 Good evening and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board of Tuesday, December 21st. It is solstice. And given the agenda, I think it's going to be a long night, a long meeting too. My name is Dawn Filiburt. I'm the chair of the DRB and with me are board members Dan Albrecht, Quinn Mann. On a line, we have Mark Bear and Jim Langen. And with us also are city staff, Marla Keane, our development review board planner, and Delilah Hall, our zoning administrator. So thank you all for coming tonight. A couple of things, there are multiple ways of participating in this meeting. Those of you who are in the audience are in person. People can also attend online and they can also attend via phone. And people online, people in person should sign in sheet at the back of the room in case they want to have party status later on to appeal or ask for an appeal of a decision of the board. People online can do that in the chat box and people who are phoning in can do that by sending an email to Marla Keane at M-K-E-E-N-E at S-Burl dot and let her know your contact information and that you'd like to be considered a participant. So thank you. If you are attending virtually, we would appreciate it if you would mute your microphone and turn your camera off unless you are actively participating in the item before the board. And emergency procedures, there are doors in the back on each corner of the room. And in an emergency, you would exit those doors, either door and either go left or right to exit the building. Next item, are there any additions, deletions, or changes in order of agenda items? Should we pause for a minute? So are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Do you want to move minutes to the four item number six? I think that's a great idea. Do we have to vote on that? No. Any problems with that? Okay. Announcements and reminders. This meeting is being recorded. Thank you all for coming and your interest in this process. And I've already gone over the sign-in, so let me move on to any comments or questions from the public that are not specifically related to the projects we'll be reviewing. Let us go ahead and move ahead with item number five on the agenda. Item number five is a sketch plan application, SD 2127 of 835 Hinesburg Road, LLC, to subdivide an existing 118.8-acre parcel into six lots ranging from 8.1 acres to 57.5 acres, construct four public streets on the 8.1-acre lot, and 24 buildings for a mix of industrial and commercial uses ranging from 17,500 square feet to 66,000 square feet, and totaling 770 to 50 square feet with 1,970 parking spaces on the remaining 8.5 to 57.5-acre lots at 835 Hinesburg Road. That's a lot of numbers. Thank you for bearing with us. So before we introduce or have the witness introduce himself, is there anyone who has a conflict of interest or needs to disclose or recuse themselves? Hearing none, who is here for the applicant, please? So let me swear the two of you in. Could you, Matt, can you raise your right hand, please? Do you both swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on your penalty perjury? I do. Thank you. We'll also explain that we are all wearing masks, as we must, and sometimes it can be really hard to hear through the mask. So if you're having trouble hearing us, let us know. And I'm going to ask you to move your microphone closer to you, because sometimes it's hard to hear the witnesses. Thank you, Andy. So this is a sketch plan. It's not a hearing, a formal hearing. This is an opportunity for the applicant to tell us a little bit about the project, what they have in mind, what they hope to do. We don't make a decision on it. It's kind of the preliminary step to further steps down the road. So can I make a point, John? Sure. So I realize you just wore them in. I just want to note that because this is not a formal hearing, we don't actually need swearing in. But I was caught up, so I didn't say anything. Okay, thank you. But we should always tell the truth. So if you could just give us a fairly brief overview of your project, we've all read the staff report, and we will have questions. Okay. Thanks, Andy. So as you mentioned, this is a 113.8-acre parcel. It's located in the industrial open space district. And I guess the way I'm going to phrase this is the way the land development regulation stood at the time the application was submitted. Obviously, a lot has changed from the time that the application has submitted until now. But my recap will be focused on the way the application was submitted. It involves a number of lots, five lots, plus public rights of way in order to facilitate commercial industrial development, a number of buildings, and parking and loading areas to go along with it, as well as areas reserved for stormwater management. Again, all of that being focused on the industrial and open space zoning district that was in effect at the time the application was submitted, multiple buildings on individual lots, and a variety of uses, only some of which remain available under the draft LDRs. I can get into more specifics of the proposal that's in front of you, although I realize that the staff report summary kind of takes us in a different direction because a number of things have changed since the application was submitted. There is a street connection proposed to Swift Street, and the zoning has changed, but I think so that this isn't looked at as sort of a haphazard application, I think it's important to get into the record some of the dates associated with this. This application was submitted August 30th. The check was submitted by mail by the applicant a couple of days later. The application was deemed complete by staff on October 19th. We received comments from staff that day, responded to those application deemed complete on the 19th of October. The official city map which removed that connection to Swift Street was in effect at the time the application was submitted, and the application at the time the application was deemed complete. That official city map became effective on October 25th. It was adopted on October 4th, but didn't become effective until the 25th. And in regards to the land development regulations, the planning commission hearing on those draft regulations of October 26th, approved by the planning commission on November 2nd, received by the council on November 8th, and obviously warned for a public hearing by the city council on January 3rd. So, it's a fairly long time span between when the application was submitted in this evening, and obviously a lot has happened in that timeframe, but that's kind of how we got to where we are and why the plan in front of you looks the way it does. Okay, thank you. Do you have anything else to add before we start discussing this as a board? No, I'd be happy to answer any questions specific to the plan. Any questions for at this point? So, the way I understand it, and Marla will correct me, thankfully, if I'm wrong, although intuitively it doesn't make sense to me. Apparently state law requires that in these circumstances, once our regulations are warned, any projects reviewed at that point, once the warning is announced, must be reviewed under the new proposed regulations. So, because of that, the new regulations will be the ones that guide our review of your application and the staff's review of your application. So, I'm sure that's not easy for you to hear. This is not news to you, but that is the situation we find ourselves in. We understand that the board's hands are tied. You're following procedure. We've read the staff report. We're familiar with the information and the procedure that's in it. Okay. Do you have anything else to add? No. Only that the applicants have a slightly differing opinion that again isn't for this board to decide on the vesting of rights as far as the sketch plan application goes. But again, that's not here and there for tonight's discussion. Okay. So, it occurs to me that we do not have a staff report to review that reviews your proposal according to the new regulations. So, I'm wondering if we should conclude the sketch plan and have you come back at a future date. And I'm wondering what other board members think about that before I ask for a motion. Are you suggesting it be continued or is staff suggested and I don't want to speak from our lab, but it seems like staff report said if the draft LDRs were not adopted that this would sort of be resurrected or are you suggesting that it be continued? I think resurrected is the word. Yeah. So, that's staff's recommendation. You know, the state statute, if the draft regulations are not adopted requires us to review it without any additional costs to you. So, in the interest of fair public warning, we'd rather re-worn it and reschedule it. And we could do a full review under the 2020 regulations if that happens to be how things work out. And that was what we expected based upon the staff report. So, I only asked about the continuation because it seemed like maybe that's what you were, where you were heading. I think what Marla says is how we do it. Okay. Now you said 2020 regulations, aren't they 2021? The current regulations are 2020. Oh, I see. Not the draft. So, if the proposed regulations are not approved, we would review the report according to the 2020 LDRs. Right. So, what would happen is if the draft regulations, just for Andy and Matt's sake, if the draft regulations are rejected wholesale, no changes are made to the December 28, 2020 regulations, you would have to actively request. But then, you know, we would just start the process. It wouldn't be like any, it wouldn't have to be a big formal letter. It could just be a quick email saying like we request to be reviewed. Okay. Do we take public comment? Yes. Okay. So thank you, Andy, for your testimony. And I think what we'll do now is open it up for public comment. Those of you online, please indicate if you're interested in providing public comment. And is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide comments? None? Any online? Okay. So I think we're done with this agenda item. Thank you, Andy. And thank you, Matt. And I'm sure we'll see you back here in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to item number agenda item number six. Stephanie, I think, oh, we're going to actually do the minutes right now. Of November 16th and December 7th. I feel very guilty about this. I have not read the minutes, but I think we have enough other people here. So I'm not going to vote in the minutes. Let's talk about the November 16th minutes. Do I have a motion to approve those? Motion? Motion to approve. Thank you. November 16th, 2021 minutes. Thank you. A second. Thank you. Any discussion? Did you say you had a couple of things? I think your mic is off. Yeah. So for number six, I was recused on that one. Okay. Let the minutes reflect that, please. Any other changes, Stephanie? No. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from board members? Okay. All in favor of approving the, any other comments from board members? Okay. All in favor of approving the minutes as amended of November 16th. Say aye. Aye. Recused. Is that the word? No. Abstain. For me. Okay. December 7th minutes. Those are not yet available. Okay. So I don't have to feel guilty about those. Good. Okay. Thank you and Stephanie. You're now recused and have a good holiday. Thank you. Okay. So, I'm going to go back to the agenda item number six, master plan application MP 2102 of beta air LLC for a planned unit development on five lots developed with a quarry, a mixed commercial building, a warehouse, a contractor yard and an RV sales service and repair facility. The master plan includes combining the five lots resulting in one lot of 7, 747,000 point. No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. The number consists of 47.92 acres and consists of 344 square feet manufacturing and office building, 37,800 square foot office and retail building, a 15,600 square foot commercial building and an 85,000 square feet of flight instruction and airport use building on 37.6 acres of the resulting airport lot. Do we know what we have? Color three there. You got it? Or did they meet themselves? Okay. Thank you. All right. Who is here for the applicant, please? Hi, Art. And then joined by. Okay. My name is Nick Longo. I'm the acting director of aviation at the Browns. Yes. Thanks, Nick. Hi, Larry. Hi, Larry. Hi, Larry. Hi, Larry. Very good. Hi, Larry. Hi, Larry. Hi, Larry. Hi, Larry. Hi, Larry. I'm going to go to the next slide. Hi, Larry. And Joel Beach, Scott and partner in architects. Since you might all be testifying, could you raise your right hands and say, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do, but do you? OK, thank you. And there's no one else online. You're all here. David Saladino, I saw online. OK. David, go ahead. Did you raise your right hand? I did, yes. OK, thank you. Is it Pellegrino? Saladino. OK, good, thank you. Pellegrino. Thank you. So in the interest of social distancing, that microphone is also functional if a couple of people want to be speaking at the same time. Just make sure you press it so the green light is on. It's green already, but it turns bright green when it's on. OK, Art. Good evening. This is a master plan application. And are there any, did I ask for recusals? I think I did. Any recusals or disclosures? No, OK. Why don't you start by giving us a fairly brief overview of your project? And then we can ask questions and go through the staff comments. Great. So as you described, this is a master plan for a brownfield site at the south end of the airport, roughly 37 and 1 half acres. And it's intended to help provide the infrastructure and the opportunity to create an assembly facility for electric aircraft that beta technology is developing. As part of the master plan, we envision having a child care center. We've planned for a future commercial building, as well as the opportunity to create a cultural center which has general aviation, support spaces, and hangar spaces along with that. Connecting these components throughout the master plan, there'll be a new roadway. It'll be a public drive, a private drive, I'm sorry. But it will be constructed to public roadways as standard so that if in the future it was somehow deeded or ceded to the city, that it would be able to do so. So that drive will run from Williston Road up to the current evil drive that comes off of Aviation Avenue. Supporting the buildings, there'll be a network of open space as well as bike paths and walkways to connect the different buildings together, as well as, at some point in time, connect both to the airport landscape master plan, which is underway, as well as any future network connections in and around the surrounding communities. Big picture. The assembly facility, as you mentioned, is 355,000 square feet. The child care is 15,600 square feet. The commercial building, all those sizes are relatively right on spot. The facility will provide just about, in its full build, 400 parking spaces, maybe a little bit over, to support the anticipated employees that will be working at this building. Timeline is, we'd like to begin construction early next year. We'd like to be operational by the end of next year with our first assembly line and working towards having our first aircraft roll off that assembly line in Q2 of 2023. Thank you. So for my benefit, I don't know about others, but could you just briefly describe how this is different than what beta has done and is doing in its current space? Yeah, certainly. So our current space is really, think of it as our research and development center. It's the brains and the creativity for the aircraft, Aliyah, which you may or may not have seen flying locally. We've been fortunate to do more than a few test flights, and it's just been fantastic seeing it in the sky. So what happens is the research, the development, takes place in 1150 Airport Drive, that building. We just actually completed a third addition to it or a third renovation to it. Once the research and development team develops the product, the intent is that the product then comes over to the assembly facility. It will be assembled in the assembly facility and then come off onto the airport proper and flown across the lake for flight test and delivery. OK. Delivery to whoever. To the customers. Yeah, exactly. Thank you. So that building is really step one in the process, the design, the engineering, the rapid prototyping, all those things that we need to do to actually figure out what the product will be happen at that facility and a couple others that we have here in Chittenden County. OK. Thank you. What is the distance between the corner of that facility and the corner of this? What's the least amount of space between them? As the crow flies? Yes. Oh, my goodness, this can't be more than a mile. Is it a quarter of a mile? Is it? It can't be more than a mile. I'm just trying to think how long the runway is. And maybe, Larry or Nick, a little bit more than a mile as the crow flies. Wow. All right. OK. So it's fairly close. Yeah. OK. Thank you. And one other question. Is the daycare for employees only? The daycare