 So calling the meeting to order the March 20th development review board and we'll first have Meredith review the remote meeting procedures. All right. So. I'm going to share my screen, which is mostly for. People who are. Watching via media. What you're not supposed to hear it. It's not going to be broadcast through the speaker up there because there's only a few people here. So you're going to hear me. The mic is for remotely. Is this down coming through. Okay. Sorry, I've got multiple people here coming in. Nope. Now I know I'm just I had to let people in. So it gives me trying to do too many things. All right. So for anyone who is watching tonight's development review board meeting via work and media, you can participate in tonight's meeting via the zoom platform through either video or telephone access options. So if you are joining us over the internet, you can type this link into your web browser and it will bring you into the zoom platform and then I'll let you into the meeting. Alternatively, you can dial in on this phone number when prompted plug in this meeting ID. And again, I'll get prompted and let you into the meeting. If anyone is having problems accessing the meeting. Please email me at mcrandle at montpillier hyphen vt.org. I will be monitoring my email throughout the meeting. For those attending via zoom, please make sure that your zoom name includes both your first and last name so that we know who we're speaking with and this will also assist the recording secretary. Note that turning your video on is optional. Also for everyone attending, please keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking. This helps reduce background noise. A final note, the zoom chat function should only be used for troubleshooting or logistics questions. If you have questions or comments about an item on the agenda, please raise your hand either physically or by using the raise hand button on your toolbar. Don't think we have anybody on via phone, but if somebody is listening via orca and then decides to call in the phone, you can use press star nine on your phone and this gives shows everybody on zoom a little hand icon so that we know that you're raising your hand and want to speak. If you have raised your name to speak. Please wait for the chair to recognize you and then once you've been recognized. If you're muted, make sure you unmute yourself and please state your name and address for the record. In the event the public is unable to access the meeting. It will need to be continued to a time and place is certain. I will now hand the meeting back over to the chair. Okay. The first item is review and approval of the agenda. So. Okay. We'll try to speak up. Yep, we can speak up. We can also, there's a speaker on that column in front of you. So we'll also turn that on. It gets a little funky, but that way. Please let us know if you can't hear. Okay. Great. We say yeah, it's okay. So there's a motion from Kevin. Second. To approve the agenda. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi, Abby. Yeah. Great. So this is a continuation of the. Isabel actually first let's let's do the review and approval of the previous minutes. And we should also introduce the numbers. I'm sorry. Introduce the numbers. Oh, I'm sorry. It's okay. No, you are starting in the right. That's why I'm here. Jean Leon board member. Kevin O'Connell board member. Meredith Crandall staff. Sharon Ellen vice chair. Jill Karen and board member. Abby, do you want to introduce yourself? Abby white board member. Michael today. No, Michael can't make it. I believe that's all about this. Um, so, uh, I presume everyone has had a chance to review the minutes. Well, whether any changes. You never need it. In a meeting that I attended, I was here on the 21st and that would prime. The next comment to approve the minute. Both sets of minutes. Both of us. Okay. Okay. Yes. I'll second that. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. Great. Okay. Um, so we are here for a continuation of the, um. Final subdivision and major site plan review. Uh, for Isabel circle. Um, I think it would be helpful. Uh, if we could get Meredith to do just a quick overview of kind of where we were from what information was missing. And we were looking for at the end of the hearing. And then we'll go from there. I can do that. Um, I think. Okay. Okay. I know we have at least one person who's new. Kurt Modica, who might be giving testimonies, which we should probably swear in anybody new. Okay. Um, I don't have my little script. That's okay. Um, Is there anyone else here or online who is interested in testifying tonight. Who hasn't. I mean, you continue to be sworn in from the last one, but if anybody who didn't testify at the last one. All those who are not sworn in before, please raise your right hand. That's you too. Kurt in the back. You still swear to tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth under the paints and penalties of perjury. I do. Okay. Um, so yeah, just with the overview of that would be great. So, um, I'm going to keep this fairly short and try and stick to the high points. Um, and for, uh, Um, if anybody here in the audience, there is a packet of the new material on the table, including the memo that I'm kind of using here as my crib sheet for the new stuff. Um, so feel free to take a look at that if you wanted to. Um, so you just want to note of what still needs to be resolved. Um, maybe if we could, um, I think it, I think it's worth going quickly through the result. Okay. Okay. Um, so, um, what I determined seemed to look at as resolved and the board members, it's not like the board members can ask questions about it again. Um, but my understanding is that we resolved that one, the, the phasing of this project, the first phase is actually going to be to build the full road and the stormwater infrastructure prior to building on the individual parcels. Um, so this dealt with the issue in the first staff report about whether there needed to be a condition of approval. Um, and so I think that's a good point. Um, I think that's a good point on building and hammerheads or other needs on the road for allowing people to turn around. While there are people living there, building there, that's, that's not an issue anymore. Um, applicant also agreed to shift parcel boundaries to the parcel 26. Um, and others intended for dwelling units continue the necessary area. Um, the new road is going to be designed for a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. Um, it's going to be underground conduits for utilities. Um, the applicant also attested to, um, parcel lines having been drawn to allow for renewable energy design options on the individual parcels as practical. Um, while noting that they also, you know, needed to meet the other zoning requirements of subdivision, um, and accounting for the natural grade of the property. So there's just, you know, some parcels may have a little bit more difficulty, but they did the best they could with where they're at. Um, I think that's a good point. Um, I think that the, the approval that seemed to be agreed upon. During the hearing, um, was applicant agreeing to submitting. Signed and sealed engineered plans related to the steep slopes aspect of the project. Um, prior to permit issuance. Um, agreeing to maintain the common land parcel for passive recreation as