's I think it's valid if I Believe they're coming back for master plan relatively soon I think with with a little bit of language here we could we could Understand this is a placeholder until the master plan, but our expectations are still the same as they were before that there would be even distribution So I think there's middle ground. I think that's a good description job. It's a placeholder for them So we see the master plan with the understanding that eventually going to try to Absolutely, right, okay. I mean it's as much as we'd like to think that we're magicians It's not going to get finally permitted nor built and we'll have many more discussions before we even get to that particular point So at this point that that was the intent was to show good faith item 14 This talks about phasing and just a quick Reminder when you're doing a subdivision There is no time frame on when the single-family homes need to be built or Applicate or zoning permits applied for but when it comes to any other type of commercial building or multi-family building There is a requirement and what the intent of the note 14 was was to basically provide master plan timing opportunities where it creates a window of time in which the multi-family buildings can come in rather than the six-month standard Or perhaps what 12 months and outside of what was originally published in regards to the reference Location We're very appreciative of staff's support of that So Marla, do you want us to introduce the wording or the the modifications of the originally published Description of the location Yes So for this you're talking about a short-term bicycle parking. Oh, no, no, no, we haven't gotten there yet. We're still on 14 We don't have common clusters a and d so we wanted to Strike common clusters a and d and replace it with 12 flex buildings or phase 3, which is our 12 flex buildings So there's a there's a phasing plan in the application And the only place we have any buildings that would qualify for a master plan timing approaches those two multi two 12 flex buildings They happen to fall in phase three. So we were just hoping that that particular description of clusters a and d which May have come from another project. I've been guilty of that too Just gets corrected to reflect the two 12 12 12 flex buildings Okay, on the bicycle parking, I think we've had a lot of confusion it looks like staff read that We had submitted short-term parking to be in the parking garage When we submitted long-term parking to be in the parking garage Vertical parking on a lockable rack and that is shown on drawing I think it's a you want to pull up the supplemental that you sent today Was the last page in your packet Though in the packet in the back in that packet to you 52 Yeah, if you just keep there you go. That's good. That's it And then we also have access to the things you sent over today. Okay, so In that little purple balloon is the vertical storage is lockable storage For 12 bikes six on each rack For 12 units, so that meets the condition of the lockable safe from weather safe from being stolen I'm rephrasing Paraphrasing paraphrasing the requirement And in addition to that we build a storage locker for every unit and every unit will be conveyed Be simple from top to bottom so a unit owner will own their parking spaces and each parking space will have a covered Cage which provide secondary so we believe under the long-term storage that we're actually Doing double-duty and on the short-term storage. There will be two bike racks For a minimum of four bikes each on the surface And that's my fault in the fact that the plans that showed bike racks or proposed bike racks did not get properly submitted to staff as part of the package and We are subject to a requirement that they do submit Proper site plan showing just as Robin described To short-term bicycle racks with a minimum of four spaces each But you want to pull up the plan and the bike storage tab there with I think you already have it open Yeah, so that's the proposal for the two short-term. Is that correct? That's correct Okay, and then the next page has some details of So that was the revised calling those out as the long-term storage So the criteria reads Secure storage and bicycle locker bicycle storage room or private enclosure outside of private residence that protects entire bicycle Including components and accessories against theft and weather There's some additional criteria defining what secure storage is it requires locking Machability of front and rear wheels two points of contact with the frame Think there's a third one, but those are really the two salient ones so The staff's concern about this was that if you scroll down to the cut sheet of the proposed long-term storage yep right there those guys look like hooks Do they provide lockable store it lockable for front and rear wheel you can lock to the bar Front and rear or just the top just the front wheel or whichever is up I guess The top and bottom top and bottom so do we have a side view? That's part of the cut that would help us better understand that nope. That's a side view, but not the right one Go up. It's still on the sheet. Yeah, is there a second rail there? If we can add a second rail you can buy as many rails as you Did you want so I don't even see how it books Yeah, so status comment was that it wasn't clear to us whether the proposal met the criteria and not that it definitely didn't But that we didn't understand it We're happy to meet with you and pick a vertical Holder that that you're content with there's a description And then the alternative option would be if it's just hooks to provide it in a locked cage where Residents have you know a key code or a key or something to get into the cage and that's been successfully implemented elsewhere as well What's wrong with having individual? storage Which they provided the storage beneath the? Lockers doesn't meet the criteria of lockable the two points of your frame And doesn't meet the criteria supporting your earth doesn't meet the criteria of locking your front cage They were just