 Okay, sounds good Yeah, we are all here. It's amazing Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board Charlie already for me. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to go for Tuesday October 16th 2018 first time on the agenda directions on emergency evacuations if there's an emergency we'll just You can either go back out the door you came in But we should all meet in the parking lot behind me here You can also go out through these doors which will obviously be much quicker to get there But we should meet in the in the parking lot behind us if there's an emergency to make sure that one's safe Additions deletions or changes in the order of agenda items. Does anyone have any of this? There's only couple Have any changes? Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda items We don't have any comments or questions not related to the agenda none announcements. Do we have any announcements? Mark better is here Huge huge events. That's right. It is a wonderful part Reorganization we need to elect a new chair a new vice chair a new clerk. I'll turn the meeting over to Marnekeen May I just say we don't have to elect a new chair There are no term limits Let's try So for the next five minutes, we do not have a chair. So I will be running the meeting So we And so that's prevent conflicts with the chair presiding over the chair election So first off, I'm going to invite nominations Then we'll hear nominations If people And then we will ask the people who have been nominated whether they accept the nomination if there's more than one nominee We'll ask each nominee to Give a sentence or two about or however much you want about why they're interested in the position Then we will see if the public has anything to add and then we will vote We can either do them Individually chair vice chair and clerk or we can do them all together Okay, I nominate Bill Miller for chair That coda is vice chair and Jennifer Smith. No Ah Well, I'm the newest guy if that if that's the default Fine and Sullivan is clear, but I haven't been the clerk up till now just for the record I second all those nominations Do And is third in line if the chair and vice chair are not here Any other nominations, okay hearing none Any discussion anyone like to discuss the nominees they all did a good job, and I'm sure Brian will be excellent I have only one comment which is Bill could learn from Matt about how to get the get this thing going even faster Any members of the public like to comment on the nominations Okay, hearing none Everyone comfortable with an open vote. We don't need to write it down So I'm gonna run them all at once bill Miller for chair Matt coda for vice chair and Brian Sullivan for clerk All in favor say aye. Hi all opposed And any abstentions? Okay, great. Thank you Everyone's bill I can take over now that you are chair again Do it please? entertain a motion to set regular dates and times and possibly done first and third Tuesdays and then the Recess date is the first meeting in August. It looks like there are no conflicts with 4th of July or Passover or rush to trauma this year Great, I'd like the way it is and prefer to keep it keep it like that. Thank you I Keep the schedule as is on favor say aye. Aye opposed abstain No, okay So back to work Continue one more business on that Meeting dates January 1st is a Tuesday We can skip it or we can do a makeup I would suggest we make a call on whether to do a makeup at The first meeting in December great and then the makeup we would suggest January 29th because it's a 5th Tuesday, so there's no conflict with anything else Okay, so we'll put table that for now and bring it up again in December. Great Okay Number item number six in the agenda continued final application. Is this actually continued final? This isn't the first time final has come through I think you were not here for the first time for final. Oh, that's right. That's right. Yeah, I saw it on video though Continue final qualification SD 18-28 of J 18-28 of JJJ South Browington, LLC to amend the previously approved 258 minute plan due to development at two phases. The amendment is to phase 2 title 2 of the project and Increasing the number of residential units by 33 to 142 units in phase 2 and 291 overall and conservation of 21.7 acres of land throughout through the purchase of 26 transfer development rights 142 units are proposed to consist of 66 single-family lots 46 units and two family dwellings and 30 single-family units on shared lots at 1580 Dorset Street and 1699 Himesburg Road, who was here for the applicant? All a lorry with a lorry Burke civil associates Brian Currier a lorry Burke You've already been sworn in so Do you want to talk about anything you just want to dive under the staff comments? I write in the staff Coal all right Oh Recuse it Brian Sullivan just recused himself. Thank you Brian So staff comments. Yes Okay, so number one staff recommends the board confirm that the provided values Include all impervious surfaces including roads the overall allowable density is based on the total project area Including roads therefore staff considers the road should be included for impervious coverage calculations as well So this is a result of a misunderstanding on our part the original Comment was that staff requested coverage calculations for the shared lots On each of the village residential and neighborhood residential zoning districts in the project We accidentally gave Coverage calculations that included the single-family lots which is part of the neighborhood residential District so we've submitted revised coverage calculations buildings and overall coverages for the neighborhood residential district For just