a condition of subdivision permit approval. And that's a detail that can be, be dealt with after the fact. Um, but we know that that's there and would be in a finding a fact of the decision. And then the board during the meeting seemed to be, um, on board, sorry, uh, with having the draft owners association documents be recorded in the city land records with the final subdivision plat. Um, versus having to take a look at them during the hearing process. Um, it's not like there were votes on these things, but this is the sense I got from what was said. Um, the board did request guidance from department of public works on the bike and pedestrian master plan and typology process for triggering upgrades to roads and sidewalks, as well as an overview of the, um, MOU process that the city goes through for transferring the private streets to city city streets. And so we did get responses from department of public works and the new materials. Um, and those are included on that table. If anybody wants to look at the originals. Um, so we did get a new plan set from the applicant. Um, and that addressed many of the things I noted here, as well as some others that were brought up. Um, including we got inputs from the parks director and the chair of the tree board on landscaping. So there's a revised landscaping plan in that packet. Um, that seems to address those landscaping comments. Um, and as well as the road being widened. Um, to 24 feet. Um, and that addressed comments both from the department of public works about there's some concerns about safety and making sure the larger vehicles can get by. Um, potentially parked vehicles as well as dealing with, um, Winter width issues. Um, and also addressing a request from the parks department to make sure that there was some potential for on street parking for access to the adjacent city park. Um, so that's been dealt with in those plans. And then, um, there's, there's a lot of information in there from DPW on. Like I said, the bike and pedestrian master plan, I think you guys can, can talk about that when you get there. Um, there were some specifics about, you know, water main tweaks. Um, the big thing from DPW that seems to be sort of un, unanswered as of the packet. Um, was a request for some more data supporting the 25 year storm design for the stormwater plan and some additional details on where the drainage would go once it leaves their retention plans. Um, there were a couple of tweaky things from the staff before it at least don't need to get to, but that's in the memo that helps. What you need. Thank you. You're welcome. Um, yeah. Oh, you're welcome. I get my intonation at this point would, um, be here from the applicant about what they've changed and what they've updated to just sort of. So everybody has that information, even if you haven't been receiving the packets. Um, and then. Um, it might also be helpful just for you to kind of review what the MOU process is. Are you there? Who's here? Yeah. So do applicant first and then Kurt. Yeah. So if you could just kind of overview what you've changed and sort of how up to speed we are. That'd be great. Thank you. Um, yeah. So thanks, Meredith. That was a great overview. Um, we did submit new drawings and the drawings were targeted and all the changes were to respond directly to the comments. So even though there's a lot of sheets there. Um, the prevalence of all the contours, basically, you know, the contours on many of the sheets, um, the road was on any of the sheets. So those changes were, um. The changes to make the road from 22 feet to 24 foot and with, um, to crown the road. Um, in accordance with DBW's, um, request, um, that change was made. Um, and then parking, we had a conversation with, um. The parks department and DBW, uh, relating to signage, providing, um, no parking signage at the intersections to prohibit parking within 50 feet. Um, and then how that, um, interface would occur, um, with the publicly owned land, um, and, and where, where the, um, ugly owned land of butts, the, uh, Isabel circle where that nears its termination, uh, along the Western, I'm sorry, the Southern side, the plan left, um, of the, of the project. Um, and then, um, what I, but those are generally the overview of the changes. Um, I guess what I could do is some of the outstanding ones that Meredith mentioned related to, to stormwater. Um, I have those numbers that, that available I could share. Um, we've prepared those calculations. When we've prepared the start, the state stormwater permit, um, and we received those comments, um, late Thursday, um, from Meredith. So our schedules just didn't overlap on, um, and on Friday and Monday. Um, so, um, I would have hoped that I could have shared that with, um, you know, another prior to the meeting, but I think, um, hopefully I can step through it with the board. Um, and Kurt, I'm learning hearing here, that I share the drawings. Now we look at where the rainwater fell and, and where it's going, um, and how we calculated the peak storm events. Okay. Um, it seems to me that, that stormwater is one of the bigger outstanding questions that we have. Um, the other things, it seemed like there were some changes made to, uh, landscaping and the tree plan. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. And so I can share those. I'll share the, um, Do screen share now and we can, we can look at the landscaping plan together and then the stormwater plan together as well. Okay. Um, what do board members think? Do we want to kind of step through that process and then maybe hear from the department of public works? Yeah. I'm hoping that some of this will, um, influence, well, not influence, but, um, Kurt's, you know, comments so that maybe, you know, if you could be talks, then I'd be like, well, we'll share that, uh, immediately afterwards. Great. We try to share it on Zoom here. Okay. So looking at the planting plan. That comes out a little funky. Do you guys see that? Okay. Or I might need to change the aspect ratio. Okay. I mean, it's not perfect, but it is readable. All right. We'll leave it. It looks normal on my screen. Yeah. There's something. It's the projector. The projector is a little funky. It did something weird to the proportions. So looking at the trees along here. Um, we've pushed them back behind the sidewalk, um, further back from the right of way, um, beyond where the swell is to keep them out of where the, the snow is being plowed. Um, down in the planting legend in the lower right corner here, we've introduced additional species. Um, some, um, maples, dincos, um, the London plane tree, um, the white, uh, this, this swamp white oak, um, and a triumphant elm. So, um, that's more species to, to induce some more of a variety along the, um, the streetscapes of the, um, other projects. So that's in accordance with the parks departments. Um, wishes. Okay. Um, see that. So now looking at the stormwater, um, this is the pre development area and there's. Three different drainage areas. So, um, down here in the lower left, there's ex one, and that's this area drains to the bottom left of the page, which is to the southeast of the project. Um, ex two drains to the, to the northeast of the project. And then ex three drains towards the north. Um, and so what we, what we do is why we donate this in the existing conditions is once you build the project and build