open. Yeah, they were just open the bottom level the bottom. Yes Although that's an option also is to make those changed also absolutely So I think what I'm hearing is that we need to work out the details to staff's satisfaction And we'd be appreciative if that could come through as a condition in support of Making sure that we are fully compliant with the LDR is on this issue And I have one to add I don't know if you guys talked about it has to do with Stormwater So I'm going back to number Let me see the storm out of section page seven in the last sentence Number five says the DRV should include a condition requiring the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and Convey its infrastructure and I would just like to add until such time Or when it is taken over by the municipality So the association is not always on the hook How much questions by the board I think in my view staff their very last job over the second through the issues pertinent to phase three We understand that there are several concerns that neighbors have with phases two and one But those are not under consideration tonight We're only considering phase three. We're happy to hear comments, but if they're not related to phase three Please try to keep them short when we get to audience participation Um comments on phase three from the board comments questions, aren't you okay? Yeah, I'm okay. Okay That will open up to the audience, please comments on phase three Please identify yourself. Yeah, I live in phase one of South Village I have a couple of comments that perhaps can be answered by our presenters today or you could follow up and clarify out of further date, so the first item about the sidewalks Myself and several residents agree with what SC Ireland and the civil engineers summarize today That it's very important to homeowners that have a house that have a sidewalk in front of it What's not clear to me from the discussion the questions asked by the board is is the concern with plowing or is it? Archaeological sensitivity, I've heard both comments both in writing and in the discussion here So if we could clarify that As it relates to the sidewalks that are in the diagram I think I think had they been asked to move all the way to the corner I think it's perfectly valid to consider the archaeological as well, but Both are issues so I'd like to recommend that the board support the original proposal that there be a sidewalk that stretches in part of the three houses and Whether the plow does a circle or go straight it doesn't seem to matter. They're gonna plow I Guess I don't understand if it's just being cheap or if there's a logistical challenge with plowing that we're trying to avoid so It's leaving it up to the homeowners I don't think is a good resolution because that'll be very difficult to Pass along at a covenant and have enforced and I see that the challenges with the homeowners association trying to follow up on that For three houses out of potentially two hundred and sixty nine houses. So that's one comment second comment Lots 103 and 106 I Ask the board to please review the settlement agreement with Mr. Valley and with the city and with the developers to make sure that they comply with the No development in view it looks like they look a little big and that they cross over into the areas that the lot Turned supposed to go into it could be perhaps after measurement that all of the lot shifted to the left I don't know but they don't seem to match the map that's in the settlement agreement that the court approved As far as a police point out which ones are 103 and 16 They are so when you come around the curve with the three houses that are proposing have sidewalks That one and the one across of it 103 is on the top North and 104 is a cross from it and if you go back and look at the court documents You'll see a drawing and they cut those lots slightly So I just Asked that we make sure that as a city we comply with the court order and that the lot sizes are compliant That might affect other planning considerations if those have to be adjusted I am 13 in the placeholder The number of houses Response I Miss chair would you like us to respond to that to Can we go to she see 1.2 as part of the package it's at the beginning 1.2. Yes It's in the big packet right Yes, what's the page? Do you know how if you're going probably got a couple two more two or three more pages it's 28 There you go right there So You can see the superimposed on what you've been used to seeing putting aside all the contours And wetland hatching associated with the project You can see some gray hatching and that is basically Located along common property line with mr. Valley and heading out in the north and northwesterly direction This is what the court decree called for in regards to either no build zones as far as vertical Structures or whether it be limited build zones that represents these hatched areas In which the agreement the court decree called for the allowance of certain types of infrastructure That being the background stormwater ponds were considered to be one of those things that are acceptable again The original concept being wildlife corridor And and also visual obstructions so that being the background This is the original court decree superimposed on the plan. We've always designed around it and That being the background. We've worked very hard to ensure that the six lots fully complied with that particular requirement and likewise with the Proposed location of the two multifamily buildings that originally the original master plan had three in this location but ultimately the consent decree with court eliminated one of those and That's that's what we have today It's one of those things that might take taking a little bit of a closer look It looks like it cuts those lots a bit more than demonstrated on that map again There's no specific contour markings I just think that that's worth looking at to make sure that our city doesn't approve something that would be in violation of the court order So I'm assuming we've got surveyors Doing her job Yeah, and if you would