the shared lots which does include the roadways and the village residential district It doesn't have any single-family homes. So those values were Still valid for for this They still meet the requirements of our master permit that's it and So staffs okay with that yep So the way individual lots, but the master plan decision-specific In that and that's what this comment was addressing and they are okay So we're on number two then right? Okay So number two staff considers that lots 61 and 62 shown on sheet nine and lots 63 and 64 Shown on sheet seven may be an exception to this generality and draws the board's attention to them for their consideration So at the last hearing We were given direction to include pre-construction grades on every single lot or unit That's been proposed General exception is that pretty much two to three feet above the existing road The so the difference between the pre-construction grades on lots 61 and 62 I believe 63 and 64 also are two feet and the reason for that is the the road grade That they bought is a little steeper than other parts of development a lot of the roads are pretty you know It's pretty flat, but in this area. It's a little bit steeper. So because the road Changes grade two feet and they're next to each other not across the street They also change a little more abruptly, but they are consistent with what's across the street so We're comfortable as they are if you want to pull up the sheets to specifically look at them we can do that too You said the difference is two feet you mean It's two feet less than two to three feet above grade or the above grade or it's two feet higher than the road Sorry, the difference between the two Yeah, typically from lot to lot There was only a half a foot or maybe a quarter foot difference because the road the roads throughout the project are fairly flat Typical only 1% but in these two lots the road is steeper So as we go from one lot to the other it drops quite a bit more So staff noted that G between these two lots next to each other's two feet difference in grade and and the reason is because of the Slow for the road, so it's a little unusual compared to the rest of so the effect is that you get one effect At least as you get much Quicker runoff. Yes And how about the lot I don't visualize another what's what's below the lot that takes the heavy runoff Where does it run to? Everything's graded towards the rear property line So even though there is some grade going, you know across the units the there's much more grade going Away from the road, you know towards the back There's there's a swell that runs along the the rear property line That's gonna it's got a catch basin at the end of it and that that's where the water gets picked up And and these lots aren't the only places it shows up there. There's other instances where this is the case. I think these were just So there these ones were 61 and 62 sheet 9 they should be on the bottom right 64 The second pair they were talking about This is 63 and 64 right here Can't read So the road grade changes more steeply than other yes for these lots A lot of the roads at minimum grade because it's so flat. We're trying to get that sewer to go back It's just so happens that this road going down So looking at just because it's hard to see on there lot 63 has a 413 And then lot 64 has a pre-construction grade of 411 and Look at the road elevation and then we carry that through to set the lot So You got that four-foot difference there like that difference The biggest concern was this comment is kind of inherited from another comment that showed that lots across the street Wouldn't be at the same level because we only graded the downhill Lots and this this comment was you know, so they said okay Let go through and put a pre-construction grade on everything and that's what we did So, you know the the thought was everything that's across the street will be the same But you know as the road changes in grade obviously, you know being consistently 2 to 3 feet above the road Well as the road goes down more sharply to the houses Maybe naive but why are we emphasizing pre-construction grading? What happens to the grade? After construction is there's going to be any variation of the grade after construction? We're asking for a waiver of the pre-construction grades We're actually listing what the pre-construction grade is on the plan because most of the roads are being filled so The board will consider what we label as the pre-construction grade It's what it's going to look like after we build the road and we fill everything And then then we'll allow 28 feet from that pre-construction road to the top of the house So they're asking for a proposed pre-construction grade Which in the prior version of the staff comments we discussed where that's allowed But it it basically if they need to fill and mass the provision is to allow them to adjust the new Grade so that it can base the elevations off of that rather than what it was before they had to fill It's all based on the height of structure if you read the rules and take it word for word It's you know the average grade underneath the structure You know and you know we've thought that that's consistent with an existing roadway and surrounding houses But here when the roads getting built with all the houses that everything is going to be You know uniform it's not like you're gonna have one house sticking up six feet above, you know the house next door So we think for this sort of thing it makes sense drainage wise it makes sense I can staff comfortable with the grading It was just those four that seemed Like they didn't quite match what the applicant had explained They're different