the roads, the, the area where the stormwater flows may not be the same area. So we want to make sure that we do an apples to apples comparison so that the existing flows that are going to those three points, we look at in the post development conditions that they're the same. Um, but by not making sure that your, your drainage areas represent the pre and the post accurately, then you're not doing apples to apples comparison. So that's the goal at looking at the, um, existing areas. In the proposed areas. If you need to, you can move that microphone around the other way. So you don't have to keep going back and forth. My deal. Yeah. Um, so in the proposed areas, we use the same three. Um, discharge locations. Um, label this SN one, which matches up with existing conditions one. But as you can see the drainage boundaries of that is changing. Um, and then in the, um, also the. EX two matches up with PR two. And then, um, SN three matches up with EX three. And we have two separate, um, storm water treatment practices in there. The three P and the fourth P and we combine those. And when we looked at where the water flows. Um, and not only did we look at each of these three areas that the discharge rates are lower. Um, we've also looked that that does not go towards black well or Kaplan street, which is up on the north. Um, West portion. Um, the page top right of the project. There's this boundary here generally. All of the water that comes out of the project. Remains to the bottom of this line. And it follows a rather defined channel. Um, Surveyor and myself and an engineer walked along this route up and down to make sure that the water was not going further. Um, towards the page top, which is further west. Um, towards Blackland and Tafel streets. So, um, looking at the discharge locations. Um, now we can look at after in the post development conditions, the water flows through, um, these four different, um, they're constructed gravel wetlands. So they provide treatment through the gravel media, but then they also gather and hold back it in similar to like a pond and constructed pond. So looking at these three discharge locations, we made sure for the state requirements, those discharge flows are less for the tenure event. Um, but then in addition using that same, the same analysis in that same area, increasing the rainfall event to the 25 year storm. Proved to meet the city standards. So the storm that occurs on average, once every 25 years that those discharge rates, um, are lower. And so, um, I'm sorry. So lower than what the discharge is. Lower than what the discharge is now. Um, and I hesitate to go through like number, no one wants to hear numbers just right out, but being, I didn't get a chance to go through this with Kurt. Um, let me just kind of step through each of those three locations with the numbers and how they've changed from the, the pre development conditions to the post development conditions. Um, so for the, um, that discharge point one in the existing conditions, it was 2.67 cubic feet per second. And then in the post development conditions, it's 2.31. So 2.6 to 2.3. Um, at discharge point two, it was, um, in the pre development, um, conditions, it is, um, 1.79 is reduced to 1.7. So slightly less 1.79 to 1.7. And then at the third location, it goes from 3.5, uh, down to 3.3. So at each of those three locations, um, during the 25 year storm event, it's slightly less. And that that's true also, um, to meet, um, the state requirements during the 10 year storm event. Um, And it's less because of the way you've set it up. It's less because the water, all of the water from the developed and previous areas, it's gathered and the along the, at first, you know, it sheet flows across the lawns and areas and eventually either meets, um, a constructed swale or a, um, curb line and then pipes and then it's brought into each of those stormwater areas and it, and it fills up and it goes through a smaller orifice small hole so that it comes out at a slower rate. Um, so it does not overwhelm the downstream properties. Okay. Um, that that's, um, that's, and I'm happy if Kurt has any additional questions or wants to dive into it. I'm happy to go into it, um, in more detail. Um, the, the, what one of the, um, and this plan shows it well. So, um, the previous plans that we submitted, uh, across all of these roads, the contours were straight, um, because we had to, it's sloping to one side of the road. Um, and DPW expressed an interest in having it normally crowned worth the high point of the road is at the center line. So that was one of the reasons that all of the plans are updated is each, each of these lines. Um, you know, it went from a straight line to having a little pink in it. Um, and it kind of populates through each of the plans. Um, when we did that, we also looked at where that now you're switching the side of the road, but the water goes from one side of the road to, to splitting it 50 50. And we made sure, um, that that water still went to the same treatment practice that we had previously assumed it did and, and it does. Okay. Um, well, the DPW comments was related to water main type. Um, we proposed, uh, it's typically the PVC pipe. Um, they're looking if I understand their comment correctly, um, for a another type of plastic instead of PVC, um, high density polyethylene pipe. Um, and so I want to work through them and fully understand that comment, but I think through the, um, their review of the water system application at the state level, um, we can definitely make them satisfied with the, um, the water's infrastructure that we're proposing. I think that's, right? Yeah. This is Kurt. Um, um, DPW. Uh, thank you for that overview. Um, I just, um, you know, one follow up question on the storm water, you know, um, acknowledging that our zoning standards. Call for the 25 year storm. I'm just curious if you can, um, Determine where the actual runoff will connect to the city to the city's collection system. So just to make sure we don't have any, um, any issues downstream on a larger storm event. Um, on our existing storm system that would, um, you know, cause us problems down the road. And I'm, and it's okay if you don't have that now, but, uh, that was the intent of my comment there is to see where actually collect connects to the city's collection system. Yes. Um, to the north of the project, um, um, the green mountain, um, The G, the GMP, the green mountain power, um, transformer station. And there is a rather deep, um, Stream and ditch that goes into a culvert, um, located, um, Right here. Um, so that's where it goes to the north of the project. Um, to the south or to the east of the project, the, um, the green mountain power. Um, Um, So these locations here generally just enter like shallow channelized flow, um, and carry to the, the east. Um, Let me see if I get a, get a larger, um, overall view. Yeah. I think early on we have a, so it goes to the east, um, in these two locations and generally flows, um, which culvert that the flow is going to the east, um, would enter the city system, but, but it would be during a 25 year storm event, it would be at a lesser break than, than currently exists. So you expect that would, would be split sort of on these, um, the SN one would be split between a various number of storm collection system points. No, and I think it will be, um, It