like a copy of the court decree here before we leave be glad to Or if I could if you even wanted to look at it just pass it around you can you can see how it cuts the lots and how Okay, thank you very much. We'll take a look at it. Thank you for bringing it up Yeah, with regard to the comment by a board member about a placeholder on the development language like that worries me because it's open to interpretation and I would ask the board to please consider being more specific in your language for example, perhaps saying that SDR lead to proceed with their plan to build X number of whatever units or whatever, but that still does not relieve them from the responsibility of equally balancing the number of Homes throughout the whole development for the whole type. It allows them to proceed with their plan But it does not relieve them of their obligation to still meet that condition Yes, I think the condition that we proposed was was going to do that Staff and the applicant agreed to some words, right So the everyone's intent is to hold exactly to that, right and it may work out great. You have five years from now, but Like it the gentleman on the phone said It's hard to know how the numbers will actually map out because we would like to see the whole master plan But we don't have that right now last comment I'll make is with regard to the request by the applicant to apply the setback waivers to two and three person homes And I'd ask the staff to look at that again. The community is very dense right now There are a lot of people in a small amount of space and we're seeing some of those Issues that come from having a lot of people in small amount of space with increased traffic With people trying to cross the street and watching for children or dogs having a place to Go and use the restroom and being walked from working the kids play And when you start putting more than one family in a lot of the same amount of setback It just exacerbates those challenges. We have they're pretty extreme setbacks that have been approved for a single family And so something less than that for multi-home. I think is worth considering Yes My request to the board is the same request as I made to you last time I would urge you not to pass phase three until you have a chance to look at the development as a whole For two things one is I agree with the person on the forward mark I think it's very much. I think we need a comprehensive plan for the affordable housing so that we really know exactly where they're going which type of houses they're in because The plans for phase one and phase two are in flux just now. We know we're not allowed to talk about that supposedly But they're in flux There are a lot of problems of those and that's the second reason and really feel that potential problems of phase one and phase two should be looked at in the context of the full development and I think therefore you should hold up through the base three until you've seen the whole thing both the affordable housing complete plan for that and To see all the proposed changes Thank you very much The comments from the public. Yes, please identify yourself. Joanne son create just to follow up on stewards comments I'm in phase two and also very concerned about some of the changes that have come up specifically the multiplex units that are in a community that I I Question why they made these changes and how you can approve phase three Request without seeing the big picture and knowing what the changes are and how it's affecting the community Well take it. Thank you other comments questions from the public Yes, please identify yourself My name is Nick Andrews. I live in phase one Got some correspondence from me over I just want to be clear on what the developer is calling the condo unit condos imply ownership at this time there are no condo units in phases one two and Who knows whether it'll be in three. They are all apartments And by that you mean rentals rentals, you're correct and And so as part of this idea in phase three that some of those are going to become Affordable workforce houses or units They'd have to be a condo to be a workforce unit unless the city is uprooting to have some arrangement with rentals Being called workforce renters. I don't know any of that But if that isn't the case, then I think it developer needs to be held It's going to be a condo and it's a condo. It's a sale. It's not The government's question is from the public When you all sat down tonight, there was a packet. I just Know a few additional comments that were received by staff leaders after me one from Paul Brahma One from Nick who just spoke and then some additional signatures on this song trans letter Um other comments questions, we are going to continue this So other comments questions will there'll be more opportunities to come and Submit comments on this. So any more comments on this before we continue it What are we gonna continue to What are we gonna continue to what will be convenient for you guys? Is there any I guess the question is do we need to continue So it feels it feels to me as though there are So outstanding items that we need to go check on like with DPW and so on so As I was going through the comments, I was making mental notes and I hit a couple of trip points where I said There's no way we're not closing us tonight. So because there were things that we had to check you had to check So Sorry, the sidewalk the sidewalk issue landscaping budget Landscaping budget exactly right. Yes. So there were several several items that are eggs. No The landscaping budget was in the original application the landscaping budget was but the cost of the building Yeah, the two are related The application indicated that each one of the multiplex buildings cost one million dollars to build So anyways, it's a minor issue in regards to everything else. Okay, you may need a direct but it was brought up So we had to respond. Yeah, you may need to redirect me to that That's fine So there were several items that I wanted to hear more So I'm I'm I'm recommending the board may overrule me and say those