is currently for employees only because we're just starting the process of discovery and envisioning there. We're not really sure what the final program will look like or how many children it will support. And before making any commitments into the community, we need to answer those questions. But so currently right now it is for beta employees. OK. Thank you. All right. Any other questions before we start to go through the staff comments? Please give me a minute to catch up here. I think I have the wrong project up. Yes, I did. And then while you're getting there, if for those here, if you would like, I have printed copies of the responses that kind of put together for the master plan application as well as an electronic copy that was forwarded just before the meeting for use and just taking notes. It wasn't forwarded as supplemental information, but more to help in the discussion as we go through it tonight. OK. Thank you. So this is the blue phase only? The master plan is the entire dotted area as presented. I'm just looking through the application here. The blue phase. So if you go to MP01 in the application, not sure what sheet number that is. Or even that diagram right there that we're looking at. Each of those colored areas represents a component of the master plan. The blue area is the project that we'll be discussing after this. It's SD2128. OK. That's helpful. Thank you for bearing with us. This is a complicated project, so it's important that we understand it. So what they're doing is they're looking for master plan approval for this general concept. And I know Mark has been through some master plans. I don't know that any board member that's on the board today has started a new master plan from scratch. But the master plan sort of establishes some general parameters from the project, allows the applicant to get some waivers, including process waivers, which are not available in a PUD, only available in a master plan. And I believe that maybe why I know that's one of the reasons why beta is seeking master plan approval, I don't know if they had other specific reasons. OK. Thank you. The first staff comment is a need for dimensions and values and coverage computation. Excuse me, let me just ask a question of Marla. When we get through this tonight, do we conclude, and then we vote in deliberation? Yep, it would be just like any other type of application where you would, if you decide you have all the information you need to close, you can close and then issue your decision in a deliberative session later. OK, great. Thank you. There may actually, there likely is some merit to not advancing this decision before the accompanying preliminary and final plot. We've run into that before. Because if they need to change something, they should be changed in both places. And in which case we just simply conclude tonight's hearing? You would continue it to the same day. You would continue the other one. OK. And then you may not even discuss this one on the second night. It may be just a matter of, OK, quick, great. Thank you, Marla. Wrap up. OK, so coverage computations. Yes. So staff comments are that they've requested that the board ask us for the actual numbers. The original table as submitted had some of those numbers blank. So in the supplemental information that we have sent, you'll see that the max building coverage is now complete at 24.3% for the AII zoning district. And just to back up, our project crosses a zoning boundary. And so tonight we'll cover both the items in AII district, the airport industrial, as well as the industrial mixed commercial or commercial mixed industrial, the IC district. OK, thank you. You bet. For the max building coverage in the IC zoning district, as proposed, is 5.5%. Both those numbers, the 24.3% and the 5.5%, are below the requirements outlined in the land development regulations. For the max overall coverage for the AIR industrial, the AII zone, it's 50%. We're at 54.5% right now. The IC zoning district is 70%. And that's the requirement. And the proposed is 43.9%. So in that instance, we are below the requirement. There was some back and forth with staff. Staff brought it to our attention that the project limit lines varied between two documents. And we attempted to correct that early on, I don't know, maybe six weeks ago in the process. And in doing so, we inadvertently removed the area where the geothermal wells will exist for the project. And if you have the supplemental information, that's the green area that's highlighted there. When that area is actually added back into the project and into the calculation, we would be at 49.1%, which is below the max coverage requirement of 50%. That geothermal field is roughly 2.83 acres. And again, bringing that into the calculation gets us to where we need to be. It was an oversight on our part and yeah. We understand. Okay, so I just sent, so Delilah runs the screen. I just sent her your comments in that. Is there a figure to show where that area is? This feels like- There is. I'm a little nervous about adding in a new area to the warning. We would completely agree, Marlowe, we would view this more as a correction than an add to the project, because it's been in the project. We've talked even as far back in a sketch plan about the desire to move forward, which geothermal in the design and we're moving out on that as well. But yeah, page one of seven of the master plan, staff comments, you'll see the graphic that shows the highlighted area. It should just be below that. There you go. So this would change the project area from 37 point something to 39 point something acres? Correct. Just under the 40 acres we had originally contemplated for the development. Okay. Well, that makes me a little nervous just because it feels like a pretty significant change and I'm not necessarily that it's bad, but it just makes me a little nervous about closing without giving some time to sort of process this information. Okay. So that kind of settles that. We won't be closing today. We didn't anticipate, oh, yes, here you go. There's some of you can pass those around. Fantastic, thank you. Honestly, we did not anticipate closing tonight. We knew there would be some follow up questions and so we're happy to move forward through discussion and find out where those points are that additional clarifications are needed. Okay, great, thank you. All right, number two. This question is about floor area ratios and needing. Look at the roof. Pardon? The height, because one of the other questions was about the height. Were you, I guess the question is, are you requesting a height waiver in the IC zoning district as well? I don't see. It's part of one. So one has all these things that are read immediately above it. Oh, okay, all right. And so you had provided a height for the manufacturing building, but I wasn't sure if you were also requesting height waiver in the IC zone. So that's the front part. We were not requesting a direct height waiver there, Marla. We would like to those separately continue the discussions about 35 feet and whether that's the correct amount of height for a three-story building given today's construction standards and mechanical systems. We feel like that floor to floor is really tight at 35 feet. And so separately outside of this, we would, if we wanna bring it in here, then we would request that be increased by five feet, but felt like that was a separate discussion we were gonna have elsewhere given the timeline of the construction of the project. Yeah, I appreciate you describing that for the board's benefit. We've been having conversations with the art and his team about is 35 feet really the right height for this zoning district? And the planning commission is taking that up. So in the future when they come in, I guess if the height in the zoning district, the IC zoning district has been increased, what is the board's thought on whether the master plan should reflect that? I mean, the master plan sort of sets the parameters for the project, but we could say something like 35 feet or as allowable in the zoning district, should that change? I think that makes sense. I think that makes sense. What do other board members think? Yeah, I agree with that. I agree with that as well. Okay, good. All right, good. Can we move on to two? This is about the floor area ratios and needing data on that. Yeah, so given the size of these parcels, there's trying to apply traditional floor area ratio, well, not just the size of the parcels, but the zoning of the parcels and the nature of the development that we're proposing for the parcels to provide a typical floor area ratio of something in the neighborhood of one or slightly greater is not consistent with the amount of square footage that we'll be able to develop. And so what we're in as a follow-up to staff's comments, we would ask for something to set a standard, something less than that, an FAR of 0.75, which will accommodate the proposed development that you see as part of the master plan, as well as the opportunity for some adjustments along the way should the zoning allow it in the future. The other thing that it does for specifically in the AII district, if we choose to come in and put a mezzanine inside the assembly facility, then we would have the capacity to do that under the master plan that we would be adopting here or you'd be approving here. Okay, does that work? Well, I mean, I think that that's a big ask. The floor area ratio that they, so a floor area ratio, it's kind of defined in the regulations, but I'm gonna say it out loud. It's how much square footage of building for every square footage of block area. So a floor area ratio of one would be, you have a 40,000 square feet of building, it could be four floors or one floor on a 40,000 square foot lot. They're proposing with their master plan application a floor area ratio of 0.295, so say 0.3. What ART has just requested is more than double that. So they'd like their ceiling before they have to amend their master plan to be double what they've actually shown on their project plans. And I think that's a pretty big ask. And I think that the board, I know for O'Brien was unwilling to accept big asks without some sort of demonstration of what that might look like, okay? Again, we're happy to consider something other than 0.75 as a way to drive the conversation tonight. And when the 0.295, I believe that was the number, Marla, that was originally requested, it did not consider the thought that we may end up putting a mezzanine in the assembly facility and that additional square footage would count against that. So that was pretty tight. We certainly don't need 0.75 and we're happy to have a discussion about where staff feels that number should be between the 0.295 requested and the 0.75 here in the comments. Board members, thoughts about that? Mark, you have some experience with this. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, I agree that the nearly double is kind of a big ask, especially on a parcel this large and mezzanine, I'm not sure how much that would take up of that. So I really would like to be, I would be interested as Marla said, what that might look like if we're approving some number that's significantly larger than what is currently shown in the master plan. Where do they anticipate it going? How could it ultimately affect it? Or is it all internal volume? I do need a little more information before we sort of settle into what the FAR would be approved on a master plan basis. Any other board members? So shall we ask that you kind of work on this and we will? Again, more than happy to do that. I was really trying to respond to the staff's comment about the board establish a slightly higher FAR and trying to understand what those brackets are to be able to test that work. Again, the 0.75 was done on a different type of calculation than was done originally, not saying it needs to be at 0.75, but certainly any thoughts that staff has or recommendations on where they would like to see this were all ears. So you can see in the staff comment, their plan as presented is 482,400 square feet. So call it 480 on a 37.6 acre project area. And that's four buildings. If each of those buildings were, say, 10% larger, would that be a reasonable thing? And then we could figure out what that floor area ratio would turn into. If each of those buildings was 25% larger, is that kind of pushing it? Where is the board feeling like they would actually need to see a plan versus they're just willing to say, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's relatively insignificant on the scale of this project. Dan? Made up my mind on this one yet. Mark, Jim, Quinn. You know, I think that, I think a 10% bump is something that could be easily absorbed in a project of this size and 48,000, so, you know, 525 or something like that. I think, and that would result in probably an FAR of, you know, 0.35 or something like that. I think above that, I would need to see where it was going and how it was affecting the master plan that we're sort of approving for future phasing and future projects going forward. So, you know, I think that, I think it needs to be a little harder of an ask. And as Mark said, you know, 0.75 was just a number that is throwing out there, but that's, you know, that's giving them almost, probably close to a million square feet that we're looking to approve. I think that I'd like to see something more thought out from their standpoint with understanding that we're going to be seeing phases. And this is just not saying just the master plan, but this is the master plan that envisions what the ultimate buildout will be like. So, you know, we're obviously continuing this. So I think coming back with something that asks for a little more harder of a number that gives you the flexibility you think you're going to need, but still meets the regulations. Yeah, we can certainly show you the calculation that went behind here for the benefit of tonight, didn't include all the calculations that rolled up to it. So it wasn't, I definitely appreciate what you're saying, Mark. It wasn't just something that we kind of took a shot at. There was a very targeted way. And now that you've kind of thrown those numbers out there that bracket it, we can go back and test that. And again, as you said, since we're continuing it for the first item here, then we've got the time to do that, so we'll do that. Great, thank you. Thank you. Pardon me, are we ready to move on to three? Number three, Marla, I'm going to be honest. I had a little difficulty understanding this. So if you would be willing to just kind of explain it, the question or the comment, I would find that helpful, please. Sure, so I'm just rereading it myself. This is about lot coverage. So, total site coverage and property. Okay, so this is sort of released back to one where they gave the numbers for the airport as a whole, but because this will be its own master plan, the numbers should be considered for this area, not for the airport as a whole. So once those numbers are provided, then it's a similar to floor area ratio where they're going to say, okay, we have, you know, we have 30% coverage, or I guess probably something along the lines of 40% coverage for the master plan area as a whole. The board accepts up to 42% coverage without requiring them to amend the master plan. So with the numbers, art has given us tonight to flesh out the table in staff comment one, I can provide a sort of number of what, where they are. And then the board can decide, I think maybe with some more input from the applicant, what might be an appropriate threshold without requiring them to amend the master plan. Great. Okay, does that work? It does, thank you. Work for other board members? Hearing nothing, okay. Number four, tell us about the open spaces. This comment is about open spaces. Yeah, so we took staff comment number four to be trying to understand the limits of the various open spaces that we've identified in the plan. And so to support that or answer that, we provided the graphic on page three of seven right there that highlights the major open spaces that are proposed as part of the master plan. The first one there in orange is a rec path that is accessible from Williston Road and will meander through the site along the upper ledge there just to the east of the building, ultimately terminating in some place a viewing area for folks to come and sit and watch airplanes come and go. Go out there with your family, go out there with a pick basket, you can take a bike up there. So that's part number one in terms of the major open spaces. Part number two is the Great Lawn which has been described and that is really intended to be this place to go hang out. Multifunctional programming, whether it's the winter time, the spring time to fall and it's just right above the orange line there and below the airfield viewing area. Right next to that, there's an employee terrace in blue. So that's more of a hardscape and it provides a buffer between the more natural Great Lawn area and then the building edge itself. And those spaces are intended to blur and bleed together and create a larger