may be these two may go into a, you know, a constructed storm drain at the same location or it might be, you know, it might go into two separate ones. Um, I don't have the counters here at the, this meeting to show you, you know, what, where, where it would exactly, um, meet. Okay. And on the water system, you know, but happy to work through that with you. I don't, I don't see any issues with. You know, changing the pipe type and getting that up to DPW standards. Okay. Um, Kurt, do you, um, is the Department of Public Works going to need to know, um, where that, where that water is going to end up before it would sort of give its blessings to this. Uh, I do think, uh, that is important just for us to look at. If that's something you could pull off from, we'll hide our data, Jeff. That'll be helpful for us just to understand. Potential impacts and larger storm events. I'm saying try to see what we can glean here. Um, from this map. This is what our data here, um, showing on this map. Um, the problem is it's not very defined in where, um, which catch basin it would go into. Um, but, but we're going to try our best. Um, I can get that information to you. Great. Thank you. Nice. And I just clarified the standard for this meeting that was the 25 year. Is that correct? Um, yeah. So this, this, the, the design standards, the 25 year. Um, but because. So like right now, the water that falls up there sort of spreads out more, right? And so it's going to get, have a discharge point from these two stormwater catch basins. Right. So it's going to sort of focus where that water gets discharged now. So even though we've got this 25 year. If you're storm design, um, there's still the potential concentration of water in different spaces. So there might still end up being. Right. Could there still end up being more, I guess, no, because you're, you said you're designing it. So it discharges less at that individual point, right? Yes. So we're looking at the contours at the edge of the project area. Right. Um, generally all of that area will have concentrated in the channel, shallow channelized flow into. To. To the base route. So the, these, I believe that selecting for this project, three discrete locations is the way to analyze, um, right that it were not impacting downstream drainage systems. Right. And so that. So you've analyzed when you say that low for the, even for the 25 year storm event. The discharge from one of those basins at that distinct point. Even from a 25 year storm event is a lower discharge than. It would be currently for any discharge or for the 25 year storm event now. How does that, like when you do your comparison, right? It's the discharge at 25 year storm is still less than. What it discharged is now on like an everyday event. Is that what you mean by less than. No, less than. Yes. Yeah. So I feel confident. We are not making the. The city's infrastructure. Um, whatever they're experiencing now during the 25 year event. Will not be made any worse. We'll be less so that your numbers are lower. Correct. Given them in the 25 year. Right. I cannot tell you, I can't, unfortunately during this hearing, I can't tell you which culvert it's going to, but whatever culvert it's going to. It is not any worse. Yeah. Okay. Did you have any other questions? No, I mean, I think, you know, my point of looking at larger storm events is, I know. And I did acknowledge, you know, that this, the design criteria is based on the 25 year. It's just for our department to know, um. You know, to be proactive if. If we have a, you know, an area that's, you know, existing problematic and, um, that we can do maintenance ahead of time for the development. Um, and just kind of planning for larger storm events, knowing that, you know, we will at some point get larger storm events than 25 year. Um, it's just going to allow us to be proactive on our maintenance. So. I don't think it needs to hold up this approval. I just, uh, I'd just be great followup information if you could do your best estimate, Jeff, um, for us. We can certainly do that. Staff notes. I have here a discussion about whether. Existing is well circle sidewalk construction is necessary. And. I'm not quite sure where that came from. I mean, it's, um. Cause I wasn't here. Um. Uh, it would seem to me that it is, but. Well, I think the question. Yeah, because there were so many comments. Um, about sidewalk needs on the, the existing as a bell circle and some. Points raised by department of public works about. Um, Connecting. Hebert sidewalk to the proposed new Isabelle circle. Sidewalks and then development. Um, I think it's important to know about whether the city's infrastructure on Isabelle circle existing needed to be upgraded, right? For the demand of the new location. Um, and the new information from department of public works confirmed that under the city's bike and pedestrian plan. Um, And the way that system works, the Isabelle circle existing. Rollerblakes and Piper feel free to pipe up after I have my little summary. If I've misstated something, um, and that they really, they could not say for certain. That adding these new 31. Buildable parcels and the, the units on them, they could not say for certain that even that would then warrant sidewalk on existing is a bell circle. On existing is on existing is a bell circle, so there's no question about. connecting that to Hebert. That was a bit of a question. And so, you know, Department of Public Works made a note that, oh, yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Paul. That, you know, when it comes down to transfer of responsibility for the new sidewalks in this proposed development, the Department of Public Works would not be in favor of going to city council and asking to have that transferred to the city until there was a continuous sidewalk all the way through. But again, there's no, there's no zoning requirement as far as we can tell, especially when there's no evidence that this new development triggers. Enough. Additional foot traffic. Well, additional foot traffic that then means that the city has to spend money on adding that sidewalk under their policies. Okay. That's my take on it all. Kurt, let me know if I misstated what you put in that email. Well, the current standard is ambiguous. I mean, it's just... Well, the standard where? In the regs or in DPWs? The interface between the new development and existing development and for whatever reason or all of the above, it's ambiguous and doesn't give us good guidance. In the regs. Yeah. In the regs. Yep. But we're not going to solve that here. Correct. That's not a project-specific issue. It's a general issue that affects the entire bill. Yeah. This is our, this project is the guinea pig. We're taking lots of notes about where things aren't matching up with either policies or desires or just don't make sense. Well, it shows where decisions made without fully exploring the implications downstream, come back to bite us. This is a classic example of that. Right. I'm sorry, Gene, what? Oh, when that development in Elizabeth Circle was was constructed over 30 years ago with the plan to continue it, so the sidewalks never interacted with the Heber, which many have suggested and should have. Right. It's not. Kurt, did you have additional comments about sidewalks? Yeah. I mean, so for this, for the sidewalk piece, we follow our