by four feet instead of two to three feet if the board's comfortable with that then it Okay, well, I'm just trying to determine impact. You know, what does it practically? Your argument is there's no practical impact or minimal practical impact It's gonna look like every other subdivision we build when you go in there all the houses are gonna be predicated on the Finish way of the road. They're all gonna be I'll gonna be the same level as you go across. I don't mean visually I mean From a used standpoint for the standpoint of the homeowner Stand for a homeowner that the house needs to be somewhere between three and four feet above the cell line on the grade to make Sure that they have adequate drainage. The water doesn't run towards the garage So at a minimum, that's what the homeowner is gonna expect The downhill guy is not going to suffer on Dooley from the uphill guys run on no Most the run-off will be directed towards the back of the lot away from the neighboring house We're three staff recommends the board require the applicant the applicant to update their open space management plan to reflect Mowing in the area is used for compliance with section 907 d2. So section 907 d2 Is a parkland requirement? I think it's like seven and a half acres of parkland per every thousand people We meet that standard designating four separate areas throughout the development These areas we we in our open space management plan We said that they could either be mowed regularly or if the HOA decides they could be brushed hog You know semi-annually or how are they decide? Staff thinks that if these areas are used to meet this parkland Regulation then then they should be mowed regularly Or consistently so we've made and these are the four areas here. They're all in blue two three and four and We've revised our open space plan to show that they're going to get made mode regularly. Okay, so no issue We kind of skipped over a three is that because it's not they don't want any further comment from the applicant The question of the extension of cider he'll drive Sider will drive if you guys would like to ask them anything This is if the hearing is closed tonight, then this becomes your last opportunity to do so So if you have things you'd like to discuss I would recommend doing so and you're right probably should have been highlighted in red And So we propose at the last meeting that we would pay a $1,000 per lot impact fee for each of our lots towards the eventual Construction of the extension of cider mill drive per unit So it totals a hundred and forty two thousand eventual construction by presumably the city yes money be paid to the city and And that the city had come up with a formula as to what they thought a fair share value Might be and also includes the traffic impact fee that will pay which is Around $900 per unit or so so in total between the traffic impact fee and the $1,000 per lot fee No, we'll contribute you know somewhere in the $260,000 range to the Future construction of cider mill How that compares to the cost of construction the road I Thought that the last time we saw a study and write up that doesn't indicate how much that's not going to cover it But I think it's a fair contribution given what the actual requirements of the project are So I mean I'm okay with the proposal So in the prior hearing on September 18th We indicated the estimated cost of the extension including engineering fees and infrastructure would be 700,000 and then the applicants proportion giving the Developability of adjacent parcels would be 301,000 the Gets To close to that 301,000 with their $1,000 per unit impact fee of course the 700,000 is The estimate can only be based on current construction Includes pedestrian walkways and lighting and all that right. Yeah, does that take into account any escalation? No, so it's basically current construction costs today, which could double in seven eight years, but It's in the city Vice goes up And Marla on behalf of the city you're promising it won't be used for anything else, right? She has that authority the best I can I think that in on a cancer, I think that in a situation where You know development on the adjacent parcels stalls for whatever reason the city may choose to apply it to other In other projects that have a positive impact on this cider mill projects Developing the next parcel they might say the city has to pay back whatever was put in One might think they would make Believe I recall residency there correctly or incorrectly Posing objections to the non completion of it as in some fashion of violation of a promise Expectation can you remind me where that arose from and whether there was in fact any such commitment promise expectation or condition? Expectation is probably the strongest work that we've been able to substantiate There was never a promise by the city But but it has been said that some developers promised homeowners Matt You heard that Yeah, so I think I Think people heard many different things It's fair to say that every realtor and every every lawyer isn't the exact that did not for the same exact council I live in that development. It was made clear to me How it was going to turn out, but I like my lawyer. I like my realtor And I knew that that was made clear to you It was made clear to me that that road would not be built Unless I live there before the solar panels unless the lot with the solar panels or the lot north of the solar panels Was to be developed? as though We as the DRB it was always been the driving force to try to get that completion done. It was never a part of any Previous approval or a condition of any approval, and so putting it on the project was Something we were