clothes That is good for you to get all the data together that we need and good for staff to Typically we would need all the information from the applicant on the this Friday Right, so that we would have the information available for next Monday, which is the beginning of the next packet Right, so if you can have all the information by this Friday It's just the landscape Yep, as long as Justin is in town Research on the consent to be on assuming that we can do that I'm assuming that has been done, but we'll check it so We can see the changes that are taking place in phase one So that's a question open for the board. So we'll we're going to continue this. So we'll have another chance to consider that I'm not sure we have the authority to wait for that So we'll check with staff and see if we do or not, but We may not have the authority to wait on phase three for phase one and two to come back up and be considered So we'll be looking at that So you guys I would move that we continue preliminary final application SD 1718 of Southville's communities that we'll see to October 17 Thank you for your time Continued sketch out sketch plan application SD 17-20 of JJ J south The amendment is to phase two cider milk two of the project and consists of increasing 154 units will consist of 70 single family lots three years Paul alluring with a lary Burke civil associates Brian courier a lary Burke civil associates Brad do you switch with JJ J? So we can continue our conversations. Thank you very much appreciate it So it's a sketch plan so no need to swear you in and if you'll walk You have submitted a revised plan and we have received the legal opinion from our city attorney, so if we want to review that That'll be good and then next steps. You are still going to be with a couple of committees, right? Correct, right? And so you have submitted a revised Site plan In my mind tiny though it is I don't think it makes a lot of sense to look in detail at that Because you're going to have some changes after the couple of committees you're going to talk to I'm assuming that's the whole point I'm talking to committees We don't expect there's going to be any changes after we see the committees the bike Committee we met with the recreation committee once before and follow their recommendations the national resources committee We've never met with but Wouldn't expect our plan to change much just to clarify the bike committee is different from the rec committee. I Think it was a rec committee then we met with yes, that's correct So let's if we could just read into the record or read on to the Into the TV programming the legal opinions The does the developer review board have the authority To recommend the applicant include in its development a plan to construct a portion of cider mill drive It was currently Unconstructed in the city's right of way and the city attorney's response is yes Recommendation condition would have a clear nexus the project as it could alleviate traffic impacts, etc so So it looks to it looks to us as though we do have the authority to request require That there'll be a connection between those two parts of Southern Hill Road Can I comment on that before you move on sure? We agree with the opinion however You have to be able to show that both connections are warranted in other words both connections are needed in order for I Believe to you require us to build a second connection For instance if there was so much traffic that you needed the second cider mill connection to alleviate a traffic concern Then clearly the city would have a clear nexus to inquire us to build it similarly as if there was an off-site Traffic improvement and you showed that we were lowering the level of service that at that intersection then you could require us to Perform whatever was needed that intersection in our view. This is the same So unless there's a traffic study is something that shows that yes without the cider mill connection it's going to create an Unwarranted level of traffic on wine sap or another road then then we're not so sure that That that would stand up so it would require a traffic study Correct and the traffic study would have to show that both connections are needed to alleviate a traffic concern The board could Invoke technical review and request a traffic study on that very issue And then you guys have indicated that you have a traffic study complete to your plan and submitting this Will address that in traffic study Would you be willing to submit it before preliminary? I'm very Well Honestly, we are hoping we were going to move to preliminary after tonight But yes, we have a traffic study done. It hasn't looked at this particular issue We have looked at the you know the normal intersections that you would that you would look at the Heinsberg Road Cheese Factory Road the ones that came up the first time Yeah, yeah, so it so it looks to us as though This is an important set of intersections to consider Next any more comments on that? No Next do we have the authority to recommend that the applicant includes development plan to extend a rec path and The answer is yes, some analysis is above The essential nexus is less obvious but enough to recommend particularly So there you go less obvious but enough to recommend number three Do we have the authority to? recommend You include a plan to provide more open space and the answer is no because the applicant could successfully object that he But it has no ability to obtain the site control necessary to satisfy this condition as proposed so that are those are the three legal responses to the questions we asked and and Comments question from the board Yeah, the question on the first item. Yeah, the issue of whether or not we have the authority To require is that are we talking about here the connection? I don't have the plan Sider mill drive in summer The connection I think it's out of the lane The thermal drive in summer field Sider mill drive to summer field is it saying we only have you know the authority unless a traffic study says that it's required There needs to be a clear nexus and