Complete Streets report. I believe that's what it's called. And that sites average, average day traffic volumes, I think from the development they provide peak hour, which is what you use to look at the intersections. And we just don't know if the average daily traffic is going to hit the threshold identified within that report to trigger the need for the sidewalk along the existing Isabel Circle parcel or development. So I think the big takeaway is that DPW, like Meredith said, is not going to recommend assuming ownership of the sidewalk within the new development unless there is connectivity. And then, you know, it's really up to the board, I guess, about how to, you know, deal with that issue and the developer, you know, how much interest there is in DPW assuming that ownership. Right now, I can say also that we do plan to construct sidewalk along Heber. That is, that does meet the traffic volumes to necessitate a sidewalk along Hebert Road. But along the existing Isabel Circle, we do not know. And so, you know, that's not currently planned to be incorporated into the capital improvements plan for funding. The Hebert Road piece will be. But as of now, unless there's an update to the report, the existing Isabel Circle would not. Okay. Thank you. And if I can just comment, I mean, we acknowledge that the sidewalk would be taken care of privately. And that would, I would presume be included in any homeowners. Right. Association documents or covenants that have to be filed. That's correct. Okay. Paul, you had your hand up. Was that just for the note about being able to hear and get Hebert to see who was speaking? No, it was about the sidewalk. But Mr. Lodgen has clarified. I was going to ask what what would happen if the city rejected maintenance of that sidewalk. And he just clarified that the homeowner's association would be maintaining the sidewalk. So I think that covers it. Okay. Sorry. I guess the only other outstanding issue that I thought the board should talk about is whether we ask the developers to include in their either a homeowner, covenants or whatever landscaping requirements for one and two family units, which are not normally required. Um, they if they come back with a multifamily unit for three or three or more dwellings on it, and then that they will come in front of the board and it will be a landscaping requirement at that point. Um, interested in board software at that? We want to do we want to condition it in any way? That was that was something raised by staff that we could do. We have similar landscape requirements for single family homes. So what the board has done before when we've had just the like two, you know, two or three sub partial subdivisions is had a little statement in the decision that said if the later build on those vacant parcels came back and didn't otherwise trigger the full site plan landscaping requirements, that they would have to come up with something to satisfy the subdivision landscaping requirements, which are really more about maintaining some sort of privacy with landscaping between the newly created parcels. Um, and so, you know, the landscaping plan that we have right now shows where there's going to be some existing trees retained and has proposals for street trees, but there's going to be a lot of trees cut down to put in the stormwater infrastructure that we's going to get rid of trees on actual buildable parcels. And so there's just because in section in the subdivision requirements, there is this requirement that you have some sort of plan for landscape buffers between your newly created parcels. So we've added that in before, but on the other hand, you know, it's, it is a little heavy-handed to require that for a single family. It would be required if they weren't going to develop all of it right now. Right. And that's not what they're doing. Right. They're subdividing a lot, but not building. Right, and many of them are going to be sold off. So then, you know, requiring specific trees be planted before people figure out where they're going to put their houses. That would be odd. Seems a little odd. Yeah, I mean, you're saying here's your new, here's the deed to your new house. And by the way, here's a landscaping plan that you have to implement before you move in. So the question sort of becomes, do you want to put a condition that those people, when they come back for a permit to build a single or two family home, need to make sure they add landscaping when that doesn't usually apply to a single or two family home? There are a lot of units here, though, and if you have a scattered sort of incomprehensive grouping of different plans for different houses, I think I would be in favor of giving some general standards that should be met. That's sort of what 3506 does. Right. But that could be triggered at some certain point. I mean, that would be triggered basically when they come for their permit to build the house that they ought to have a base level of landscaping. So that's just needing a 3506. I do think the guidance is important. I guess I'm leaning a little bit the other way. Just a little. Just a little. I'm open. Just in terms of, I realize that they have a lot of units and a lot of lots. And at the same time, I sort of don't like the idea of sort of requiring, you know, here's your house and now here's your required landscaping plan. There are instances where a lack of guidance really becomes problematic in terms of neighbor and neighbor. I guess I'm leaning with Sharon then. Mostly because this is also a completely self-contained development. No one existing is going to be able to see it. So everyone, you know, that's moving in there. It's going to, I don't think it's going to be as big of an issue. Also, people have the tendency to plant trees and things between their houses. And I just don't like the idea of mandating something when we don't even know when the house is going to get built there or where it's going to be. I'm just thinking in terms of some very general guidance, not something that's heavy-handed. So can I... Seems like that's already covered though. Well, but it, so we wouldn't look at landscaping at all for most single and two-family house. Nothing. We don't, we don't ask, we don't look, we don't care. So if we were to take even just part of the subdivision landscaping requirement, the one that seems to most pertain here because the larger development is going to take care of the, you know, stormwater infrastructure practices, any waterways, natural areas. That's going to be outside of the scope of where this is being built, where these are being built. Street frontage and shade trees and sidewalks are already going to be taken care of. So the last thing remaining really is to maintain and provide privacy, both for adjoining property owners and between parcels within the subdivision. So that would be a potential to, you could put a condition that later that the parcels that are otherwise covered by the larger landscaping provisions from site plan when they come for their permits need to have some sort of landscaping and screening plan to meet that privacy for adjoining property owners and between parcels. And then it kind of leads it up to the discretion of the zoning administrator's office to look at the screening standards in the landscaping. Say, are you putting up some sort of fence or some, you