trying to drive, you know It's on the city map for to be a city it would it would be necessary if that lot north of the panel Correct would be required for that. Oh, it'd be a necessity, right? So that's why I see any contribution that they put towards the future construction as being a fair compromise You know towards that and in the future And we did hear from several Residents who want it completed. We also heard from several residents who don't want it completed Pros and cons of building that road and if that lot is developed the land is developed north of there Requirements the pros and cons will still be there right for various right. They'll need that extension to get the development in So that's why it becomes a moot discussion Okay Onto comment staff comment number three oh We did that I do want to point out that I do like at least the proposal that you have to Delineate between the private lots and the open space the boulders on the private lot space because you know Anyone that lives in a subdivision knows that property creep occurs into the common city land So I like that it's actually delineated so that it wouldn't suddenly become you know that one lot between Two houses suddenly becomes a Two big side yards, you know, so I just wanted to say that I did like seeing that Incorporated into your open space open space plan So number four staff recommends the board require the applicant to amend the sheet pl3 to accurately Reflect the proposed easements on the remaining land outside the 50 foot right away to be offered to the city But within the existing 75 foot right away staff notes that proposed easements are a requirement Required element of final plat submissions You want to pull up sheet pl3? I think we we have labeled everything We put a hatch on the 75 foot. There was just some question What was the 75 foot right away owned by the applicant? What was the 50 foot? Right away to be offered to the city. It was pretty much a labeling issue and we think we've This is the latest and greatest I think we've Solved that here. So the the 75 foot right away Is this line up here and it's all hatched within? Gray the 50 foot right away to be offered by the city is This line here, but they're most they're both dimensions 75 feet and 50 feet Okay, okay So wait, I actually do have a question. Sorry. This is this is the plat that you're hoping to record. Yeah So this would be that the survey is going to stamp this plan totally settled the the reason I ask is because The you can't make any changes to the plat after the board has issued their decision. So if there's small errors You know that we have to reopen the hearing So how was that how was it right away indicated other than on the platform Do we put in the good you're going to execute it the yeah, it'll be a Irrevocable offer dedication that will be filed with the final documents Yeah, the confusion came because there's a 75 foot right away That exists That the offer to the city is only for a 50 foot right away and our original plans We showed grading outside of the 50 feet. So the comment was well, you're grading outside of the right away It's like well. Yes, we are but it's land that we control anyway. So so So it was confusing and I think we've settled it with staff now. So So all the grading is occurring on property that we own or we control Okay number five acknowledging the board directed the applicant to place them there The stormwater section commented the boulders between units 83 through 86 and the storm pond and the boulders between lot 34 and the storm pond will interfere with maintenance of the storm pond and recommends their approval and I said I liked Yeah, some of the ones you like yeah, so we've removed those As recommended by the stormwater department. So I think there's still the issue of unit 109. Yep, that's the next one. Oh great I'm just giving you some leading Okay, so 109 or number six actually the boulders between unit 109 and the open space are Located on a storm drain which must remain clear for maintenance access Staff recommends the board require the applicant to instead place the demarcation at the property line for unit 109 and Acknowledges that boulders may not be the appropriate solution Staff recommends that should the board wish to include this as a condition of approval the board determined that the demarcation shall consist of What the demarcation shall consist of prior to closing the hearing so be good to bring that one up I'd like to back up just for a moment I don't understand the stormwater comment 183 to 186 and the storm pond It's not a good idea. We will to have Some kind of barrier between the storm pond and the joining land Yeah This project has sort of used up all of the available space So the storm pond is right up against the wetland buffer So the space between the storm pond and the homes that is flat and available for boulders It's also the land that the stormwater section needs to gain maintenance access in this situation So if there's boulders there they can't get in with an excavator to clean out the ponds Do we have any? I'm not visualizing that we have any safety issues and the absence of barriers. I Mean the storm pond is you know, it's families here Have the equipment to clean out the retention ponds. Can't they just move the boulders for that time period and then move them back When they're done in other words, I don't like the idea of moving the boulders away Well, it isn't either room both to the particularly to the north of 86 he just Just south of where you are a stroller rolling across the lawn into the storm. Yeah, I actually it's built those probably shows of the best Left These guys There's quite a there's