that's where that information could be obtained or not So that's where we're going to wait for the applicants study that they just indicated they were going to address and then the board could review that and Invoke technical review if they want to have an independent review of that particular traffic study and that aspect of the connection What are the criteria that we would be looking for or the traffic study would have to show so They're not the connection between Well, I'm sad and summer field on Sider mill drive is required or you know What if what is it that we're looking for the traffic sense going to show a need for that connection it would show the traffic study would show that the Absence of a connection creates adverse impacts on Wine sap and summer field without that connection being made Okay, and that would be an adequate nexus is the legal opinion says that would be adequate nexus to require What's the threshold, you know, because obviously, you know, we have levels of service that we accept that sometimes, you know, is it is there an actual Define the whole number or You know limit that we're looking for or is it just saying yes if we were to if they built that connection It would make traffic better. I mean, what is the quantifiable, you know threshold, I don't know that a traffic study typically or that that would typically be a quantifiable it would be a What the board determines to be an appreciable impact? I think that would be where the board's discretion would lie Okay, and the impact needs to be weighed against the additional impervious surface that you're creating the additional impact to the wetland and The additional impact to the corridor that the board worked hard to widen in past approvals Yeah, right, but which I think that I think that the natural resources meeting will be crucial in that issue given some of the anecdotal testimony we received that that You know open space while that corridor is pretty much not really used because you know, it's just an open field There's no outbreaks. There's no, you know, so I'd be curious to see that the that meeting was also other comments and questions We appreciate the adjustments you've made It looks as though the site plan Does have a problem that staff raised in that the Dead end Street, thank you for that industry. Yes It's Aurora Is kind of It's well kind of it's definitely longer than 200 feet, which is the longest permissible number for a dead-end Street So before you had a loop and so it was nice that you kind of solved the problem by Back to a dead-end street for now dead-end Street is slightly longer than we can certainly address that kind of the length kind of depends on whether you count the turnaround or not and so we'll We can certainly make adjustments. We can we can put the last couple units on a private drive That's that's a fairly minor minor thing as you mentioned there in the goal where there was to create a Larger open space that we had before which which we've done by eliminating those units I think it's an improvement, you know, I think you're I think your loop before We all wondered, you know, how does that really work or how is it effective and it obviously was effective to get the To not make it a dead-end Street, but I think I think you've got a different problem. You're right though It could be it could be a small private lane. Yes But I think you're measuring close to 350 or 400 feet based on your on your scale so You may have a little bit of cutting to do other comments Go ahead. Thank you. Can you talk about the the rec path and its connection from Russet Road, yeah This one right here Jennifer So what we're proposing now in the existing approval, you know, we're building a multi-use path Down NATO Crest Drive as far as this intersection and that's where it ends and the rest of the project just as conventional 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk and at the last meeting we talked about, you know, the desire to maybe Extend that path a little bit further. So what we're proposing now is to Continue that multi-use path across to this green strip will we come back for preliminary We'll probably propose a split rail fence or something on both sides to kind of They make it feel like you're not going in the back here out of the condos but then the path continues down it follows the road Down through and then we're proposing to make this connection across to this existing Path easement that comes off the end of summer field and and here we're gonna We're gonna cross some wetlands. We're gonna cross some wetland buffers We have talked to the Mont State wetland folks that they will allow that as long as it's done as a boardwalk. So what we would What we would probably recommending is that, you know places where, you know, it's gonna be about a hundred and fifty foot Strip that's gonna be a 5-foot wide boardwalk. So we probably recommend that we sign that that You know that bicyclists dismount and walk across the boardwalk to get the other side But it will it will provide a connection all the way across We expect that preliminary when we come back We will probably show that we'll actually construct this portion of the path also so that you'll have a Multi-use path that goes From side of middle one, you know all the way through and makes a connection all the way out to Heinzberg Road So that's our current proposal keeping in mind our current approval That we are fully permitted You know, there is no there is no connections and the path just ends at the intersection Boardwalk would be similar to the end of Tilly Drive That I don't know if you're aware No, I know that there's a current boardwalk on the same little one Yeah, I don't know how wide the Tilly Drive one is but the wetlands folks are trying to limit it to four to five feet in In width, so there's a boardwalk right here That's right. That was a little wider. I think that's eight feet. And so they don't they don't want to go that wide anymore or their standard Specifications But that's all right, you know, if you got the boardwalk across there to have to dismount