open space area. The next area is the sculpture lawn which sits out in front of the building. We've got this very long, very clean building that provides a fantastic backdrop for some creative landscaping and we see that as a sculptural landscape place where we can do some things for it and create a need, something different than your typical open space. And then right below that, as you would enter the building in the main entrance, we would have an entry plaza which would be more hardscape, still open space but a hardscape to open space providing for access into the building, short-term bike storage, potentially some public art. And we did like staff's recommendation to sit with the Art Selection Committee and the Public Art Selection Committee and we have noted that we will be doing that. We actually have a gentleman in-house who used to work for IBM that does some great STEM displays, interactive displays that he's doing for us in other areas. It would be fantastic to have him be involved in that as well. So it's not, it's more than just a piece of art, it's representing electric aviation or STEM or something where kids and adults can go up there and actually touch and feel. I know for me, the example is you go to the airport and they have those big stone balls that are elevated by the little thin piece of water and you can go up and move them around. There's just different ways to do things but we do like that idea and I'm excited to reach out to the Art Committee and talk to them about ways that we can integrate that. Okay, great. Thank you. So the requirement for master plan approval and I'm just going through these really carefully because these are sort of different than what the boards used to. There's five things and we've discussed. Two of them, one is the floor area ratio and then another one is the total site coverage. The open space requirement is that if you propose to build in areas that it proposes permanent open space, you have to amend your master plan. So I guess my question for Art is, are you proposing that these five areas would be your open spaces? And I also, just to preempt you a little bit, I wonder if the rec path should be one because that might be a little harder to sort of respect as sacred. You could have a rec path but it might not always be in that exact alignment. So are you proposing these four or five areas to be your open spaces or only some of them or what is your exact proposal? We're proposing that the green and blue areas for sure are open spaces. In fact, we're designing around that now. That is part of the overall building design. The same thing with the rec path and the viewing area. We don't have a design for the viewing area. We want to work with the airport and some other folks just to figure out what that actually is. We haven't proposed a design for it. We've only proposed an area. In terms of connecting that airfield viewing area to Wilson via the rec path, I think Marla, what you're highlighting there is really well said in that the path itself may change but certainly the concept of a path from Wilson to that area seems like a reasonable condition in the approval. Like if we can get some latitude to kind of tweak that as we go through the design that would be preferable. Yeah, you know, it's different. I have a couple questions here. Go ahead, Dan. Art, I'm trying to remember the future plan of the phasing for the building that the public will go hang out in or have lunch or see whiz bang exhibits or is that this building or no? It's not, that's the building. Dan, if you come off the page to the left in the upper left-hand corner, it was up around another part of the apron. All right, so then back to sort of a question for Marla. I mean, I'm trying to think of like other open space concepts that we've approved and I'm looking at the definition of land maintained in essentially an undisturbed natural state. So I'm looking at lawn. Yeah, so that's only the first half though because the second half says or that is enhanced and managed for outdoor recreation and civic use, working lands or local food production. Okay, so do we customarily have well, this is not the civic use part. If this was the third building, I'd say that this is civic use. These are primary employer amenities, at least the two, the sculpture lawn. I'm just in my opinion here. The great lawn and sculpture lawn are primarily civic amenities for the staff, which is a good thing to have. So I don't have a problem with that. And then I was wondering about the path from the standpoint of a path that's not along right away or on public lands that have we done something similar to when I think of open space, I think of the back half of a lot that's got the woods in it or all that kind of stuff. And while I would this, where this path connecting or where this path connect on some public lands. And I could sort of see it made that definition. I'm not trying to be a hard-ass here, but I'm just sort of looking at this, kind of going, okay, well, what does this mean? Yeah, so the two examples that come to minor South Village and O'Brien Brothers. South Village Master Plan has a, well actually also Sphere Meadow. Sphere Meadow is what you're thinking of. It's a public soccer field that's contained within the development area. And that's their open space for that master plan. South Village is a natural area that is sort of open to the public, but like in a soft kind of way, like mostly you don't go there unless you live in South Village. And there's a linear connected recreation path north to south through the development. And that's on the official map and is open to everyone. And then O'Brien Brothers has, I believe they just have the one permanent open space, which is the football shaped park. But there may be a second one that I'm not looking for. I mean, some of it gets to the obligation of the city to adequately sign things so the public knows they can go on these places. And since this one is essentially a spur going into an industrial commercial division, would how are people gonna know this? And then I would hope that city staff would consistent with my same rants about numerous conserved properties that the public doesn't know exists and has no parking at. I would hope we can have improved signage at other places that have been met the open space threshold because they're assumed to be a public amenity or connecting path through a development that the public knows they can go on these places. So that's all, just, I don't know if there's a way to, obviously not at the master plan level, but thinking down the road about appropriate signage, viewing area this way, et cetera, et cetera. That's all. I was gonna say, here you go. Is your comment, Dan, that some of these spaces aren't shouldn't be like permanent open spaces? I don't know if sculpture lawn and great lawn would be considered it because it's A, it's lawn and B, it's primarily an amenity for employees. And I don't know if the general public is gonna be like, oh, I'm gonna go walk and sit on the front lawn here and hang out with the employees. Yeah, so let's, that's all. Let's unpack that a little bit because that's a good comment, Dan. We've actually had initial conversations with some of the Valley tenants, specifically the VFA about their summer programs. They have apparently events, flying events where they need more parking in places for people to hang out. And so while we don't show it here because the sidewalk is a sidewalk, really the sidewalk is as much a connector to create this public environment as anything else and it provides access. So it doesn't feel like a gated community. That's completely against what we're trying to do here. We're trying to make it open, welcoming and provide different ways for the public to access it. So we're actively engaged with programming in terms of how the parking gets shared, how the sculptural lawn may be shared, how the great lawn may be shared to support these public events that will happen on the weekends. We were, as part of some other work that we're doing with the airport, we're actually having discussions on how to memorialize that so that those concerns that you just raised are actually addressed and that access is provided more, for lack of a better description, more in your face. Like you can actually tell that it's there. Yeah, and I think we also, like if you look at where the label recreation path is, that's a whole kind of upper meadow. And that could be identified as open space adjacent to the rec path. It's on an upper kind of plateau of the site. I was curious about that corner of the property, what's it like and is there a way to, what's the word make that clear that you can go hang out there or that kind of thing. I don't know how to do it. Yeah, and also early on, we wanted a way for kids and staff from the daycare to be able to get over to the muddy brook, kind of area, the woods. And so we just saw this need for a variety of different reasons to have public access along the east side of the building, so. And that's a real good to add on this upper meadow. In terms of upper, just to provide some scale, it's probably 15 to 20 feet above the great lawn. The great lawn. We have these two really cool, separate, almost independent spaces that are then connected at certain points to give you a much broader opportunity for open space. Okay. Thanks, appreciate it. So does the board have the information they need to make a determination on which of these elements should be considered permanent open space or are there questions we want to ask the applicant to come back with answers to with the continued hearing? I mean, there's no percentage requirement, right? No, no. It's just right. And I guess, part of me, it's more this concept of are we now in the business of approving lawns adjacent to buildings, preserving and primarily employees as open space or not? If they're not, and we don't want to set a precedent for where another development comes along and says, well, yeah, I've got a lawn, that's my open space. Because I think general perception is the, you know, it's either clearly recreation or it's clearly natural. So that's kind of why I'm trying to drill down on this. That's all. Right, and I just want to make sure before we move away from this topic, the board has enough information to decide which areas if they are going to consider permanent open space for this project. And it may be all of these, it may be none of these, but one of the criteria for master plan is to establish which areas are permanent open space. So I want to make sure everyone- I guess I would put it back to Mr. Hodgson. Is there a way, since they're coming back anyway, and I'm not saying my points are sacrosanct or you have to listen to them, but, you know, if there's a way to respond to some of the dialogue we've had here, and I'm kind of curious about that eastern corner of the property, if there's a way to engage with that a little more or something. Well, the landowner, without getting into negotiations here, but the landowner has actually similar perspective that you do, Dan, and we're working with a dimension off of the building that to establish what is actually open space and what is quote-unquote part of the building, if you will. So whether it's 10 feet or 15, like we're thinking about what is that space so that we can do exactly what you're talking about. And I feel like we've got good direction and can provide some additional detail there for you. Great. Are you okay, Dan? Is that? Okay, good. Anything else before we move on? Number five, we need to know how the trip generation was calculated for the review. Yes, and for this one, I would turn it over to David Saladino, who is online for us. David, are you available? I sure am, yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay. So yeah, as Delia is showing on the screen, we did add in the table here to supplement the information, kind of the backup for how we reached the 526 PM peak hour trips. So the table that you're looking at breaks out each of the four different buildings that you were looking at on the past graphic. So we've got the manufacturing facility. We've labeled this as the training facility, but that is the most northerly building. Commercial building three is the building fronting along Williston Road. And the commercial building two is the daycare center. So that's those four buildings. We did our best to estimate trip generation during the AM, the morning and the evening peak hour. So that's the two kind of sets of rows. And then highlighted in blue are the totals for those two peak hours. And so the bottom of the blue highlights shows the 526 PM peak hour trips. So again, that was our initial estimate for the master plan trip generation. And as I think a subsequent number here, we will get into, we will be updating these values as part of a kind of a more comprehensive traffic study for the full master plan. Thank you. Questions? Does that give you what you need, Marla? I guess technically it addresses what's in the staff comment. But now that we've talked about increasing the floor area ratio from what they're proposing to give them a little cushion, not an unreasonable cushion, but something to accommodate the fact that the development plan isn't fully developed, and increasing the total lot coverage to give them the same cushion, should the trips be adjusted in a similar way? And Dave, maybe you have an opinion on this, because I think a large part of this project is going to be internal capture, right? So does your calculation already kind of include that cushion, because you haven't considered internal capture? On the table that you're looking at, there's really not any internal capture here, except for the fact that in this table, we assume that 25% of the daycare is drinking water. Sorry. Little drama. All good. It's the world we live in today. It's fantastic. So just to finish that point, the only internal capture that's shown here are the daycare trips that if it's a debate employee dropping their child off at the daycare center, that would be kind of one trip. Somebody arrives off Wilson Road, drops a kid off, and then parks and goes to work. So other than that, there's no internal capture that's captured here. When this gets into the traffic impact study, we would be looking at some internal capture. Although I don't see a lot of internal capture happening here, there is some retail proposed for the frontage commercial lot. So there may be a little bit of people who work at Beta might go to a cafe in the frontage store. But I don't see a lot of internal capture, because there's no real residential component here. So I don't see internal capture playing, weighing in very heavily. What about on the coming back to the daycare, David, if this was 100% beta, certainly there's something that's happening there that's different than what we have shown right now? That's right, that's right. And so this was a point in a snapshot in time when we updated, when we developed this table, the numbers are still kind of getting refined. And so these numbers may change a bit, particularly as Art alluded to, if we are looking at 100% beta instead of this assumption, we were being very conservative to assume that 75% of the daycare children were not beta employees, were public. And so that's a much higher trip generation. So if we're assuming 100% beta, that would lessen the number here. So I guess my pontification here is, should this finding of the board include whatever the board, if Art comes back and says, we've got 0.3 for full area ratio, here's what we realistically think this could morph into without major modifications. It's now 0.35. And the lot coverage is now instead of 40% and 42%. And if we did all of those things, then the trip generation would be, what does that say, 526 is really tiny, would be like 550. Should the board sort of give that cushion to all of these things equally? And would we want beta to come back with that? I mean, I don't wanna be in the business of covering every possible what if, right? But master plans to a certain degree have that what if built into them. They're just parameters. Right, right. What do board members think about that? How specific, how sharp should our pencil be or their pencil? Don, can I weigh in? Yeah, please do, Mark. Mark, I think Marla's thinking is correct in this. I mean, anyone that knows me knows how much I've really enjoyed talking about trip generation and trip ends because that's such a technical thing that we've had projects where we've discussed one or two differentials on these things. But I think with the fact that we are talking about a master plan, we are trying to get it as correct as we can to allow for the process to be easier downstream. And expedite the reviews of the additional phases as they come in. So I think getting it as correct as possible. And there are a few parameters that are kind of up in the air right now that we are trying to harden up so that we can get it as close as we can. And one of those is the FAR, which I agree with Marla could potentially affect the trip generation and the number of trip ends. So I think we have, we