know, some, a few trees, something along those boundaries, now that we know exactly where you're putting your driveway and where you're putting your house. So that gives a general thing, a little bit of guidance, but on the other hand, that's also something that has to be caught and seen. And that's not something we require you to buy a random empty lot for a single family home. Exactly. All right, yeah. But it is, it is a subdivision standard, landscaping standard that's required, that's part of the subdivision here right now, right? That it says the subdivision applicant shall design the subdivision to maximize the preservation of existing mature vegetation and provide additional landscaping as necessary to all these other things. And it says the landscaping may be installed when parcels are subsequently developed. So trying to strike a balance here between what the regulations say you're supposed to do and what you feel you want to do. Can I, can I? I'll tip it up to you guys, right? I rate the decision you tell me the right and I just make a comment, you know, just thinking about the practicality of this. People are going to be building new homes in here, right? They're going to want to have screening, but I think there's a challenge when you don't know how the neighbor is going to site their house. Like who's going to interpret that that's the proper screening, right? Until that next parcel has been developed. It's a little bit challenging, I think, logistically to be able to carry out what you're asking. I mean, I'm like, I don't have any problems with screening, but I just think it could create some problems. You're not in, baby? Yeah. Okay. We still have Abby. We do. All right. Abby, do you have any thoughts? Abby, do you have any thoughts? I'm sorry, I'm missing you and not in the room. No, I don't. Thank you, Sharon. Okay. It seems like we're sort of leaning towards not putting a condition on it. Would you, uh, that be workable for you, Kevin? Oh, yes. Absolutely. Okay. I think that we had a valuable discussion in order to highlight the concern. Yeah. So there was the outstanding slopes thing, which is kind of a administrative kind of issue. All right. Where the outstanding question is born to determine whether the information regarding steep slopes development, including narrative and engineering plans is sufficient to comply with second three thousand seven without requiring the explicit statement noted in section three thousand seven F four. Right. So when we've had other projects where usually it's a smaller engineer isn't necessarily doing a whole lot of the planning, they're just contributing part of it for steep slopes. We usually get a narrative statement from the engineer. It's like a little letter that specifically says pretty much exactly what's in here, but there will be no, there's no risk basically to the development of a steep slope. So steep slopes usually it's involving, you know, putting in a new building or a wall or something like that. And so it doesn't say that it has to be a specific letter. It just says a written statement. And so my question for the board is basically do what we have before us, which involves engineers working on a lot of this, especially for the road, sufficient for you as the statement or do you want the kind of letter we've been getting before? I apologize if this hasn't been tidied up in the last two weeks. Like the admission of it is not, we're not trying to not make the statement that you want. So if I can read what I need to orally like. It doesn't sound like you'd have a problem signing a letter like that. No. Okay. I think it should just be a condition of approval. I think along with the stamp signed stamped engineered plans, I just wanted them to figure out what the board was comfortable with. I think as long as, I mean, my thoughts are is that we've required the letters sort of stating this and pass it. And it's not going to provide any kind of hardship for you guys to provide that. No, I think I intended to meet all the requirements and zoning ordinance. And if we don't have the language that you're looking for, I think we can provide it. It's not burdensome for our owners. I think let's just include it. Keep it the morning. But that also helps me for later application packages too, to also know. Yep. I got to make sure I have that letter. I don't know. People who want you to testify have not spoken yet. Public comment. I don't have any hands up. Okay. If you could, if you could just come up to the microphone and identify yourself, that'd be super. Vice Chair Adlin, four members. Can you hear me okay? Yeah. My name is Ivan Brown. And my address is to Isabelle Circle. As soon as there's public comment time. I have read UDR, a Chapter 350 Section 3506-85. If this development were limited to 31 dwelling units, or 40 dwelling units, 40 being a threshold in the UDR, I could see a waiver for a second access point. If one would even be needed in those scenarios. However, this development is expected to create 57 dwelling units, which is way over 40. I don't see a well-grounded reason for a waiver for a second access point. Currently, we have 71 dwelling units served by the intersection of Hebron Road and Berlin Street. 57 additional dwelling units would cause an 80% increase. This is just top simple math here. 80% increase in the number of units served by that intersection. Hebron Road has a 19% slope at its approach to that intersection. That's not a number I made up. That's based on state LIDAR data. I also submitted a map to the board as evidence for that. So you add to this intersection some queued vehicles, an icy road, a snow bank taking more than four feet of roadway width. And what you have there is something that's way less than ideal. Back on March 11th, I measured that snow bank. 53 inches, it extruded out into the roadway. I submitted evidence of that to the board. That was March 11th. That was between snow storms. That was fair weather. We lost four and a half feet of roadway there, right there, where things are going to theoretically get busy. And about these sidewalks on Hebron Road, unless I can go out there and tap my foot to like a natural sidewalk, it doesn't exist. So I have to process this as if the sidewalks aren't there. And the marginal traffic from 57 units would exacerbate conflicts on the neighborhood roadways, not just among vehicular traffic, but also between vehicular and non-vehicular traffic. And that's all I came to say. Thank you. Thank you. I'm just a little unsure that when information came in, was the information on the traffic study done before the last hearing, or does that come in sense? Well, the traffic study was part of the original packet. The original packet, okay. Sorry, because yeah, you got everything. I got everything at once. All at once and then review the meeting and reporting. And so people are aware of that. Okay, yeah. All right. Other comments? Abby, did you have anything you want to add? Your face is up on our screen now. Take that as a no. I don't have any hands of anybody on. Great. Oh, yeah. Please come up and identify yourself. I'm Trish Eaton and I'm at 29 Hebron Road. And Isabel Circle comes right up into my driveway. But I just thought I would let you know what I experienced earlier today. And I was coming up from the bottom of Berlin Street and coming around. And