and walk your bicycle for a hundred one hundred and fifty feet Doesn't seem like too much of a burden to me My cyclists currently dismount at that My kids don't Well a mountain bike as I used to riding across a bridge this wide, you know, so five feet seems pretty spacious to them But I have been in other communities where they will you come to a boardwalk like that They have a lot of signage and they ask you to dismount and and walk your bike. So it's not an unusual thing Yeah, is I mean such a straight line. Is that intentional or is that place marker? It's a place marker now I mean basically we'll we'll have to adjust it in the field to To minimize the amount of boardwalk we have and minimize the impact on the wetland We basically wanted to show that we're going to try to go as direct as possible, you know across that space Well, those are the questions I had On this topic, I know that You've got several people here who want to want to raise more questions and and I understand that you guys expect that You won't have any more changes But you know, we do want to listen and be respectful to the needs of other committees and so on so Other questions comments from the board before you open up to the public Okay Questions or comments on this plan, please identify yourself Karen Cabino Regarding the cider mill extension and other concern in addition to the traffic study that I would have is faster fire and police emergency response from Dorset Street through the development if Citermill Rose is extended Without a cider mill extension your police in fire would have to either take Crispin Royal or wine sap in order to get over into the summer field area So there's one concern public safety Another one I had I I went today and I checked out the number of Basketball hoops we have on our side streets in Crispin Royal wine sap and praper and we had 20 of them at the bottom of Driveways in there So there I wanted to point out that there is indeed a considerable amount of children that are playing in the streets in Citermill one and without a traffic study, which I can see the merit of that Having I'm a resident of wine sap. I don't know if you can pull that up a little bit But currently we seem to get a tremendous amount of traffic that goes over Citermill road Down wine sap, which is that little curve there and then they make a left onto Braeburn to get into summer field that seems to be a very popular route for People that need to get to summer field and if I'm calculating this right when we talk about 154 units when we say 54 duplex should I interpret that as being a hundred and eight Individual families because the duplex is two and fifty four times two was 108. Is that the proper interpretation or not? No units means Residents it means residents. Okay. Thank you for that Claire So again without a traffic study, I can't for certain say that wine saps take in a beating with the current traffic But if indeed it is you can see where my concern would be when we had a hundred and fifty four additional units Thank you I'm Dorothy and are and I live on summer field and I'm one of the co-signatures the letter that was submitted We are grateful that the developers agreed to talk with natural resources and But I'm hearing sort of like, you know, it's a done deal kind of thing I hope that there will be an open mind about meeting with them Because of the the wildfire Hell life corridor. I'm a planner. I'm a preservation planner, but I do keep up with other aspects of planning And the whole thing about open space is is been studied and it's shown that it unless it's Coordinated and making sense for as far as the corridors are concerned And I've noticed in our side or mill one a lot of encroachment on that wetland Area by animals pets kids And it's getting narrow and narrow as the houses are being built and the fill is going in there And then to top it off at the fields We're caught right in the middle of summer so that you actually just have basically ugly with grass it's not really an open space in the terms of wildlife and nesting areas Pollinators and that sort of thing you're basically So it's the question is what is an open space and what is an adequate corridor? The corridor that we're talking about goes to an important Cypher animals, which is the Shelburne pond. I just flew from Michigan Home and you can see that corridor so clearly and how important it is it is already been kind of narrowed obviously from solar arrays, although in the psb request The town city of South Burlington asked for no fencing to allow for animals to walk through now. We're kind of making a wall Question is can we make that corridor still usable and still keep it while let it go back wild and also let the Open spaces be truly open spaces just allowing the nature of Plants and sort of thing is in the summer to grow while the animals need it for nutrition You know maybe take it down in the fall, but make true open space and an adequate for for the wildlife so Again, you know open space isn't just a space that's not built on It's not a park for a while Like it's any any road that makes it a difficult to cross over We have to be you know We're trying to say we're going to do something by having open space just by going for a percentage Doesn't do it Percentage. Yeah, that's a first step. It doesn't make sense. Are we doing the patchwork? Open space which has been written about a lot lately that we're really got to start thinking about whether it makes sense so The suggestion we had in our letter, of course was to take some of those units in A way that makes a true corridor and just let it go wild in the way It's supposed to be and the animals that we already see there And the birds that we already see nesting can continue to be there and really truly make an open space And and and protect our natural resources So I Asked that the developers keep an open mind when they speak with natural resources tomorrow about that I think it's a selling point actually for the community and for those neighborhoods to have that kind of wildlife I was really I came from Shelburne. I