quite a pitch on the back of that Once you get a oh, I see is this similar to oh the retention area, you know between Wine sap and Braeburn Like that, you know that you know that that low We don't I don't need rocks there. I mean that's that's The grass grows and it's a pitch enough and Yeah, the stray soccer ball might go down there, but There's only about 30 feet behind the units and there actually is nothing above 86 that you can actually use that way the permanent pool elevation there The permanent pool The storm on our outlet looks like it's at 395 do you have like a low-flow orifice below that or would that be the permanent pool? Whatever the lowest one is lowest orifice would be the permanent Yes, I'm asking if the stormwater outlet Structure is at the elevation of the lowest orifice or if there's something that extends out to the pond You see how that orifice there is that that I'm zooming in and it says 395 Stormwater outlet detail Right, so that's 395 is there a orifice that's below that elevation Because if the pool the permanent pools three feet deep, you know That's a different safety consideration than if permanent pools six inches Whatever the elevation of the lowest orifice is on the structure detail is what it is I think they're all somewhere. What do you think it was two to three feet? Structure elevation is the orifice elevation than it's three feet Whatever the lowest orifices on that detail is what And the access The access is intended to go between 84 and 85. Is that what the city is expecting? No, between 83 in the wetland and then behind 83 through 86 So come in from the south and then run up along the side of it Well, there's the boulders. We're gonna go right along here She L3 shows it They were gonna go right right along here On your left and and the boulders themselves is only what 10 feet or something are the boulders Adequately protective of someone falling into the pond. I mean the boulder is not really gonna stop On the next numbered item with 109 You know one thing we were gonna suggest if they didn't want the boulders and easement and that could apply here too Is that is that we could use signage? We could use some small signs They're similar like you might see a Vermont National all their wetland areas They have a small sign that says natural area do not enter and then you see all the footpaths Everybody walks and they get there Besides that we could we could sign for instance the back of this pond on the next item by 109 We could sign it so that the fear with 109 is that they'll expand their lawn into the natural area But we could sign it and at least you know, so at least there's something there There's not gonna be a boulder so that they know that hey, that's that's a natural area You know we can't you can't got between summer field and Braver, you know, that's signed Yes, well in area keep out Part people respect. Yeah, we could do the same thing on these two numbered items If the if the stormwater folks don't want the bulls, I mean, I'll agree there. They're showing up with some pretty big equipment and You know take a mom about 15 minutes to move the boulders, but that's them and not me Well, I mean it's the Boris decision You know if if you want to make the decision that that maintenance is gonna be part of their maintenance program These ponds could clean out Once they're Well, once the city takes them over, you know, they're all established and they're all stabilized and you probably only clean out the pond You know somewhere between once every five to eight years I would put the boulders back And deal with the politics of the stormwater, you know during construction of building the units It's probably every other year and we'll have to clean them before the city will take it over once everything is established So and for the most part what what gets cleaned out is the forebay over here, right? It's not it's not the main part. It's over here where you know the boulders, you know The access point for this is pretty much on the road. So why don't you just move the get rid of the first two boulders? Yeah, we can give them good access Maybe leave like this corner and go yeah You know halfway you take away even access to the forebay is I can phrase it again The other one with unit 109, you know, there's a stormwater and a sewer easement. So you have a buried underground pipe So the only time they'd have to move those boulders would be is if they had to get at the pipe for some reason or that's probably a I don't know once every 30 to 50 years something like that. I mean, you know, you you don't you just don't see him digging up You know a pipe like that very often so Particularly one that's not in a city street cross-country pipes. Usually, you know, there's not much issue with them, but So I'm not the maintenance guy. So So this is the 109 unit 109 that we've been talking about there. We show boulders around here To demarcate this area, which is not designated Parkland. It's it's designated wildlife area Natural area that that's not getting mowed or brush hogged or anything. It's just to vegetate naturally So to separate the lawn area from, you know, unit 109 the common land from the natural area would be, you know We showed them pretty much right in the middle of the easement Another development in the city so it's very controversial and hot right now Where they had set Water and they had to which is probably where the comment came from. I think that the board's thought about Lent or excavating equipment can handle moving a boulder As long as it's tight and doesn't Result in the homeowner being like that's my beautiful willow tree that's been there for eight years And how can we have to