traffic, you cannot see what is coming up Hebert Road to get on to Berlin Street. And it makes it quite difficult. When you come around the corner, you cannot see what traffic is coming up Hebert. And sometimes I've ended up in the snow bank at the top of Hebert Road going down and saying, please, I don't want to go into the woods because there's not enough room on Hebert to really accommodate more than, like I say, two small compact cars at the same time. I have a Toyota four-runner. And I'm telling you, when I'm going through there with another car coming up through, I'm in the snow with my car on the right-hand side. And then the other car, it may be this much room in between both cars passing at the same time. And I'm telling you, it gets scary, especially when it's icy. And this afternoon, I had to make a trip out. And lo and behold, got up to the top by Berlin Street and there's traffic like anything. And so I'm waiting for the traffic and the school bus is there. And it's waiting to drop off the kids. So, OK, so here finally they get the kids all dropped off and it comes up and the cars start moving. And there's no room for the bus to make it down onto Hebert Road. And it's just a real tight area up there. And it's, like I say, it's not really wide enough. And if you have construction vehicles coming up and that being the only access road, you've got to be real careful or you're going to find yourself screwed. OK, thank you. I just thought I would get that. Thank you. Thank you for your information. Thank you. Put your hands up on your board. Sharon, I was going to suggest that we close the door. I'm sorry. I'm suggesting that if everybody feels like they have enough information to make a decision that the decision being deliberative session. I guess I can we can talk about that as a word, whether we want to go into deliberative session to make the decision or I am well. Are we at the point where we do? Do people feel like they have enough information? Yeah, I feel like we have answered the questions that were out there and that that I have a pretty good understanding of what they're proposing. Don't just check in with Abby. Make sure she heard that. Abby, are you still with us? You're muted. You look good, Tom. She may be having issues because I know she's remote. She is traveling, so. Is she driving right now? Yeah. So yeah, she may have lost some contact. That's what I think. But we still have enough for a decision even if we lose Abby altogether. I'm not seeing any other outstanding matters that haven't been touched on. I don't know if the applicant has anything to add. We should be very thorough with that because if we close. Yeah, nobody that I'm trying to go through right now. I'm trying to capture everything in the numbers. Yep. Do you want to see if the applicant has anything? Do you have anything that you'd like to add or any other questions or concerns or comments? Just to say, the city is just really great to work with and so we appreciate we've been having meetings all throughout us and being able to clarify and make sure that we just adjusted things as needed to be and grateful for all of you being here tonight. You know, I'm certainly a board member feel strongly about going to a deliberative session. I'm hoping to that. I don't. Well, my reason for suggesting it is that once we close the public hearing and we have to be very certain that we in fact have covered all the bases here or anything that's come up or has come to our attention. But of course, the purpose for going into deliberative sessions because there's a lot of technical aspects that need to be worked into the decision and that just allows us the freedom to do that. I mean, if there's strong feeling in any other way, we should talk about that. But that's my suggestion. I'm just going through to make sure that any potential conditions are dealt with and captured. Um, there's nothing missing. I'm not seeing anything missing. Has it been addressed from the prior stack report or the memo? But I mean, the things that we that I think need to be added to the order that we need to be clear on in the decision is that the applicant was going to provide the department of public works with what catchment they thought the water was going to flow to and that they're going to do that. And I can we can add that. Do you want that as a condition prior to permit issuance or just a condition of approval? Because I could we don't require design past the 25 year storm. So I think the condition is a condition of approval versus prior to permit issuance. Um, and then adding the written engineer statement of no undue adverse effect to the prior to permit issuance set, which goes with the signed and sealed engineer plans. That's all prior to permit issuance. I'm going to take out the written approval of final landscaping plan by the tree board because we got the tree board's input. Yep. I think that we also want to add just make sure that it's clear that the that the ownership association documents, et cetera, need to include responsibility for sidewalks. Yep, as well as the maintenance of parcel 34 is open space that one can stand here on the staff report, but add in responsibility for sidewalks until such time as or city. I have a question before this based on just speak up. Some of the public comments and concerns and I don't know if there were a lot of more questions when you submitted today addressed to you. Sorry, you're talking to me or you're talking to me? Well, there was some both. So there was some questions from public concerns and comments that were addressed to you and were submitted publicly. I don't know if those were answered or there was any. Do you mean the most recent ones? Yes. OK, so right. So I sent the most recent comments. Thank you, Jean, about that. We did get emails, comments from Rachel Carrivo and from Eve Jacobs-Carnehan. I did forward those to the board and I forwarded them to the applicant and the ones that were specifically about sidewalk concerns and Department of Public Works policies with regard to when sidewalks are required. I did send that onto DPW as well because it seemed to be more about a DPW policy. So the Ms. Jacobs-Carnehan's comments were in response to the memo from the Department of Public Works and I think there was a little confusion because she seemed to comment about DPW not being in favor of sidewalks and the new development versus I think what DPW was expressing was that under their current policy and plan, the new development wouldn't have warranted sidewalks under the complete streets plan, but the subdivision required, our subdivision standards require them. So so that I mean that was that was basically addressed separately. Great. She did also have a note there though that it didn't make sense to her to ask the developer to put inside walks on the streets leading to this new development. That was something a little bit new in here. She was supportive of those sidewalks being added inside, but that building new sidewalks on say existing Isabel Circle was something that she's thought it made sense to to leave that for city. City budget issues and later, which is where it would fall. Right, which is where it would fall. That would be later as well as potentially with some other future, the MOU, which would probably, as Kurt said, have a requirement that the city would take over