was really impressed by How many animals and birds and sort of things that I didn't expect to see when I moved into more of suburban area So and then understanding that corridor is very important also just the you know, I understand about connectivity For the roads and it seems like the path connectivity is is being worked out nicely Perhaps I don't know if this has been discussed at the last meeting. I wasn't here but that just a narrowing of that road that connects the neighborhoods a little bit to calm the the Traffic coming through might help and Also may encourage people to not necessarily use it as a cut-through if they're not living in the two neighborhoods some kind of just you know Common narrowing of that road Right exactly it's it's much more it's it from the original when we bought we saw the original It was a little more, you know curved and a little more Less usable sort of thing for free for people. This is straightening it up a little bit making it a little more Easier to go through And again, there are a lot of children who live on Somerville too So that we're going to be seeing even if you put in that extra row We're going to be seeing a lot of people making that as a cut-through Make it a little less desirable for people who don't live in the neighborhoods to use it is what I would Thank you Yes, please do it by yourself Jack Darlene. I love on wine sec as well I do want to reiterate what Karen and said the kids are playing in the road basketball Some of those kids are mine It is a very sloped road very sloped driveways the balls to sensitively get away from them Because you're not playing on flat surfaces. There's really no open space for the kids to play in Which I understand is not there, you know, not their issue But it seems to me that if you're going to put a connection road into into phase one I don't really see where narrowing is going to do anything other than slowing down in the spot where there's no houses They're going to try to make that time up when they get into more open roads Which means they go faster down Braver and they always take wine set And we had a car come around the corner just the other day and they haven't even built that development It's about on two wheels and there was two young kids in the road So we're already seeing issues without even phase two being built I Guess if they're worried about the wire like corridor then the connection shouldn't be made between one and two Because that's really where the quarter to me really needs to be and where I think you've shown that it should be Then that eastern-western connection shouldn't be made it seems to me that Siner Mill Road isn't being extended because of the cost There's really no while left going through that section right there. I've lived there long enough to watch it That road is going to be built anyways when the next development comes through So from my standpoint, I think that that needs to be made if they want to make an eastern-western connection Okay So we we do want to hear from you again So natural resources comments into our preliminary and final plan application You'd like to come back to us when you're ready for plenary and final and not come back as sketch correct Yeah, I'm Laura De Moroni When I was here that the last meeting there was some discussion as to whether Phase one and two could be separated in terms of the original Agreements, I don't know if you mentioned that and if you did I apologize I didn't hear it but was that decided on whether these are two separate items or can be determined So we read the three questions that we had about that what the first was on the connection of Siner Mill Road Second was the rec path and the third was more open space and the answer to the answer number one The connection of the road was yes, definitely because the city will take ownership of the road and that creates nexus The answer to the second one the rec path was yes, probably Yes, maybe Because there's a similar nexus the answer to the third more open space was no Because the city is not going to own those properties and therefore it won't have site control and can't create nexus so Yes, there were those three answers I'm sorry, but it wasn't clear when I Put them up. Well, I guess I'm still not sure then does that mean that they are considered two separate Developments or they're all I'm not sure what those answers are indicating So they indicate that for three different purposes. There are three different answers for the purpose of the road The road connecting the road Siner Mill Road Drive for that purpose. It is one It is one development for the rec path for the rec path purpose it is Maybe one development that these guys are already going to take care of it with that connection to the The third issue on more open space. It is not so there's the answer is different for each of the three questions That makes sense. It does but so what what's the follow-up to that then in terms of what these gentlemen So follow-up of that is that there's gonna be a traffic study We're gonna they are not traffic study, but it sounds like the traffic study did not look at Continuing cyber mill drive and find correct if I missed that You're correct. Yeah, okay, so we're probably gonna we're probably gonna say go back and look at it So that's the response on the side of the drive on the right path. They've solved that And the open space There isn't I mean we can't ask them to do that because there's no message So those are the three to do these on those three items Okay, thank you. Yeah other comments questions Yeah Regarding the traffic study what aspects would be studied all traffic in order to determine whether Cytermill extension should be built. What will be looked at? I Know what I would look at but these guys are more expert than I am So, I mean if I were I would look at the number of people that go squealing by You know that look that take alternate paths now alternate routes now Yeah, so a traffic study we consider the impacts on traffic at the intersections and roads studied of both the additional dwelling units and