know we're going for a continuance and I know we're looking at a lot of these numbers to harden them up. And I would just suggest that the applicant take a look at that as well so that everything can be cross-referenced and coordinated going forward. Thank you, Mark. Any other comments? Input? Does that make sense? It does. Thank you. All right, let's move on to number six. This is water, this relates to water and wastewater demand. And water capacity issues. Yes, so simply here, we're in the process of pulling together those applications and what we are going to submit them and we'll comply with this. Okay. I'm not sure that there's anything else in detail. Okay, good. Number seven, need traffic impact study addendum to measure the master plan impact. Yeah, similar to as David just described, we're going to be updating the traffic impact study. We had engaged in a conversation with VTrans earlier this week and they've asked us to do that for a different reason relative to the signal warrants and the new standards that are out. They believe there's some benefit to doing that to the project and the analysis. So we are undertaking this right now and would expect to have the impact study done in early to mid January. Perfect, thank you. I'm chair, as long as we're on the topic, did you want the thing we were supposed to remind you about? Yes, which was the meeting with VTrans. Yes. Is there any other information that you think we would find helpful that came out of that meeting? Thank you, Dan. Quite possibly as part of the package that was sent out for the next agenda item, we've got some, do we have, oh, that's stormwater. Do we have the VTrans notes? Yeah, no, we don't, because it was just yesterday was the meeting. Chris, any, Alex? We can get those meeting minutes out and give them to the board. Yeah. Without super detailed stuff, yeah, high level, what should the board know? I kind of bring you to them, you had a meeting and said you might want to share what you're going to do in response to those comments and I wasn't at the meeting so I don't know exactly what those comments were myself. Right, so the high points for the discussion, which are probably no surprise to the board are, why did we decide to locate the signal in the location that we did? And we talked about that, we talked about the design strategy and the roadway network strategy for doing that, trying to, we talked about separating our truck traffic from our car traffic, cars are coming in off of the new entry drive, trucks will come in off of aviation and route down Eagle Drive to the Eagle Drive extension. We talked about site distances and whether they met or didn't meet the requirements and VHB and STANTEC went through a whole analysis and we had a presentation based on some questions that we had to show the how we met all of those requirements. There was conversation about the Shun Pike neighborhood and why we were proposing to close Valley Drive. We didn't want people, particularly beta folks, driving and creating additional traffic through that residential area. We talked about the concern that if we add this new entry drive in here that potentially folks could, our folks could then come down Valley Drive and try to short circuit the signal if it was added at the new entry drive. We offered up to put a one way only into our property off of Valley Drive, which would eliminate anybody coming around and trying to cross through in front of mirror bells and then make that right turn on to Willston. Are we done? Update the IT manual. So Valley Drive is this guy, right? It is, yeah, just a little bit to the right, but fundamentally, yeah. And so what they're talking about is in a connection from the site drive like that. And the signal is proposed to be here. Right. Yeah, even before that commercial building gets built, Marla, if you were to draw Valley Drive up towards the top of the page where that parking comes around just above where the solar lawn is, that's really the point of connection that they were most concerned with is that people in the upper part of the campus would come down through Valley Drive and bypass the, yeah, right there where that arrow is. Exactly. A little bit down from that, but fundamentally that's the right place. Yeah, there you go. So it was a really good conversation. We've got some feedback. We've got a couple of follow-up items with them. One is the traffic study that David and VHB and StanTech are working through and towards as we talked about in January. And then they had some things that they wanted to talk about internally and they'd be offering up some comments for additional items. Okay, any questions or comments? Number, did we do wastewater? Okay. All right. Number eight, sidewalk along Williston Road is proposed. The request is to include the sidewalk on the master plan document. Yeah, that was inadvertently left off. As you can see here on one of the drawings, I'm not sure whether it was left off on the master plan or the detailed drawing, but it is highlighted on both. You can see in this first sort of horizontal exhibit off to the left there, there's a note that says new sidewalk and it shows the sidewalk running in front of the commercial building across the new entry drive and then headed west or east towards Pete's RV. We've tried to create a bit of a buffer between the roadway improvement and the actual sidewalks so pedestrians don't feel like they're walking on the road. You want some separation there. That's also shown then on the more technical drawing if we go to the next page, it's highlighted orange where that new sidewalk actually occurs. You can see it in more detail there. And there's no sidewalk there now. Correct. And in fact, there's no sidewalk on either side of the property lines. That sidewalk will exist somewhat by itself until additional sidewalk improvements are made. Okay. Thank you. Are we ready to move on? Number eight. I wasn't quite clear what this comment meant. I know it's about next steps. Staff recommends the board include a finding that the applicant may proceed directly to site plan if the site plan of the application, which are, maybe it's the grammar, direct to site plan. It's the grammar, sorry. Some of this was very like Paul and I were firing comments back at each other. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I understand. So the idea here is that, as I described earlier in the evening, master plan is the only type of approval that allows process waivers. So this is the suggestion that the board may wish to grant the process waiver that when they come in for, say, the cultural center or the daycare, they don't have to do a preliminary and final plan. They can just do a site plan. Okay, and that's pretty much it. And is everyone okay with that? Everyone on the board? Okay, thank you, Marla. Number 10. Are there any elements of the project, such as installation of solar equipment that may be approved by a zoning permit only? That was an interesting question and really forced us to go back and look at the project. And not just necessarily this project, but the experience that we had in the renovation and the construction, the new addition over at the airport and just trying to understand the permitting process and make this as smooth as possible. And so the five or six areas that we thought might be applicable under this, some which were proposed by staff, the PV solar equipment for sure, battery backup equipment, there may be some assembly slash minor process related equipment that goes on a pad, similar to the pad that we've constructed on the north side of the north addition. Utility transformers, pedestals, or other associated items. And then lastly, electric aircraft and car chargers. If we wanted to come in and add some additional car chargers, it seems like that's something that could be done without having to go through the full process. And similar to the electric chargers that we would have for the electric aircraft. Okay. So we would open those up to consideration by the board. I guess I would pause it that maybe the board should consider some sort of size limits to some of these things. I don't really know what some of these things mean, like battery backup equipment. I can't envision what that would look like or assembly process related equipment. Like remember for beta at 1150 airport drive, the board sort of set this like physical area. And it said, if things are no taller than 15 feet high and no bigger than this footprint and don't make any noise that's audible outside of the property, just do it with a zoning permit. So I think if they're gonna ask for these sort of things, it should be a similar set of parameters. So maybe that's something that they could come back with a little more information on them. Unless the board had specific questions about their proposal right now. Art, does that make sense to you? It does, and we're happy to go look at those considerations that were prior to that, the current beta property and pull those forward. Okay, good. Thank you. The next question involves phasing. And the question is that we should have complete or the comment is that we should require complete site plans for each of the three phases within five years of this approval and is that feasible? It's our plan as you can see by actually it's not in this one, and maybe it's worth picking this up as part of the site plan application here. Certainly deferred to the board there, but we have provided a timeline and while we're showing a 2025 build out, depending on market dynamics, that could change and trying to commit to a timeframe like that right now, as much about market dynamics as it is about what we're creating that hasn't been created before. We're gonna find some twists and turns just in the process and we wanna make sure that we're flexible enough to adapt and adopt as we go through that process. So that's why I had noted here in the response that while we anticipate meeting the five years proposed by staff to recognize the unforeseen impacts of market dynamics or just business development in general, the process development, we would request that there is no timeline because we're doing something new that's never been done before and we're not sure how to put a timeline on that and we don't wanna be in default of the obligations that we're establishing here. We've set out to be good neighbors, part of the community, we believe we're creating a fantastic project here that fits well within the community and we don't wanna go sideways from that. Sure. So board, Mark, especially given that you're the historian, how have we dealt with this in the past or Marla? Feel free to jump in. How do we, I mean, I understand that makes sense to me but I think we also wanna have some sense of timelines. So, how do we resolve that? You know, Sean, I'll weigh in. Yeah, thanks, Mark. I have a little time around the board. I hear where it's coming from and I think that everything he said is true in terms of this has never been done before, they're good neighbors looking to establish something solid and but we also have to always play devil's advocate as the board and I'm a little leery of leaving this completely open-ended and given the size and scale of this, I do think five years might be a little short but I'm wondering if we do it as five years with an option for another five, you know, as a simple re-up or something like that if there's a way to put that mechanism in there because I am just a little nervous to that just leaving it completely open-ended. You know, 10, 15 years goes down the road, things have totally changed with the dynamics of the area, the zoning and they have this master plan that allows them to keep moving forward piecemeal but the only the first phase got built out and then market conditions changed. So in the draft regulations, there was this thing called a minor master plan and a major master plan. I think what Mark's proposing was an extension would fall under the future category and let me just say this project is not subject to the draft regulations but what Mark's proposing would be analogous and I think in fact, the board in five years would understand what that means. Okay. Does 10 years- I have a couple of questions for the staff here. So in part, the master plan approval as you said at the beginning of this segment allows by virtue of doing a master plan, it allows to give some flexibility down the road in exchange for doing a master plan. But on the other hand, if we approve a master plan but there's no progress made in doing ABC and D, the other phases of the master plan, then why did we grant the master plan in the first place? Why were they given more flexibility if they didn't carry out their intended plan? And then I'm also just thinking of, is there something, are there anyway, and again, it's still very early but are there any ways we can put sort of triggers in and like for the O'Brien, there were triggers. By the time you did the X amount, X number permit or whatever the 25th unit, you had to have built the road. And there's this balancing act between investments in the road and other infrastructure versus knowing what the market's gonna give you in terms of return on investment. So that's one way to do it potentially, Dan. The other way to do it is to set the triggers a little bit in reverse that for every time we complete something, we get six, seven years to do the next thing, right? We've shown that we've made progress, we've met the commitment, we wanna be flexible enough in the next window to make sure that we can respond. And so that timeframe rather than it being static to the date of the approval, it gets its dynamic and just as each one of those hurdles or completions in the master plan is met. Although five to seven years for three phases is 21 years. Could be 21 years. That seems like a very long planning horizon to me. That's true if we were to start today and hadn't done anything, but as we know, and we'll talk about here in the next item on the agenda, the blue area, which you can't see right now, but once we talk about that, you'll see the amount of work that we're undertaking right now. So we're saying that when we complete that work in two years, that the clock would start for the next five years. And then when we do the next building and we finish that building, then the clock would start at that point and keep kind of leapfrogging as we complete this. Because we're underway on construction for the airport to make it available to us to go out and do this once we have the approvals in place. And we're moving out on that. So yes, you're correct. If we didn't have anything and had not gone down the path, we're currently on completely agree, but we're on a slightly different tax than that. Okay. I just have one more question for staff. So how does it work with master plan? If these broad, these, I won't say waivers are given. We approve a master plan, which grants them some flexibility, but then they don't carry that out. Does the master plan expire? Do we have the authority to open it up and say, hey, you didn't do what we said you would do. We're gonna start the master, we're gonna start amending the master plan. Under the draft regulations, it's exactly what Mark suggested. It's, I believe it's a five year timeline, though I don't remember the years with the option to extend. If, you know, regulations haven't significantly changed or the applicant has made good progress and it seems like things are going well or for whatever reason, that's what the draft regulations would allow. Okay. To Art's idea of adding, you know, you get an extra couple of years or an extra five years every time you complete a phase. So they're in for preliminary and final plot now. So that would be that first clock. So it would, what I'm thinking is it wouldn't give you an additional five years on top of your five. It would just reset your five year clock. Correct, agreed. So if they came in in May, March for the cultural facility, they'd get five years from when the cultural facility was prepared. And then, you know, the next phase after that, whenever that happened, and then it could end up being, you know, if they were very close together, could be, end up being like eight years, but if they spread out, I suppose it could be 15 at the most because it'd be five for the first one and then another, yeah, so it'd be 15 total, which is kind of long. Could we make it four years or three years? We could though, unfortunately, the markets don't necessarily change. Like, it doesn't give us enough time to respond as the changes occur. I completely understand the ask. And that's why I kind of went seven and I realized, well, maybe seven is not gonna work on your end. So if we just kept it at five, then figure out what the right wording is for the trigger to allow that five years to continue to leapfrog as we complete each portion of the master plan. And you could always do any of them sooner. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, we're not- I'm assuming you're motivated to do, or they could do them at five years, which will put them 15 years out for the last phase. So the board has to decide if that's an acceptable risk. And if we were to take the full 15 years, when you recognize and you see what the conversation happens and at the next agenda item, the majority, the Wilson Road improvements will be complete, the parking areas will be complete, the main drive will be complete, the first phase of the building will be complete, they'll be open space complete. We're not gonna leave the project in a condition where there's not any value to it. One, because we're gonna be there. We need to have that for our employees. We're trying to attract the best talent in the world to bring them here to Vermont to help us spin up what we're trying to do. So it's, there's a lot of value to us to be able to complete what it is that we are laying out here in front of you. So the first phase is really a lot of infrastructure. Yeah, yeah, and we can. That you don't want to leave. Don, can I weigh in on this? Yes, go ahead, Mark. Sure. So, you know, I hear Art saying, and I do agree that this first phase is the major push on the project. And the subsequent phases, I don't want to call them infill projects, but if they don't happen for a period of time or say markets change, company changes, and they don't happen, they aren't, you know, the deal breakers on the overall project, I think. But the one thing that does concern me is the phasing on, and I don't have it in front of me, so I'm not sure what phase it is, but the buildings on Williston Road that are gonna be screening the parking lot, that I think we do need sort of a, I don't wanna say a sunset on, but some sort of, you know, that needs to happen within a certain time period if they're being proposed to be used as the screening for the parking. Can you address that? I can, although I would ask for the board's patience and since that's number one, and there's more detail in the next agenda item that we defer that conversation, Mark, to the next agenda item, and we can go into that in more detail. You mean the next document? No, well, what you'll see here in this comment is I refer this response back to the response in 2128 because there's a lot more detail. I didn't copy it here, and maybe I should have some of my apologies. Okay, because the next staff comment is exactly what Mark is talking about, about how that parking would be exposed until the red phase is built. That's right, and that comment that this in maybe not the exact words that you have here in 12 is staff comment number, number three under site plan review standards in the upcoming agenda item. Although isn't this conversation about those buildings germane to the whole phasing that we're trying to discuss here? Yeah, so if you wanna talk, we're happy to go into it, Dan. It's more just how the agenda's organized. That's all I don't wanna talk about. Well, I mean, I think that's gonna help us. Let's just hear it now. Yeah. So relative to the commercial building that's proposed there, for a variety of reasons, we would propose that there is no timeline there. The airport currently has long-term leases on the existing building, the 3060 Wilston Road building. And so whatever would have to happen there would have to run concurrent with those leases and whatever obligations the tenants have for extending those leases. So that's part one. Part two is we believe that the DRB, the board, actually has the latitude to waive that requirement. And that's detailed out here in the next item. And the reason for that is the standard that we're trying to apply with the parking in front of the building creates an unusual, in quotation marks, as defined by 14.07E, it creates an unusual hardship. And it's a hardship that we're not bringing on ourselves. It's a hardship that's created by the FAA restrictions that don't allow us to park in the back of the building because the back of the building is the airside of the building and the FAA has that as controlled airspace. And so we couldn't park employees on the apron and then have that apron also be usable by the airport for aerospace needs or ourselves for the assembly needs. So the language, it's pretty tricky language in the way that it's constructed for sure, but in peeling it back, it does seem that the board has some latitude there and whether the board wants to exercise that latitude is certainly at the board's discretion, but it could be exercised under this provision of an unusual hardship. It's not something that we take up lightly. Certainly we recognize myself having sat in your shoes on both the development review board and the planning commission. There've been many projects that come claiming that there's a hardship and you kind of have to fair it through that and determine whether it's an actual hardship that can be mitigated, whether it's a hardship that was created by the project or whether in fact it truly is what's defined here as an unusual hardship. In this particular instance, we meet the stringent waiver requirements of 14.7E as an unusual hardship due to the FAA regulations and would open that to discussion about really what the timing is of that commercial building and how together we find a path forward that allows the development to move forward smartly, allows the airport to meet their obligations on the existing leases and not force a situation similar to something that I rude at this day, the structure that sits out by CBS along Dorset and Wilson that was put in place to circumvent this exact issue. Now their hardship, I would argue, is not a hardship. It wasn't created by anything other than the location of the lot. Here we've got outside entities that are driving the ability or lack of ability to park as the regulations would allow us to park. That's a mouthful. So I'll pause and take the comments and questions and thoughts. What do you have in mind in terms of a commercial building? Well, originally what we saw there was a potential place for Mirror Bells to maybe migrate to. We saw that as a potential for our daycare facility and we saw that as a potential for future vendors that may be or associated businesses that may want some space near beta. As we've gone through the process, Mirror Bells has invested a lot of money in their current lease as we've come to understand working with the landowner. They've got a lease that goes out sometime. We've since been working with Wagner Hodgson found a way to add the daycare as an independent building on the site which does a lot of things for us. It provides a gateway. It also segregates that daycare and allows us to comply with some of the regulations associated with daycare in a much easier way than would be if that was co-joined with the commercial building. So the commercial building at this point now becomes truly a spec building. There may be a developer out there that wants to do that, but right now, again, as we spin up the business and trying to figure out how this may all work, the commercial building is not a focus for us at this time or a focus for the landowner, the airport. Okay, thank you. I was just wondering if building that upfront might alleviate the shielding of the parking issue but sounds like I wouldn't. Right. Okay, so where are we here? Sorry. I'm a little confused about what provision of the LDR art is referencing, which is why I just had Delilah pull up the section about parking. The hardship. Yeah. 1407E, I'm going to change glasses here. 1406B? So 1406B, 1407 is not about parking. 1406B2 is about parking. So it's got to be something in B2. So there's the one about, it contains one or more existing buildings that are to be reused, which is not likable. I think art's probably referencing sub three. The lot has unique site conditions such as utilities, winter, unstable soils, the laffer parking, but not a building to be located adjacent to the public street, possibly. And I know that we have used that condition on a, I can only think of one project to be honest with you. And that's tech park, the parking that's along Kimball, that's in front of those buildings. And it's because of the green mountain power easement and the parking's below it. And the building could not be located in that location. But in this case, the building can be located adjacent to the street. And we've got art is arguing that he can't because of FAA regulations don't allow the parking be behind it and up on, is that correct? So what we're, the point of conversation here is that, and I'm trying to find that right. That's actually myself here, Mark, also. So I can just give you one second, eight. Page 265. 255? 255. So yeah, the provision that we're looking at is that in the way that the LDRs are organized is 14.07 E, it's not a parking provision. It's a general provision that allows the DRB to modify the standards, wave standards, address the standards differently than as written based on an unusual hardship. And that is, that's the true standard right there is the unusual hardship. And so what we're saying here is that we, you're asking us to build a building that neither beta nor the landowner need at this point in time as a response to our inability to park behind our building because the FAA restricts that space. So that means we're forced through that restriction and that governance to put the parking in the front of the building. If we put the parking in front of the building without a waiver or some measure that we mutually agree to in terms of the timing of that building, then we have to build a building that we don't need right now. We may need it in the future, but as we're trying to spin up the business to spend the money to build that building and to also take away, not take away, but in addition to all the additional infrastructure we're putting in, whether it's the open space, the new road, the parking, it's a hurdle and a burden that we believe the DRB has the ability to address through this particular language. I got a quick question for you, all right. Does the FAA restriction say you can't park behind the building or you can't park in this certain defined area of the lot? Whoa, that's a good question. It would be a certain defined area of the lot in this particular case that that area behind the building is the lot associated with Aeronautics. Okay, is it defined on the map, on the drawing or is it, in other words, is there some line? Right. Where is this magic line that says, like how is the apron defined? Is it right there between the blue and the white or is it, like what's there right now? And would that be the sight of line? That's great. It's not much the fence line. Yeah, so the fence line doesn't go across the front of the building then, but fundamentally where that blue line is that you just talk between the blue and the white. There's a red line that gets painted on the ground and that will dictate what is airport control, what is beta control. And that's the imaginary continuation of the fence line across the apron because if there was a fence there, you couldn't actually roll the planes out onto the apron. So that line is painted almost at our front door that dictates once you step out that, across that line, you're now in FAA control space. And so can you draw with that line because I can't see the fence line. Yeah, so if you drew a line, Marla, right across the blue and white area where the new apron extension is, right? So there's a fence sort of there. There'll be a red line painted on the ground right there on the open space to the south, to the right of that line, Dan, will be a fence. That fence will come out along the lower edge of the apron and connects back into the existing, actually goes off the page the other way. Marla, no, no, I'm sorry. Go back to that corner where you were at, where you started drawing, right there. Yep, draw that line. And then come to the bottom of the apron. Oh, I see what you're saying. It's here, I'll draw it. You mean like that? Yes, exactly. So not that one. Yeah, not that one. So, all right, I totally hear what you're saying on that. But I guess the question is, if you were to essentially flip the building and the parking, are you still not allowed to have parking between the building and the apron? Or is it that location where the building is, could you have parking where the building currently is? Say that again. Let me put it another way. Let me jump in here. Can you move the building to the south to create space behind the building and that fence line that just got drawn? That's the question. We wouldn't have direct access to the airfield. The building would not be adjacent to the airfield. Correct, right. So when we open the hangar doors, the airplanes that we wanna fly out, we have no ability to access the airfield. All right, your argument makes sense and I see where you're coming from. And I think we need to take a little time to maybe confer with legal in terms of your interpretation. Cause I think, at least from my standpoint, I hear where you're coming from. I just don't wanna look for a reason to find a way to approve this, you know what I mean? I wanna make sure it's within our approval authority if that's your argument. Mark completely agree, this is not a light ask. We understand what we're asking the board to do and that's why we really focused on the structure and being an unusual hardship and not just being in a hardship. It's a hardship that's created just by the nature of aeronautical use at an airport. Okay, and just to follow up the whole northeast or the first base to second base line because I see a diamond, that's what I see. Southeast corner to the northwest corner. Is that all, is that side of the building completely open with like five hanger bays or is it one hanger bay or pointing up? Yeah, the slope there that goes there from first base to second is that all completely open with like giant doors that slide up or is it one door that's 30 feet wide for one plane to slide up, that's my question. We have two sets of doors. Each of those doors is 150 feet long. So there are two big doors that are your traditional hanger doors like you see at the air guard. They'll be on wheels. They'll open up the full width of the facility. Thanks. Okay, so where do we go with this? So I think that this is something for the board to deliberate on prior to the next meeting. Okay. All right, so we will do that. And we are going to continue this discussion and do we need to vote on that to continue? You do, let's just make sure we got through everything. So this was essentially 12, right? Yes. So I guess just to dig into 12 a little bit more, staff suggestion was that if they are, if the board is going to sort of accept this proposal to construct that liner building at a later time, what surety should they ask of the applicant in return to ensure that that building is constructed? And did you have any response to that? In terms of performance requirements, I guess the position that we were hoping we would find mutually is that we would landscape. So clearly we've done the planning, right? A building can go there. We've protected an area consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations to allow a building there. In fact, we've set it back a little bit farther to have it a little bit more grander entrance into the site. In terms of a performance requirement on when that building would be built, if we landscaped that in a way where the parking is 100, how far back is the parking, Chris? Gotta be over 100 feet. Yeah, we're in excess of 100 feet. We can certainly provide that. And some of the renderings that you'll see are actually, I think they were provided in the actual application. The last three pages of the application have renderings of the proposed landscaping for those areas and what you're actually seeing or not seeing, including not visibly seeing the parking and interestingly enough, because the building is set back 700 feet, you don't see the building either. The building is low, low, low on the horizon. It's a two-story building just below the trees that are farthest out in that picture. So we would ask that the board in your deliberations consider how we're treating that space and the fact that we are screening the parking, which is the ultimate goal for the land development regulations, right? Is we don't wanna see parking in front, but more importantly, we don't wanna see parking as we're driving down the streets and that's the planning exercise that's been going on in the city for a while. So if we're meeting that standard, then the development of the commercial building would happen in a normal course in terms of when the market or when beta could actually use it and we're just not building a building to have it sit empty. So if... So we will consider that when we deliberate. Deliberate, right, and then we can have a hopefully, if there's any need to have conversations with staff, we're happy to work with them in the interim on this piece as needed as we head towards the next hearing. Are you satisfied with that response for 12? Okay, so I think that we will... Do we vote to continue before or after public comment? After? After, okay. So thank you, Art, and all of you for your comments. Now we will turn this over, yes. Is this an appropriate time? I just was gonna circle back to