take it out now? You know, that's gonna I'm just speaking of what I hear them saying in my head This is more about the Association documentation If the association documentation says in this easement nobody will plant or build then then it's then it's the association's problem When it comes up This also might be slightly different where unit 109 and 83 386 are all condos So, you know, it's common land No one should be planting their own trees their own, you know, it's It's more controlled than a you know, if it was in this case a swimming pool would be on a single-family On the lot line not not right over to the easement area actually The latest plan I submitted had boulders along the exterior Yeah, this one's really close to the originally split the two pipes. So correct the original I believe it was it. I don't think we did it on purpose, but I think it was just about in the center of the easement But the case in point is but Paul Paul's point is I mean you never you're not going to dig up these lines No, no, but the other point is if it's condominium people You say shouldn't but you know, it goes to homeowner documentation Condominium people shouldn't be planting and landscaping the other own yards Typically you have like a bed in the front of your condo That's labeled yours to do what you want with their stuff like that But you know the majority 99% of the land is common land that is maintained by the homeowner's association All associations always act in the best interest I would just suggest that there that with these couple of easement areas that are important for for Maintenance that it be specifically spoken to in the condo documents And if we could get that in so so if if somebody actually reads the The master deed or the bylaws or whatever Yeah, pick it pick it up and understand that there's That was to put the boulders then no boulders on why I think I'd put boulders in both cases same place Same place or I don't really care I would put them down the middle of the of the pipe chase there just to sort of stop people from from Planting trees including the association on top of the Well, I have a preference No, we had them down the middle of the easement because we wanted to give one or nine at least some side yard But we wanted to maximize the you know the natural area that was going to remain that we talked about previously with the wildlife How about giving them there was on the other in the other location there was a suggestion that there was one Access area where we could remove say two boulders. Yeah, that's a good suggestion But we adopt that suggestion two more Make sure they have access to the Sentiment portion or the forbay of the descent upon what they need to clean it out regular Yeah, actually one two boulders are gone Okay E 9-1-1 addressing yes, so E 9-1-1 Addressing what comment is at 7? Yeah So I got comments from the state coordinator There were some addresses duplicated on nato crest drive The applicant is sort of them out. There were some odds and even switched Appendance also sort of those out. I think the only outstanding issue on this one is the naming of nato crest drive So big picture planning commission decides names Not the purview of the board. It's not the purview of the applicant It's typical for the applicant to suggest names to the planning commission The board doesn't have to get involved in this. It's only coming up because the state coordinator said it The state coordinator notes that there are two other something crest drives in the city of South Burlington And had a concern that there would be Emergency response confusion if somebody has a bad connection and you say I'm on nato crest drive and they say you're on what drive Other than that didn't have a problem, I know we do want to honor mr. Nato for his long service Staying in South Burlington despite all our shenanigans So I did check with the state coordinator to see how if there are any Conflicts or potential issues that he saw with nato drive. He thought that sounded good again, not the purview of the board not even really the purview of the applicant, but You know if the applicant wanted to suggest nato crest drive and defer that decision the planning commission will provide all the information The planning commission or they can suggest nato drive So the planning commission and we can work it through the system either way So we're good with nato drive that they know drive is fine. Yes, so So I can have that run by the planning commission Before the board deliberates on this right and then the board can put that as a condition of approval if the planning commission agrees Yep So that would still allow us to close or continue. Yeah, no we can because that's a planning commission decision It would just have to be a condition that says the applicant shall update all the plans to say nato drive instead of nato crest drive Great Other questions come us from the board Was there anything we needed to go over in the supplemental packet the memo that you wrote up or Did it would give me sort of back and bang back and forward Then no, I don't have any other questions Comments to around I'm gonna say three minutes Yeah, please come on up. Oh, there's the microphone right there. Thank you, Charlie I wrote a comment to all you folks and I believe you have it in your packet And there was a couple more comments that I'd like to add to it The first I heard it from Citadel one just to clarify where I'm coming from. I live on my staff lane It was mentioned that there were residents that were both for and against the Citadel row Extension and that indeed is true I want to point out that it's simply a numbers game because the people who spoke against