 Recording in progress. Okay, thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the town of Williston Development Review for Tuesday, May 24th, 2022. My name is Pete Kelly, DRB Chair. If you are a Zoom participant, please sign in by renaming yourself a participant too. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in town Hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board is in public communicating in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote, in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to June 14, 2022. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. President. John Hemmelgarn. I'm here. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Saladino. President. Nate Andrews. Here. I'm the Chair. Pete Kelly. I'm president. I'm president and Dave Turner is not attending tonight. Nate. So we have six DRB members, one absent. We have a quorum. Okay. Next up, sign in. Walk us through Zoom instructions, please. I'm going to do Zoom instructions tonight. Okay. Just a reminder to public participants to name yourself on the toolbar or message us. There's several options on the toolbar. Please keep yourself on mute when it's not your turn to speak. Your video is optional. That you can use the chat to message us if you have any questions. And there's a number of reactions on the toolbar as well. For telephone participants, press star nine to raise your hand and star six to mute. I believe we don't have any telephone participants right now. We will be using screen share tonight. You can optimize your view at the toolbar on the top, the bright green, click view options. And then use the side by side mode, dragging the slider to optimize the screen share and the video feeds to your preference. Lastly, if you have any internet issues, you can try turning off your video, closing browser tabs or computer programs. You can also use your telephone as the speaker or microphone. Click the up arrow by the microphone and follow the prompts. Again, message Simon or myself in the chat if you have any technical questions. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Okay. First on the agenda is public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone to address the board on topics that are not on tonight's agenda. Are there any members of the audience who would like to address the board that are present here in the room? Or if you would like to address the board and you're participating by Zoom, please raise your hand and Simon will let you in. I'd like to ask a question. Okay. Mr. Riley. Just as kind of a point I'm going to be sitting in the audience tonight. I can't see the screen. Would it make sense to have a second screen so the people in the audience can view who is participating, both board members as well as applicants and or others? Okay. All right. I noticed that last time when I did it as well. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I think the original tent was to get a big one facing that direction. That's happened at the speed of something that might have spent it, you know, at some of their cheek, right? Memorial night sales. There you go. $199. Okay. That's it. Okay. Any members of the audience? We have no hands raised. Okay. Okay. Now we'll segue into the public hearing for the record. The DRV did conduct a site visit earlier and that site visit took place at 530. That was associated with the appeal of the zoning administrator's decision. That's appeal 22-02. On tonight's agenda for this meeting, we have one item on the agenda. It's DP 21-05. And you're participating in that, correct? That's correct. Okay. So if the applicant would please go to the front table, please, and introduce yourself. And your address for the record, please. Good evening. Good evening. Carl Marshall, O'Leary Burke, our team corporate director. Carl, good evening. Good evening. My name's Tom Weber and I'm advising Scott. Good evening. Got your address? My address? Yeah. $26,000. Thank you. Is there a password for the Wi-Fi? I believe the Wi-Fi password is wireless capital W and $2 signs for the assets. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Staff goes next. Emily. So this is a request for a discretionary permit to construct a 15-unit residential subdivision, 14 new homes. One house exists today with road sidewalk utilities and related amenities. The road will connect from Mountain View Road to Meadow Run Road. This property is currently developed with a single house and a driveway. It's approximately 10.5 acres. The current use is residential and it will remain residential. It is served by town roads. It was not required to have design review but did go through conservation commission review. Tonight's staff is recommending that you take testimony and continue the hearing and deliberate and issue an approval at a future date. I recommend discussing street connectivity, landscaping, the multi-use path, easement, sidewalks, crosswalks, and sewer connection. I'm recommending a revised site plan be presented at the next hearing before the DRB closes and issues a decision. The reason I'm recommending this subdivision, I'm going to jump ahead to one of the PREAP recommendations. It says, the applicant shall work with planning staff to utilize neighborhood design that maximizes open space and neighborhood space, minimizes visual impact, encourages walkability and neighborhood neighborliness. So there's a lot of back and forth with the applicant on the application that's presented tonight. We were running up against a filing deadline and that in combination with the public works, not having finished their review as it relates to sewer, I thought it was good to have the DRB discuss some of the overarching topics, give the applicant some direction before it's all finalized. So some history on this property. It went through pre-application review in 2020, received growth management in March 2021 where it scored 33 points and was allocated 19 dwelling unit equivalents. The conservation commission reviewed this application and their recommendations are included. For interdepartmental review, the