make sure I understood what our action items were for you. I think I've got that we've gotta come back with some updated recommendations on the floor area ratio that will work with staff on the site coverage calculations that the staff will review the inclusion of the geothermal field in part of those calculations for item number one. Open spaces? Open spaces, yes, we've got to do some, what was it, oh yes, yes, got some additional items there on open spaces, thank you. The traffic study that's in play, we've got that. No action on six, no action on seven. Seven, I think we need the addendum. Yeah, I'm sorry, I took that as part of the traffic study and the other part, yes, you're correct. Those are tied together. No action on eight? No, you need to include the sidewalk on the master plan document. Right, which we will just resubmit that document which we have shown here, yep, exactly. I guess when I'm looking for action it's more calculations and updated things that we don't already have, my apologies. Item number nine, there's no action on item number nine. Item number 10, we're gonna come back to you with some parameters on equipment size and noise similar to what was developed for the North Edition. And then on item number 11 and 12, the board is going to deliberate on those items. The phasing and timing. Yep, okay. Awesome, thank you. All right, thank you very much. Are there any people in the audience who would like to make public comments? Are there any online? Nope, on the phone, no, okay. So I would entertain a motion to continue this. Do we wanna have a date? Yep. Yeah, I was gonna say, Don, don't we need to know when we're continuing the next agenda item because they sort of go hand in hand? Yeah, so I've reserved time for January 8th and I've discussed this with the beta team and they think that they can make that work as well. So January 18th, 18th. Okay. Just a second. Hello. Hold on just a second, please. Okay, so January 18th would be the recommendation. Okay, go ahead and take public comment and then we can do that. Thank you. Thank you for speaking up. Please introduce yourself and tell us what's on your mind. My name is Steve Marriott. I live over on Mills Avenue, just blocked from the airport. One of the reasons I watched tonight was I wanted to see where the 750 acres was and you've outlined like 36 or seven acres. Where is the 750 acres? I can answer that if that's all right, Don. So the 750 acres is the entirety of the airport parcel. And so this, I totally understand the confusion. It was very difficult to write in the first place. The airport parcel is 750 some acres, but they're proposing a master plan for a smaller portion of that that's included within the 750 and that's only 37 acres. So this only affects that 37 acres. Yes, but where are the 750 acres? It's like a long muddy brook and then along the Winooski River, like on the east side of the airport. Let's pull up a plan. We're going to pull up a visual. I believe it is page 16 of the packet, Delilah, is the overall locus map. So we'll probably have to draw on it to kind of show where that area is. So I'm going to try to do this. The airport property. Oh, and I'm going to get to all kinds of wrong because it's so zoomed out. I know. Kind of like this. That's the airport. Right. So that's the total acreage. But that's the acreage at the airport cones. Exactly. And so what is, beta doesn't own 758? No, so the parcel, beta doesn't own anything, right? Beta leases this 37 acres of the 750 from the airport. Correct. So beta is just pink in the corner. The five parcels that you talked about, Pete's RV and some other businesses. Yeah, another great question. So if you go to the next page, Delilah. So that's Willis Road on the bottom. Yes. And I, Steve, I actually had an opportunity to kind of give the board some facts before the public session of the meeting. So I just reviewed the same, very, very same questions with them. So they have the advantage of you. So the airport parcel is currently sort of this big one here. Oh, my pen is black. That's hard to see. And then the other four are this long skinny guy. Yeah. Okay. I believe it's something like that. There's some funky parcel lines in the air. Yeah. And then something like that. Yeah. Right. Those are the other, oh, is beta buying those or are those part of the airport? They're contiguous parcels under the same ownership. And so the airport is proposing to consolidate the parcels that they own into one parcel. Right. That makes a lot more sense than what I've been. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I'm satisfied. Thank you for your interest. Are there any other people online who would like to make a comment? Okay, so I would entertain a motion to continue this hearing to January 18th. So moved. Thank you, Dan. Second? I'll second. Any discussion? All in favor of continuing this hearing until January 18th, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Okay. So moving on to agenda item number seven. Now, do I need to square these folks back in? I don't know. Why don't we just do it just in case? Okay. All right. So I assume you're the gang. Would you all raise your right hand please and say solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Now, just a little time check. It is, we're coming up upon nine o'clock. This is a long staff report. And I'm thinking that a lot of these items we can no pun intended fly right through because you've seen them and you probably have an answer, but we are going to end tonight before 10 o'clock. And I don't think any of us expect that we will get through all the issues tonight. So just so there's no surprises. Well, let's see what we can do on that because I think you're right. I think we've covered the heavy ones already in here. That would be great. That would be great. So here, let me, let me get my, thank you, project description. So this is preliminary and final plat application SD 2128 of beta air LLC to consolidate five existing lots ranging from 1.53 to 736.2 acres into one lot of 747.92 acres. And to construct the first phase of a new concurrent application for a master plan to include 344,000 square feet manufacturing and office building, improving approximately 2,400 feet of private road and constructing associated side improvements 3070 Williston Road. All this is making so much more sense to me now that we've just had these discussions. So let us invite you. Do you want to make any introductory comments before we dive into this? Or do you think we've? We should probably describe what the first phase is. Okay. Right. And that would be the second packet. Yeah. Because we don't know how the plans were different. So tell us a little about this phase. Yeah. So in the packet that was just handed out, if you go to page 18 and same thing Delilah on the PDF. Hang on, we're giving Delilah too many directions at the same time. Can you make do with what Delilah has up on the screen to introduce what the project entails instead of going to that page of the thing you just handed out? Let me see what I can do here. I don't know if it's you, but no, I think you're okay. You're okay? So first phase of the project is generally everything that you see up there on the screen except for half of the lower half of the building. If you draw a line right through the middle of the building as we've talked through with the fire chief in terms of actually building the building. So all the infrastructure that you see there are the roadway, the connection back to Eagle Drive. The majority of the parking, there might be one small hammerhead that's in question that depending on how there's the grading and the access needs into the 3060 property that we're working through with the landowner, the airport there, but we're building more parking than is needing because we want to get as much of that built under the first phase as possible. We don't want to be bringing a whole lot of construction traffic across newly completed work and it will allow us to develop those other pieces that we talked about, the childcare, the, and even potentially the commercial building. Who knows what the timing on that would look like but allow those to happen independently. The, yeah, really it's page eight. The blue area on page 18 is everything we described. So it's the Wilson Road improvements. It's the new main drive. It's majority of the parking. I would say probably 85% of the parking. It's the north half of the building and the connections into the Eagle Drive. The stormwater infrastructure will be in place. Most of, if not all of the primary utilities are sized for the entire development. So those will be in place. It literally is putting in place the backbone so that we can come and just plug on these other projects that we talked about earlier. Sorry, you just said half of the building? Yeah, page 18. What was that? Half of the building? Well, what we have to do is we're going to construct, there you go, half of the building and then build the other half of the building as we're finishing. So we're going to roll out, but for purposes with discussions with the fire marshal, we had to do this because we're putting a new exterior. It's not, it's a wall that will be exterior when the full build out is complete. Do you want final plot approval for what was submitted with this application or for half the building in two phases? We want the whole building in two phases. Ah, so what you... This is what's behind you, yeah, right there. What you've submitted final plot application for is the blue and the orange. Yes. But you want the blue and the orange to be two separate phases, which is new information tonight, which isn't fine. But I had a little bit of a panic attack when you said you wanted half the building. So what your final plot application is the blue and the orange. That's right. In two phases. That's right. Yeah, well, I think we're good. Are we good? Blue and the light orange. Are you good? Yeah, right. The yellow is actually not a beta project. That's the project that the airport is undertaking as the apron and taxiway expansion. And so that's being funded separately. It's shown because there is some coordination that happens between us and the airport. And it gives you a sense for the total overall work that's ongoing. Okay. The green area is the childcare that will be constructed in the future. And then up towards the top of the page, the purple area, light and dark purple are the cultural center, the general aviation hanger and training center that we talked about earlier. And then the brown piece is a future project that will come in separately because it was added after the master plan application was submitted and we did not wanna have to pull the master plan application and resubmit. So that will come in as a completely separate project as the airport has been known to do from time to time. And it's what we call a cold storage hanger. It is a building that has two sides on it. We don't need to talk about that. This is very confusing because you have two projects, right? You have a master plan application that includes all this stuff. And then you have a final plot that includes all every single T and crossed and dotted I that is just the blue and orange. So right now we included the master plan that's all this stuff. And now we're only talking about the stuff for which you're requesting final plot approval. Farron, I was just trying to respond to the question about phasing, but if we're good, we're more than happy to move on. So final plot proposal is only for what's shown in the master plan as blue and now in his submittal from today shown as blue and orange. Right. Okay. All right. Staff comment number one. So staff, we need site coverage for each zoning district. Yes. We have updated the table for the unknowns which were in the AI zoning district and the IC zoning district. As you can see here on the handout in front of you, we've also added the staff comment. Number one actually has two parts. One are the dimensional standards. And then the second part is the front setback coverage computation, which is provided as the last line that's been added to this original table. And you can see that that is shown as 13%. So we've addressed those staff comments in the updates to the table. Thank you. Number two, we need to see the approval from the airport regulatory agencies, please. Understood. We understand that's a condition to receive the zoning permit. Those are in process and we'll have them to you as soon as we have them. Okay. Thank you. Number three, this is our old friend parking. The regulations do not allow parking to be in the front of the building. So the question is how to resolve that but I guess we're gonna have to have deliberation about that and. Agreed. Number four, Marla, I wasn't sure I understood this, although I might now, but if you could, staff recommends that the findings on this criteria reflect the findings pertaining to access between properties on concurrent master plan application. MP2102 staff has not identified the need for any cross-lot connections beyond those which are proposed. Yeah, I guess what I'm saying here is that access to budding properties feels like it ought to be a master plan criteria for this project. So if there is any need for additional connections, that should probably be included in the master plan. Okay. Is that good art? It is. Okay, good. And then number five, need for clarification about the conflict between existing overhead utilities and the proposed water line. We have corrected that conflict. If you'd like more detailed explanation, I'm happy to have Chris come up and share that with you. Do we need more detail now? I think that's a technical issue that they can sort out with a revised submission. Perfect, thank you. Number six, need information about the dumpster enclosure and screening, please. Yes, so the dumpster enclosure actually sits slightly below grade, is depressed by about four feet. And so what we provided on page four of 18, the next item there is a perspective looking at the dumpster enclosure from the new drives. And you can see that if we go to the next page there, Delilah, there you go. So there is a view of it. We've got, you can see the depressed area. It's behind the two loading dock doors. It's the next section over, below those first windows that you see. And so when you take the compactors and you set them down four feet and then you add a screen wall on top of the walls here, that's how we're screening them. They need to have direct access to allow the waste haulers to come in, grab them, empty them and move out. But we want them hidden for our own purposes as well. And this is how we've done that. Okay, any questions from the board? Okay, the next comments are about landscaping. Number seven, what does the board think about the ground covering being considered part of the landscape or considered in the landscape calculation? What is a standard ground covering like? What's grass? Actually, yeah, I think it was pointing out that a lot of the site is to be seated with either mainly conservation mix and not necessarily trees and shrubs. Okay, will that be mode? Occasionally, just to keep, one of the things we have to be aware of is not attracting wildlife that could cause conflicts with airplanes, mainly large birds. So we're trying to keep a lot of the site so that it can be mode a couple of times a year but be native kind of grasses. Okay, good. So if I can provide a little sort of exposition about landscaping standards in general, as we go over very often, the board can allow things other than trees and shrubs if the objectives of the landscaping standards are met. One of the objectives is the site is well landscaped. And so one thing that staff is pointing out here is that a lot of the site isn't trees and shrubs. A lot of it is sort of this conservation mix or standard lawn. And so that's something to keep in mind as you're thinking about what they're asking to be applied like benches or movable chairs and things. Should that be allowed when they also have lots of space that isn't trees and shrubs? Okay, that's kind of all we're trying to say here. Any questions from the board? So that's sort of something I think that'll come out of, okay. Do I hear Mark question? Yeah, yes. I guess my question is at this point, Marla, do you think we should review the landscaping to see if it's sufficient? And therefore we should be allowing some of these other landscape elements to be used towards the landscape budget or is it that further on in this review? Well, that's sort of staff comments seven through 16 is all about the landscape. So it's sort of a holistic. So seven is the start. And at the end of 16, we'll be able to provide the guidance as to whether or not the site is well landscaped and therefore we can allow the credit for something we normally wouldn't. That is well phrased, Mark. Thanks Mark. Anything else from anyone? Okay, number eight. We need computation of the parking lot landscaping area. And you'll see there as in response to eight, there's a diagram and the analysis that Jeff and team did, which indicates that the interior islands account for 36% of the parking area. So the interior islands are in green, parking area is in orange. Okay, thank you. Okay. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to address the comments of the city arborist that are in on our report in blue, tree protection, deciduous planting detail and landscaping plan L, whatever it is, L 200, yes. And the applicant is complying with those recommendations. As you can see here, we will remove any reference to crown pruning. We're modifying the planting detail to change the pruning method. And we've added soil cells in the locations indicated in green in the attached sketch. So with a detail of the soil cell below. So I'll have the city arborist look at that third response. Great, thank you. Next, number 10 regarding shade trees. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide an exhibit demonstrating that this criterion is met. And the criterion was one tree per five spaces. And what Jeff and his team have done here is they've highlighted the various parking areas in the different colors and then counted the trees associated with those parking areas. So you can see that in the various areas, you can simply, where there's 55 spaces, there's 11 trees that meets the one in five requirement. Same thing for the red area as you go around. So we believe we've met that requirement. And here's a diagram that shows how. Okay, thank you. Look good, Marla. We will review it. Okay, thank you. Number 11, what's the plan for snow removal? The team reviewed the original snow removal plan or snow storage plan, which is in the light blue with airport operations. Since airport operations will be maintaining the new driveway to determine what, if any, additional snow storage was needed. The outcome of that meeting in the darker blue shows the additional snow storage areas that are being proposed to accommodate a complete snow removal in the case of a storm event. So if it's maintained by the airport operations, does that mean they have the ability to haul it if it gets to be too much? I don't know if that equipment is on the public drive. I think that's inside the fence line, but. We would have the ability and the equipment throughout our airfield to be able to move relocator. We hadn't talked about that, that's great. I have a question for Marla. I noticed that two of the snow storage, especially some of the larger ones, are where the proposed buildings are supposed to go. Do we customarily allow that? Or do we put a modifier in there saying, you got to find another snow storage area when these buildings are built, or? We are. And do we want a pile of snow at the front of the parcel, creating a wonderfully visual? Yeah, well, so that latter question is for you guys, right? Yeah, actually, that's a good observation, Dan. That was something that I missed by the initial review here. Certainly, we would be okay with a provision that said, hey, if we so chose to store snow there, that it would be okay until the building built. But really, the bigger question is, do we want to pile the snow at our main drive? And we'll circle back on that one. Okay, thank you. Great, thanks. Number 13. So this, this is. What about 12? Right to the cabinet? Well, thank you. Not that that's a deal breaker, but there it is. Yes, the staff had requested us to indicate how we were screening the electrical cabinet because it either wasn't shown or wasn't clear on the original documents. So here's a drawing that shows how we're proposing to screen that electrical cabinet. So was there a conflict, and this is a modification? Actually, we weren't aware of the cabinet when we did the planting plan. So it was still in development and coordination. So this was something we would have had to have caught. Right, so you kind of take my implied point. You should do some catching of things before you get. Yeah, noted. Okay, 13. The value of the concrete, it seems like the dollar value associated with a concrete pavers seems to be high, very high. And are there any alternatives that you could consider? Did I capture that right? Hang on, I was taking notes on electric cabinets. Staff recommends that the board consider requiring the applicant to replace some of the concrete pavers or the landscaping valley associated with pavers with commissioned artwork as recommended in the next staff comment. I have a question about that. Is the landscaping standard, it's a financial formula, right? That two percent or three, right? Is there language in the regulation that says you can do artwork instead of landscaping to meet the requirement? It doesn't specify in this zoning district what the things are other than trees and shrubs. It says right above that, in evaluating landscaping requirements, some credit may be granted for existing trees or for site improvements other than tree planting as long as the objectives of this section are not reduced. So this has always been a really tricky one for the board. And only in the past, say, two and a half years has the board really leaned into that credit for other site improvements. So in those last two and a half years, the board has been cautious about allowing credit for things that don't really enhance the site. Okay. Yeah, I just want to be clear what the standard is. So that's why. The standard is pretty big. Yeah, and did the new LDRs provide any light on this or not to? I don't know if that's changed. I know that it's very different in the form-based code. And what that is is it has a specific list of things that can be included, but there's also a minimum percent of the required landscape value that has to be placed. And I'm, and I don't want to discourage the use of the pavers and the chance to infiltrate stormwater, but on the flip side of it, it's the parking that's driving the stormwater treatment. So you kind of choose your poison there. So by having so many employees that drives, that a lot of parking was drive your impervious, which drives your need to come back to us and say, hey, the pavers really landscaping. That's all. So the landscaping cost is a fraction of the building cost. But the pavers are a stormwater treatment mechanism, which is driven by the need to infiltrate because of your large impervious surface from the parking lot, right? I think so. It's just broken out separately. Just excluded from our calculations, it just gets pulled out separately. So when we're calculating the size of our basins to infiltrate, it just gets taken out of the equation. Yeah, it's not part of the equation, Dan. So it's not jurisdictional eventually. But it is pervious. The pavers are pervious. Right. And so if you didn't have concrete pavers, if you had standard concrete, you would have to provide treatment for it. Exactly, yeah. But you could provide pervious concrete. Not pervious concrete. We've tried that. Yeah. Pavers, yeah. That's a philosophical conversation. Pervious asphalt, yes. Permutable concrete, no. Thank you. So are we good with this? What do we wanna ask the applicant to come back with? I mean, 46.5% in pavers. What are you willing to do? To reduce the percentage of pavers as part of the budget. Right. That's a good question. Jeff, I don't know. I mean, right now we have, we included the differential between regular concrete and permeable pavers. So here's the other way I would look at that. Our current landscape budget, and it's the page 19 in the, page 20 in the packet. Our current landscape budget as it sits on the project right now is $1.7 million. If we just take out the calculation for the concrete pavers at half a million dollars, we're at 1.2, which is still in excess of the required landscaping budget per the land development regulations. So in terms of meeting this, I would say that we wouldn't do anything with the pavers that we would still move forward with design because we're exceeding the budget without including those pavers. That makes sense to go through the rest of the items because we, I think the next one is the furniture, which. Yes. We've pulled out. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. The other way Delilah, yeah. It just, that just did not meet the, okay. Yeah, and we're okay with it, we're good. I mean, it might be nice and functional, but it's not landscaping. Yeah. All right. Okay, so I just understood what Art said. He said that the landscape budget, so I just looked at their table. Their landscape budget removing the furniture is they're proposing 1.7 in landscaping. They're required to provide 1.1 in landscaping. The pavers are 0.5. So 1.7 minus 0.5 is still more than 1.1. So if, so the pavers don't matter. Right. The pavers are a red herring. Right. And we've also, if you go on to the next item, we took the movable furniture out that added back in permanent furniture. Okay. And what about the new bike racks? Changed bike racks. Yeah, we're happy to put the ones that were approved for the north hangout. And number 15, we need to understand the cost of the evergreens and documentation for that. Yeah, I mean, plant material is like all the construction materials right now. We're seeing increases at a more rapid rate than we have in the past 10 or 15 years. Right. We try to use numbers from other projects as much as possible, as we know they're real numbers, but we're happy to actually get quotes for the evergreens and the larger trees. And we're happy to share the quotes with you based on the specs that the team's developed for the project. All right, thank you. We'll look forward to seeing those. Number 16, can the soil cells count as landscaping as the question, whether we should consider that? Ward, what do you think? Could you give me a brief for us explanation of what soil cells are, please? For trees that are growing within hardscape, whether it's a plaza or a small parking lot island, the latest trend to kind of assure that the tree grows to its full potential is to install these, basically they're like big crates that support the pavement, the weight of the pavement, and they prevent the soil from being compacted under the pavement. And they reduce the need for so much gravel. And so it's basically underground boxes that have really good garden soil in them for the tree roots to grow into. So if you look at the detail that was provided, the way you look back, you can see how these crates support the pavement, and then you fill the crates with really good soil and the roots can grow out into that instead of gravel and compacted subgrade and things like that. Okay. I'll jump in on this, only because I've been in a couple of webinars over the years talking about them, and it's just, it's part of the cost of planting. At minimal, some trees just have the little things that hold them in place. That's a cost of installation, and this is the standard that municipalities are trying to move to, so that trees actually grow up instead of growing up halfway up the building and stopping. So I would say yes. So you would support it? It's a cost of insulation. This is the industry standard now, and it's something that our arborist would recommend. So yeah, I would say so. They're really tough to respond to. But the long-term benefits are substantial. You'll get real trees. Good, thanks for that input, Dan. Any other comments about that? Are we good with that? Okay. And then these are the comments. So I guess just to circle back to Mark's comment on stuff comment seven about ground cover, it sounds like they're, you know, obviously we haven't reviewed these new materials, but it sounds like they're representing that they are meeting the landscape minimums. So I don't think we really need to talk about whether there's too much ground cover versus trees. Okay. I would agree with Marla. All right. Moving on to the comments from the storm water section, and how can you address those? How do you plan to address those? Chris, you wanna jump up here? I guess real quick, and then Chris can talk through any of the details. There was a storm water coordination meeting held on 1217. These are draft minutes because they have not been yet approved and reviewed by those participants, but in this, we would outline each of those questions and how we're going to move forward based on that discussion. Because we'll wanna see those before we close on this hearing. Agreed, and once we have the final minutes, we'll submit those to- Okay. Thank you. Yeah. If you need me to go through them, I'm gonna just repeat exactly what Arjah said. We met with Dave Wheeler and Christine Jingress on Friday to review a lot of their comments. Okay. I provided meeting notes for that meeting and a written response in a memo format to each one of those comments. And I'll follow up with them later this week to make sure we're on the same page. We do owe them a couple documents to help them to make their determination, but everything seemed to be moving in the right direction. Great. Can I ask a question? You sure can. Do any of those comments require things that are noteworthy in terms of, like from an overall site plan? Are any changes gonna be made that we'll even be able to see from that level? No, what they're looking at was- Finding details. Very finding details. Watershed boundaries were the big comments. The only caveat I have is that we're currently performing soil investigations. So the only thing that could happen is if we do find unsuitable soils, those are the only changes that may result as part of that. That was one of their comments they had. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Number 18, we need more information about the proposed recreation path. As we discussed during the master plan, that's the recreation path that goes up along the upper ledge and terminates at the viewing area. As we've noted here, that path was introduced to provide access in the future to the daycare all the way up to that viewing area and then onto the Muddy Brook and Allen Brook Basin. The applicants prepare to maintain this path and provide access to the public through the property. Okay. Does it connect to anything? It doesn't. Well, we're creating the path from Wilson Road up to the viewing area and then at such time that the airport wants to, or the community wants to connect back to that in some way, there is that possibility, but we're only taking it as far as it's shown on the master plan. But the terminus will be the viewing area. That's right. Okay. That's right. Thank you. Number 19. Madam Chair. Yes. Before we get to 19, I just want to talk a little bit about traffic and I didn't do a deep dive on the plans. Is there any plans for a left turn lane or for, okay. There is. Wilson Road will be widened in that area. We'll be widening to our property side so there's no interruption of utilities or property easements on the, I guess it'd be the southbound side of Wilson Road. And once it's widened, there will be a left turn lane that will be provided at the signal. Is there projections on for traffic that's headed eastbound from, Burlington in towards headed east on Williston Road? David, can you speak to, I'm just kind of curious about how many cars are going to queue up back? And what was it going to, how many cars will that left turn lane accommodate? And then my second question is more just long term, once the thing is fully built out, is there any way Valley Drive could be incorporated so that you sort of got, if you're headed westbound, you turn, there's only one right turn lane to turn in and when you're leaving the, it's more of a U-shape, it becomes a giant U-shape driveway rather than two potential exits and he gets some people going, I'm going to slip in here and then people waiting to turn left and, I don't know, I mean I just, I know they'll widen the road but Williston Road is such a blank show right now that it makes me nervous and it's good to see the jobs and it's good to see that the bed, it's kind of like, geez, I'm a crow, this isn't, I don't like it. Completely understand. Let me address the flow issue and then David can speak to the queuing item there. We've intentionally through the design process tried to minimize or eliminate any impacts to mirror bells in those businesses. If we use that road as an opportunity for a U and egress out, then we're not being consistent with trying to keep them in their current state and maybe even improve it with some of the landscape features that we're providing. So as we talked through those elements with V-trans earlier this week, there was this concept of even potentially just making Valley Drive one way in, you connect to our road and then you come out at the stoplight where there's more opportunity for queuing. And so if queuing did happen, it wasn't happening in front of those existing businesses. So there's the mirror bells Valley road piece. David, you want to take the queuing? Yeah, yeah, Dan. So we did, we followed kind of V-trans standard traffic impact study guidelines and projected out to a five year build year. So we did take the Wilson Road traffic and projected it out to 2027. So that is, so those future projections on Wilson Road just of the background traffic is kind of embedded in the traffic impact study. And then further, the left turn lane that's shown here on the screen is was sized based on an expectation for the full build out. So we did run some traffic analysis for to look at queuing with all four buildings built. And I think about 140 foot was the maximum queue length that we found. And so even under the full build out, we were able to accommodate the full queuing on fuel car stacking that left turn on Wilson Road. So was size kind of with that, the big picture in mind. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, number 19, the applicant has not enumerated the area of proposed encroachment. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to do so for record keeping purposes. Yes, just before we get to that, there was another item in here, and then your number two that staff considers the board may rely on the issuance of the permit of this demonstration. This had to do with, how did this have to do with here, EPSC. So erosion controls during construction. There is a note in the comments that we provided that says we've met with J. Nadu of South Burlington Water Department and that we're gonna make some adjustments based on those conversations. So even though it didn't show up in red in staff's report, I just wanted to let the board know that we have picked up on that comment and you'll see a response here in the write up. Great, thank you. Going forward, you're welcome. 19 temporary, you can see the minor impacts here that are shown and maybe Chris, just some quick detail on this. So as part of our wetland permit application, we worked with wetland ecologist Tina Heath and you'll see here the sidewalk has been modified very slightly to update the grading, to minimize the impacts that we were previously showing. And if you see these two areas, we have one area where there's, in yellow, those are the actual buffer impacts and they're both, one is slope impacts and on the one on the right is actually our stormwater outfall impacts. We only, we made it a point to try not to disturb the wetland as much as possible. So we tied into existing stormwater infrastructure and there was only one situation which is the primary discharge from our site, the parking area and the building that we needed to put in a new pipe to make sure it could support that area. If you see in the green, we're actually, right now there is a gravel road that goes into the wetland buffer. In a lot of cases, we're removing that gravel road and reestablishing it with grass. So getting some level of credit for providing, you know, refurbished wetland buffer that was originally gravel road. So that's, there's a breakdown and there's a graphic that we're submitting to the wetland ecologist as part of our wetland application. We can absolutely give you that same graphic and you'll see that sidewalk modification in the next round of drawings. Thank you. Great. Any questions from the board? Number 20. Number 20 is a request for meeting minutes from the meeting with the South Carolina Fire Department. Those are included as attachment B or appendix B in the write up that you have. Okay. 21, request or requirement to remove the upliting. Yes, we will be removing the upliting. Okay. 22, a request or requirement that you lower the wall mounted fixtures. Yes. So that occurs in two places. One is at the loading dock and one is at the hangar door location. So at the loading dock, we are going to relocate that below the 30 foot limit that's established in the LDRs. In at the air side hangar door, you can see where the light fixtures are noted here in the sketch that's provided. The hangar doors are 36 feet high. So lowering those lights to a 30 foot level since they're building mounting lights isn't possible. And we would request that the lights remain as designed so that we can operate that airfield as we need to during the assembly process. I might have an easy answer to this. Nick, are these lights required by the airport? These would be required as they're on the apron side of the airport. Federal exemption. Okay. There we go. Perfect. Thank you. Great. Okay, number 24. We should actually go back to 20th. As much as I would like to move to 24. Pardon? Another lighting question here on 23 for you. Oh, I thought we just addressed that, okay. Yeah, well, we're going to move the light down in the loading dock area to the 30 foot level. There was a separate request to not exceed three foot candles which our current design is 10 foot candles. We're proposing to lower our foot candle level to six. We need that as a minimum operating level for safety because we're going to run multiple shifts at the assembly plant. We have to have that safe for our folks to go out there and work. When they're not out there, we would put it on an occupant sensor, reduce it below the three foot candle requirement that's requested here as a way to comply with the guidelines. Does that work? It's not my decision, but it is consistent with some things the board has approved in the past. All right, okay. So if the board has any regrets about those decisions, now would be the time to speak up. Okay, board, any concerns about this? Sounds like a pretty good plan to me. Okay. Now we can move on to 24. Recommends the board not conclude the hearing until positive determination from the storm water section is made and we've already talked about that. We have. Okay, number 25, this is, we need specifics about bicycle storage, parking spaces, changing facilities, showers, and lockers. Yeah, great. We're actually, we're excited about this component of the project. You can see here from the insert, both the table and the plan, the table provides a calculation on the number of long-term and short-term spaces that we're providing. We've got two locations, what we call the Southeast entry, which is entry, the blue box. So the lower section of the page, the Southwest entry is the blue box towards the upper left of this sketch. So in the Southeast entry, we're providing 24 long-term, 16 short-term for a total of 40 bike parking spaces. In the upper entry, the Southwest entry, we're providing 16 long-term, 10 short-term, 26 total. So in total, we have 66 short and long-term bike parking spaces. Okay, good. For the lockers and showers, we have 340 lockers in the entry at the bottom. We have 156 lockers at the entry at the top. Our locker requirements are sized by our employee needs. So if you're working on the assembly floor, you're likely gonna come in, you're gonna have a locker that you can use to change your clothes, to go down to the assembly floor, you're gonna work, you're gonna come back, you're gonna shower if you want to, and then you're gonna change back into your street clothes and go home. So you'll see here that we have 496 lockers in total and 17 showers to accommodate the employees, which is well in excess of what we would need to accommodate bus cyclists. We also have, as part of the commitment to cyclists, we have a service station and an air station that will be provided if folks need to do maintenance on their bikes. Okay, thank you. And the next question is about the bus shelter and it must conform with the LDRs. I will say I've not installed a bus shelter, but since this is a Green Mountain transit route, that this is a Green Mountain transit shelter that we anticipate putting in and this is a picture of what their standard shelter is. It's not what I'll call a beta shelter, so we'd like to work with Green Mountain transit on maybe something that's a little bit more consistent with our vision for the campus. We have to go through those discussions, but at a minimum, we would provide what Green Mountain transit does for this type of shelter. Okay. Board, does that work? What about the part about for the bus to conveniently leave the traveled way to pick up our discharge passengers? I imagine that's being looked at by V-trans as well. So we do have, so what we understand is that GMT historically prefer to stay in rather than exit the travel way because by staying in, it's easier for them to merge back into traffic. If they totally merge out of traffic, it's difficult for them to jump back on the road and the way it's designed right now is consistent with the way that they're designed up and down Wilston Road. Can you, so Board, I'm willing to take this on. It sounds like our standard doesn't fit with GMT standard. How would you guys feel if I worked with GMT to figure out what's up? Mm-hmm. Article 13, I think. I just have a question. Isn't parts of Shelburne Road, the buses get out of the traveled way? Parts, yeah. Yeah, like right in front of IDX, for example, or whatever it is. Okay, it'd be good for you to pursue this, because yeah. Can you connect me with your, can you connect me with whoever you talk to about that? Yes, absolutely, yeah. Before we get onto the phasing question, I just wondered if it's good to see the, it's nice that there's a bus stop there, although I don't know what the frequency of the bus service is there. That's a problem out of your hands. I'll leave that to some regional entities. I have a question about a lot of employees. Do you have any plans for any kind of transportation demand management, carpooling, vans, incentives that people buy a house within a mile of the building? You know, I mean, it's just, it's gonna be a lot of employees. We have a housing crunch right now. It is, I see all these people living out and way out in the middle of nowhere and driving a Tesla won't save them. It still creates a problem of people living far apart from where the jobs are located. Yeah, boy, Dan, that's an interesting one. I mean, I'm just trying to think like it's good yet. Car charging stations, that's great, but then that reduces the, but it's still a long commute and an inefficient land use patterns, et cetera. Right, so we have included in the traffic analysis, the parking analysis, we're gonna provide carpool, dedicated carpool parking spots. We're going to pay for passes for folks on CapMut so we can do that. Certainly there'll be van opportunities. We'll have maybe even some inter company shuttles that just park at the parking garage and we'll find a way over through that using an electric shuttle. We're doing as much as we could think of before you mentioned the buy a house within a certain distance. I just, I mean, that's an interesting thought. Well, I mean, it's all part of an employee compensation package. There's people that's moved into my neighborhood over by rice that are working for you guys, I think and I like my neighborhood, but nobody should have to pay $450,000 for under 2000 square feet of an old cape. So, you know. I mean, it's all part of the thing. Like if you, it's this consistency and you have to find different ways to promote and you want employees that live close so that when it's wintertime, they're not like trying to get through on I-89 from Weitzfield or farther. Yeah, no doubt. The housing issues are one of the, the two biggest issues are housing and daycare. We feel like we're going, we're able to impact the daycare side with the way that we've planned the master plan and the opportunity there. The housing one is one that we're, we're trying to impact in different ways. We hadn't considered something like this, but we're open to any other ideas, creative ideas on. Well, and I'm also just wondering too about, like depending on what your shift schedule is. That's part of- And the GMT, for example, the GMT, I don't know what its hours are, but it's relatively limited to compare to most, you know, larger cities. So then you have to start running into running specialized shuttles or things like that, knowing who your crews and your staff are. I mean, I'm just trying to- Right, because our demand management strategy right now, we have our first shift letting off, so the four to six peak, we're trying to stay out of that. So our first shift lets off, our second shift comes on between three and three 30 to stay out of that four to six time band. But what we hadn't thought about, which is good, and we just need to make sure we coordinate with GMT is by moving our shifts to that structure, are we negatively impacting those that want to ride a bus because the bus maybe isn't on that schedule. So there's something that we need to appeal back here just to make sure that it's working. But in general, whether it's bikes, carpooling, electric vehicles, bus passes, shift allocating, we're trying to be as creative as we can to keep as much traffic off the network during peak times as possible. Okay. Thanks. Yeah, it's a challenge. Okay, I can't believe this, but we're about to look at the last comment. This is related to the phasing plan. If the applicant desires a phase board approval, they must present phasing plans. So how does this fit with the discussion we had earlier? This is my moment of panic, right? This is, if you're gonna, they have presented a relatively large final plan application. And so if they don't want to build it all at once, the board can approve a final plan in phases. You know, this would be blue phase A, B, and C. Oh, I see, okay. As opposed to the phases we were talking about earlier. Right, so it's not master plan phases, it's final plan phases. And so really what I should have done here, Marla, to ease the angst a little bit because the blue is the blue. It's really two colors of blue, right? Right, so for us too, so what Delilah and I have found is that it gets really messy if we don't have a plan that shows what the ground conditions look like at when you come in for a CO. Great. For phase blue A. Awesome. We'll have that for you. Okay, great. Thank you. So you're looking at two blue phases then, not three? No. Okay, okay, good. I can't believe we got all through these comments. Thank you for your efficiency in responding and having thought these through. Let's see if there are, are there any board questions or comments before we ask for public comment? Okay, anyone in the audience want to make comments? And is there anyone online who would like to make comments? No? Okay, so we are... May I ask a question? I'm... Hello? Hello? Yes, what's your name please? Hi, this is Peter Raymond. Yep, can you hear me? We can. What's on your mind? Great. I'm just here on behalf of Mansfield Helig flight. It's a neighboring use at the airport. And I just had a couple of clarifying questions about things that were said a little bit earlier in this process. I think there was one reference to FAA, an FAA application and the approval there. And I wasn't clear what the DRB's requirement was for that going forward. And since Mansfield Helig flight's also a general aviation use at the airport, I think it would be of interest and kind of concern what that would look like. So I just wasn't sure what the DRB, what that request is going forward. If that's material that's going to be required before the hearing is closed. Yes, I think we do require that documentation from the regulatory agencies. It's a little squishy in that it doesn't necessarily specify the timeline. It just says shall require approval. The board has taken two approaches in the past. Sometimes the board has said do it before zoning permit. And sometimes the board has said do it before closing this hearing. It's up to you guys, when you say before zoning permit, it puts the risk on the applicant. If they go through this whole process and button up everything and then they can't get a zoning permit, then they have to start over like we did with the airport hotel. Sorry to bring up the source object. So board members, what is your preference? Which approach do you think we should take? Have you guys submitted for your FAA approval? We have. We submitted back in May. We updated in November and we expect to hear back by the end of the year. So you should have it before we see you again. Wingers crossed. It's the FAA. You should have an update for us before we see you again. Well, I have an update for you, definitely, yes. Yeah, we're actively in communications with in coordination with the airport and the FAA on the 7460s, the variety of them that are required for the project. Okay, thank you. Peter, does that answer your question? I think it does. I think my understanding is that this hearing is going to be continued as well like a master plan. So there'll be some supplemental information that will be reviewed before people. Okay, yeah. Do you have any other questions or comments? No, I think as the additional materials is submitted, like I said, it's a general aviation use of the airport. So I think we'll review kind of once the full, once all the materials are in and submit any concerns in writing. Okay, good. Thank you very much. Any other comments from the public? Okay, I can't believe this. We are definitely done. So I'm gonna go ahead and move that we continue this hearing until January 18th. Second. Thanks, Dan. Any other discussion, any discussion about that? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Great, thank you for your patience. And did you? Okay, you didn't say aye. All right, aye. I, that concludes tonight's meeting and I wish everyone who celebrates has a good and safe holiday. Thank you. Thank you and thank you for all your help tonight. This conference is no longer being recorded.