Additional trips that would come in that would be passed through trips. So take a look at both of those things Have anything You know, we expect the traffic study will show increases on similar roads inside a mill one It'll also also show decreases on some of the roads inside of no one That's it winds out So basically some are feelably taking the traffic that the through traffic Yes, I'm going to get the wine sap traffic everything Oh, the traffic study will clarify how much traffic, you know, if it's going to be a negligible increase Or if it's going to be you know 25 to 50 percent increase it'll Provide it'll specifically Some of the summer field residents might go out through Heinsberg Road rather than going through Braverne and winds up But we don't know we that's why we hire experts to determine what they what their best judgment is or Estimates are Okay, well, I want to know who's gonna find something. I'm Susan. I'm a bloody neighbor to this It's going on there And I wonder who's in the city is going to do a traffic study for us for the residents It's the city responsible to Clear on the question. Why is not South Burlington also doing traffic study? instead of letting these people perhaps pull the wool over everybody's eyes the Board has the option to request an independent technical review of the traffic study if they feel that Applicant is indeed trying to pull the wool over our eyes And the board has exercised that authority in the past that's not an uncommon occurrence Yes, I live in 1625 Heinsberg Road And maybe it's premature to recommend this but I would recommend to look at two exit coming out of nato press drive because otherwise that's going to create a backup of traffic and It's just something I think the board should consider in your review and I've already talked to Brad and his engineers about that Could you clarify that to to exit coming out of nato press drive on to Heinsberg Road to lane That'd be a left turn and a right turn And that hopefully would discourage people from heading towards that side of mill one if they can get on to the highway easier I think that's going to make it better He's to get out. I'm sorry. It's easier to get out of a lot of traffic Obviously there's a lot of traffic especially commuter time at 8 o'clock in the morning 7 30 8 o'clock traveling north on 116 people That's going to conflict with some of that traffic right turn to head towards cheese factory road They'd be able to do that if they have a designated right turn lane Otherwise they're going to be staged behind all the cars trying to turn left Yeah, so it would encourage more people to utilize cheese factory road go down Dorsey Street Take that Any of the traffic that's leaving Cider mill one or two that is going to or from the school same Right. Yeah, school traffic would take Dorsey. Yeah, right. And so that would include not only just the buses But families taking their kids are picking them up in a lot of sports and after school Okay, yes, please. I did forget one thing Jack Rowling didn't from line set The school buses currently have a hard time with Somerville They have to go around and try to do a three-point turn at the end of that dead end because they don't go around the loop because it wasn't sufficient housing there at the time and Sometimes the residents park in those spots and makes it very difficult. Some of the bus has to go Reverse all the way back So there is a little bit of a safety issue with the buses as well That's something that even If you wanted to provide a little more information to me by phone That's something that we can look into it as an enforcement issue. Okay Other comments questions Okay. Thank you very much. I guess we'll see you Inflammating plant and we'll you'll incorporate in comments changes from natural resources committee and All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Take care Agenda minutes In the fourth paragraph Looks like there's a mr. Yeah, otherwise I thought the minutes reflect Back Corrections or comments on the minutes Yeah, I I'm Just don't know I've read it three times and I can't tell if I just misunderstand it But the access from Heinsberg road has to be installed before more than 50 units are built That means I think it says what I think it says but That's page Page three what I what I know it it's supposed to what I know what it what it means is that they build the Access to Heinsberg Road first and that after the 50th unit is built Then you make the connection from into cider mill one and I think that's what's conveyed in there But I wasn't 100% sure what I read it. Does that make sense? The access from Heinsberg has to be installed before more than 50 units are built Yeah, if it's almost it's clear that we're building the Heinsberg road access first And then and then the cider mill to Summerfield access second after Finn say well it said in the minutes that you're approving The Summerfield connection before the Heinsberg connection Right, we're not proving anything, but that's not in the plan But we want to clarify that That the the initial connection for the first 49 units will be from Heinsberg road And that after 50 units are built then there's an additional connection from Aurora to Summerfield could you change the word Heinsberg road to Summerfield? I think we should spell out the whole thing that Matt just said I just think that's important to know. So clarify the initial connection for 40 and just saying it back to you. Initial connection 49 units for the first 49 units will be from Heinsberg road after 50 units are built there will be an additional connection Built to Summerfield road. Right. Just so it's crystal clear. Sorry to be a nitpicker It's important. Appreciate it. Any other changes or comments on the minutes? Yeah Yeah, right, okay Other comments or questions on the minutes corrections We approve the minutes from September 19th It's been moving secondly to prove these minutes all in favor say aye. Aye post Thank you very much, and that is the end at 842 The development review board force October 3rd. Thank you very much. Take care