maintenance of the new Isabel Circle loop sidewalks until there was a connection. So that adds some impetus there. For Rachel Caravu, those were comments. She lives at 28 Isabel Circle, and she had a variety of concerns about traffic, which are similar to some we've heard before, and about whether the construction process would damage existing roadways. And there's a question to hear about how the current end of Isabel Circle would be handled, but I think that was a little bit of confusion about the process because with the new loop being built, once that's built, there will be a turnaround there at the end. People will just drive around the loop because it's not going to be a private road. It's going to be a public road eventually. And even then, it's not like you're going to put a gate up that says nobody can come and use the loop because that would be difficult for, you know, even just package delivery purposes. You'd be blocking off your own development. I think that was my question. That was clear. I'll just clarify and make sure that it was clarity with the public. And we should be able to comment on these last minute inputs so that it's clear and on the record and not just in the paper file. So thank you, Jean. I got kind of lost in the minutiae of everything else. And then some of these others in here from Rachel were similar to some of the other ones we've heard about the plowing issues. You know, there were a few other things about water sewer, but that's not a cost that's going to be hooking them up to something and extending the water lines and everything is a cost that you've already factored in. And Gabe, for anybody remotely, Gabe's nodding, the applicant. So, all good, Jean? Yes, thank you. You're welcome. All right. I'd like to welcome a motion to move forward. To do a motion for? Yes. Oh. To. So you need. The 34 loss of division on parcel ID. Can you speak up? What's staff report now? Yes, I know, but it's going to be according. I just want to welcome. Yeah. I suppose I could make it. I think so it sounds like the board is going to entertain a motion at this point. Is that correct without a deliberate session? Are you still? Is that possibility for you, Kevin? Are you concerned about that we may be missing something? I'm more comfortable by making sure that we have all of the I's dotted and T's crossed. And I think that's the reason for going into deliberative session. But, you know, if the board feels that we don't need to do that, I'll go along with that. Okay. I feel like I guess my feeling is that there were some things that we needed to hammer up, but we just did that. And everybody should know what we're hammering out. So there's no real reason to go into deliberative session to do that. I'd like to do it. I'd like to do it here when we can just for transparency's sake. So it is a complicated motion to make. Yeah. Yeah. It's all noted. It'll be noted by staff. You can't make them. I can't make the motion. Well, we need to craft the motion. Well, it's a fake note. If somebody wants to try and read my scribble, they're welcome to. I mean, I think we're all in terms of what the conditions are. Yeah, I'm trying to read the whole thing. All right. So make sure you can read my writing. Sorry. My lawyer scribbled us at the house. That's fine. But I just think it's a procedural approach. Well, it's about the transfer of the sidewalks to the other street. Well, either way, we're going to bring the same place. So you need to know that they'll look at it. All right. We've got it. I'm ready to make a motion. Motion to approve the 34 lots of division of parcel I.G. number 072-00J000 and major site plan approval for the associated infrastructure necessary for additional development of the new parcels as presented in application number Z-2023-0011 and supporting materials subject to the following conditions of approval. One, prior to permit issuance, applicants shall provide the zoning administrator with the following A, assigned and sealed engineered set of plans as specified by the board during the public hearing and written engineer's statement of no undue adverse effect. Two, within 180 days of this decision, applicants shall record the owner's association documents detailing ownership access and maintenance rights and responsibilities for commonly owned or maintained property and infrastructure and the final survey plat, including the locations of all apical survey rods and markers in the Montpelier land records office for the procedures detailed in section 4405 of the zoning regulations three. The owner's association document shall include responsibility for sidewalks until such time as or if city has agreed agreement otherwise. Somebody can amend that if they need to. You can rephrase. Essentially, you will take on responsibility of the sidewalks until the city takes on responsibility of the sidewalks. Yeah, basically, and I can phrase it slightly differently in the final decision if you need me to and it'll stay essentially that. And B of three, common responsibility for maintenance of parcel 34 as open space available for at least passive recreation including that paths and meadows be mowed or brush hogged regularly. Four, prior to beginning construction, applicants shall provide the zoning administrator with a copy of the state construction general individual permit to demonstrate compliance to sections 3008. And five, applicant to provide DPW with clarity on where stormwater will connect with existing city catchments. I think that's everything. I think that's I heard a lovely motion. Good job, Joe. Second. Second. Any further discussion? Starting with my gentleman on the right. How do you vote? Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I vote yes as well. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Okay. So just a reminder, the written decision is what actually starts the appeal period. We will get the written decision to you as soon as possible. Um, technically, we have up to 40, well, the board 45 days to get it to you, but we all work really hard to have that happen much different. Um, and then, and you, you've heard the conditions, you're free to begin working on the prior to permit issuance conditions as soon as you want. So if I get those before the decision gets signed, the zoning permit will get issued at the same time. Otherwise, there'll be a lag between the decision getting issued and the permit getting issued. Thank you. Thank you. Um, other business. Thank you, Kurt. Yeah, thanks, Kurt. Do we have other business for this evening? We basically kind of did that with the motion to approve that closed it. So our next meeting will be April 3rd. Do we have anything on the agenda for that? We do. Okay. We do have an application for April 3rd. It's on our pending applications page, so go for you to take a peek at it. It is a Westview Meadows is looking to add sort of a garden shed, but they have an odd parcel. And so trying to put it where their people can actually get to it gets a little funky. So yeah, have fun. Take a peek at that. Also just thank you, everybody, for showing up tonight and your comments. It's always great when people show up and are involved in this process. Thank you to those of you who showed up online as well. I would take a motion to adjourn. We are so inclined. So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Bye.