the Citadel Road extension were people who supported the wire of wildlife quarter that certainly does exist there and the other folks who spoke against it They were people who live at the top part of summer field and there's like about home eight houses or so there They currently have only local traffic So it certainly would increase the traffic for those eight homes The people who have supported the extension of Citadel road We're 55 people that signed a petition Requesting that Citadel road be built So if we're playing a numbers game here We've got 55 on one petition and we have several voices that said, please don't build Citadel road extension I believe both voices are valuable not just one The second point I'd like to make Being the mathematics is kind of my bag. I took a look at the DIV comments re-guaraging the amount of contribution that the developer might consider Providing for the Citadel road extension as well as road impact fees. I noted that it was about 43% contribution of the estimated 700,000 that it would cost to build the Citadel road extension I would argue that the 43% Contribution is truly not fair My reason to argue that that it should be more than 43% is In the calculation, we're using the amount of acres of development That is near Citadel road extension in proportion to the 700,000 dollars There were two properties that were included in this estimate There's 15 acres that were mentioned in DRB notes on 1731 Hinesburg Road and 10 acres that were included at 1625 Hinesburg Road Those two sets of acreage at 1731 Hinesburg in 1621 25 Hinesburg They are about 1.4 miles north of the native cross entrance To the JJJ Citadel to development On the other hand, they're only 0.9 miles away from Kennedy Drive Which is the more logical way to go if you're trying to get to Dorset Street So rather than going south 1.4 miles to native press and use Citadel Drive road It makes more sense to go 0.9 miles north and use Kennedy Drive If we exclude those 25 acres that were included in DRB notes And that brings us to the 65 acres of Citadel to development Added to the 45 acres at 1499 Hinesburg Road and the two acres in the solar field Again, these numbers are from the DRB notes Those 65 acres represent 58 percent total Because if you take 58 divided by 112 total acres that represents 58 percent Contribution of the 700,000 dollars or in numbers 406 thousand dollars contribution Again using DRB notes. It's estimated that a hundred and forty six thousand will go to road impact fees from JJJ If we use the 406,000 which is the 58 percent contribution I'm suggesting That leaves approximately 260,000 dollars that should go to the Citadel Road extension Instead of $1,000 per unit that would translate to $1,830 per unit of the hundred and forty two units that are proposed for Citadel 2 So currently we're having 142,000 dollar contribution I would argue that it should be more than that instead of a thousand a unit It should be 1,830 and again the reason why I'd argue that is because the 25 acres that were included on Heinzburg Road really aren't but an amusing Citadel Road. They're closer to Kennedy Drive Those were the only two comments I had to make. Thank you for considering my opinion Next Yep, we can verify ourselves. This is Leonato with 1625 Heinzburg Road And just a curious question for maybe the planners and members of the board We're concerned about the future with our property adjacent to the development area And the concern would be that people may assume that our property is open land or usage Whether with their dogs or their other animals they may have and of course with that is concerned of liability So just wonder if the board members of the board or the Engineer here might be able to give us some of my ideas of how that could be Rearrange or set up to kind of show a separation of property. Do you have fencing or bouldering or something? What's the what's the linear Invention Can you show us with the pointer But you're saying a nice split rail fence is not So And it is other than The units that are right on nato cash nato crest drive, you know, obviously the majority of the units don't But his property The backs of the backs of those single families But there's no fence to there there's no fence on it that you know would still be there No, there's a swale Would be a couple feet Swales an adequate demarcation behind the houses Well, I noticed in number two that the elevation of the road is going to be three to four feet So that Assume that they'll be leveling towards our property to some degree, but that's I don't know if that would do it. I don't believe that would do it to separate the two areas There'll be some trees planted We're posting it with private property sons be adequate for you. Well, we want to try to be good neighbors to Be moving in I suspect bensig would probably be something that might be in order to kind of show that there is a separate Land when you got it you got a lot of I Mean if you were talking 50 feet, you know, I lean on these guys pretty hard to put in a fence Thousand feet of the lot of well, you could see a fence line along the single families Yeah, you could easily do boulders and you you guys will end up with a lot of boulders, right? Yeah so you could easily do boulders along the road line and along the In a couple of a couple of signs Along the NATO NATO press drive We find to fence it where is an adjacent to a unit or a lot and then provide boulders where it's not 250 feet along the units Just that would be my concern where you'd get single family, you know yard creep And then each of the other segments one's three three hundred and one's 260 This road section here does have street trees planted every 30 feet About following you it's the On the south side you think where where the single family houses are you would put in you tell them this to me Do you would put in a fence? And could we any objection having that be a condition of the No, and then along the north you're relying on on existing trees No, there's street trees trees and boulders I would suggest some signs because I couldn't see people walking their dog and seeing a big open field, you know Some you know some signs with the boulders about that long Western Western I'm sure we can work it out with the engineers and the developer. I just want to make sure to cover that Particular issue with you here at the board. So well, we're in final plate. So we're looking to put something into the season right now How about low brush or trees Could Get street trees every what 30 feet every three feet Along the northern most Road there'll be street trees in the Western and the Western Okay And Senator drive Paul my correct that would be fencing in that year Behind the lots What we're Brian is showing the point we fence that portion for you Okay, thanks very much Next yes, please Go ahead Dorothy of Panara and on summer field App and I just wanted to clarify what Karen was saying there were we also did a petition Against the extension at this time Again about 50 or so people too. So it wasn't just the houses on that one end of summer field Concerned as I said last meeting and the meeting before concerned about making it easy Cross-through kind of situation We all are aware that when the development happens north of these solar fields that that will be connected You know and you connect and shunt the traffic up to 116 that's fine It's what we all knew but we never thought Sermon tool would be mitigated by that little bit of extension that actually makes it easier for people to Use us as a cross Neighborhood and I think that would be detrimental to the whole development Yes, please I didn't know that I'd also like to add that Dorothy has mentioned that the comprehensive plan which was not written by any of us definitely Supports the extension of that road even though it's not the development is not north of the solar panels It's still going to impact my street winds up and braver and regardless because of all the traffic coming through So I think that's important to note that there will be approximately an 80% increase in traffic on our street The other point I'd like to make is that the technical review which thank you folks for Going ahead and agreeing to a technical review to get a Independent that they very much supported the development and build of the road I understand it may be considered in the future But right now is when we're being impacted and who knows if the money will even be there when the time gets there In the meantime, we're currently having Tum trucks almost every day and having traffic up and down line set for the cider mill one Development which is still being completed and that of course is not related to the JJJ development I it's kind of hard to get my head around the idea what it's going to be like Once the 142 units goes forth So I am very very much asking you to please consider relief For lights up road in build the road now as opposed to in the future. I know you don't have Complete and total sale or everything. I understand that I feel you've been very fair and trying to listen to all parties and Come to the best possible conclusion. I know it's not an easy job But again, hopefully you'll consider My voices along with other students. I'm certainly not the only one I Just asked them for some clarification to make sure that that what we were talking about was clearly conveyed Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we discussed That you expressed that you were more interested in having fencing along the westerly edge And because there's shrubbery along the southern southern edge, you're okay with leaving it as is Because there was a lot of discussion all going on at the same time. Yeah Everybody was picking that up. So is that so we're talking about going from 250 to 350 feet of split rail You don't need to do anything along the southerly boundary Okay, but the but boulders along the northerly boundary of the natives along with the street trees Okay That works for you mr. Nato Thanks Shrubbery along the southern along the southern, you know, flat area right there. Thank you for pointing that out Left side What about the northern Northern and street trees and boulders The west side will have street trees Northside has street trees and bullies Outside the existing hedgerow remains Maybe I would call out to that hedgerow to remain. Yes, you should. Okay. All right. You get this all down Others with comments Hearing none entertain a motion to close Close continue final plot application SD 1828 of JJJ Southboro into LLC Second, we're moving second to be closed this application. I want to say hi. Hi opposed abstention Thank you very much You should get Brian back in I Close and John seconded right That's right Well because I got elected Clark All right, everyone had a chance to read the minutes minutes and I checked through I didn't see anything very nicely done Susan Motion to approve the minutes if no one has comments or questions. I don't want to rush I move that we approve the minutes from To October 18 To October 18 Second Approved the minutes from October 2nd. All the favor say aye. All right opposed extensions Thank you very much and it's 807 and of the self-propelled development of your board reading. Thank you very much Take care. What's the score of the game, Brian? Three to two red socks in the top of the eight Whoa