fire department commented and I do note that some of their requests are beyond the scope of the bylaw and their policy is a select board policy not ordinance in terms of the public works comments. They are pending independent review and should be available by the next hearing. One comment letter from the so can I can I ask a question for sorry interrupt you. So fire department has there been feedback provided to them as to why some of their recommendations are not being adopted? Yes. Thank you. Well, are they taking that to heart or are they just going to keep on issuing? I mean, are they following up like an NFP or that that is not doesn't necessarily dovetail with what the bylaw provides? We're mostly talking about issues that the bylaw is silent on and then what the fire department currently has is called the plan review guideline policy. It's called a plan review policy now and it's adopted as select work policy, which means it's not been adopted through the statutory process prescribed for zoning, nor has it been adopted through the statutory process prescribed for ordinances. So we are working with fire department to help them have a select or consider adopting what they what they recommend as a formal ordinance that carries, you know, the enforceability of weight of adopted law. Until that time they have a policy they work with applicants to try to see that policy through. And, you know, a lot of what they're looking for is it's simply a wrote adoption of NFPA current NFPA plus a few local things that are concerned. So what we're trying to be clear about the DRV is that a decision that's an approval under zoning is an approval based on the duly adopted zoning of the town and to try to be clear that those recommendations are great. This is the developer review process the town has. It's good to air those concerns out and if they can be that without being in conflict with issues related to bylaw compliance that's great. But we can't refuse a zoning permit based on non-compliance with that policy or refuse to issue a certificate. So if that's the case would it make sense when you are writing up the staff report to note which items are not enforceable by putting a star neck to them just so we don't have to guess. Yeah, I think we could probably do that. I think generally the phase the fire department looks for unless they are directly related to access standards that are called for in the bylaw are going to be things that are not to be found in the bylaw. Right, a common one is that dumpster enclosures be located 30 feet away from primary structure where sometimes our bylaw pulls for co-locating them within a structure. Or sometimes it's just not feasible to do that. Okay, this is an important topic because an applicant comes in front of the DRB and we hold the applicant to the standards of the bylaw and so the town of Wilson whether it be the public works or fire we're going to hold the same standard and it's only fair and we're not going to deviate from the rules of engagement which is the regulations. So this is an important topic and I should be where we should distinguish most of the comment we get from public works is based on noting items that are needed for compliance with the public work standard specifications which are adopted as a town ordinance and are enforceable under statute and in that case you know when we're consulting with them we're saying to the applicant you need to meet our rules and you need to meet their rules and hopefully you can find a way to meet both but we don't want someone to paint themselves into a corner with a solution that works for the bylaw but not the public works. Okay Emily we completely derailed you. There was one comment letter received at the time of mail-out and to date from Tony Stout on behalf of the estate of Josephine Haynes next door neighbor that comment letter raises concerns about the right-of-way connection which I'll go over shortly and landscaping on Long Western Boundary particularly Unit 7 and 8 as well as grading drainage and storm water. What follows is a summary of the pre-application recommendations for the most part they do comply the one I want to bring note to is that there are Class 3 wetlands on the site and the wetlands report is provided determining that those are I forget the right word non-functional wetlands anyway that the Class 3 wetlands can be impacted. Originally at pre-application there was a plan to have cul-de-sac that terminated and didn't connect through to Meadow Run. They showed a revised connection at growth management and they're showing that today where the road connects through. There was a recommendation that a stub street or easement be provided to the property to the west 88 Mountain View Road which is the Haynes property so that that neighborhood could connect to other properties in the future. And that stub is not shown on the park land. Right, yeah. That sidewalks be provided on both sides of the road so after pre-application they confirm their wetland salineation. There were more wetlands than what was anticipated and in working with the applicant staff suggested have sidewalk on one side of the road and it alternates so everybody can walk out their front door and there's a sidewalk in front of their house but the sidewalk doesn't run along the wetland buffer to reduce impact on the wetland buffer while balancing the pedestrian connectivity. They also provided renderings of the view shed as recommended and the plans do need to be revised to show the multi-use path along Mountain View Road as requested. In terms of the residential zoning district standards it complies as proposed with the setbacks maximum building height is anticipated to be met when permits are pulled for each individual home. The open space development it should say complies as proposed not complex and there's approximately seven acres of open space that must be calculated and shown on the plan set. I will note that in this zoning district there's no quantitative requirement for open space and it does contain the class two wetlands and their buffers. It complies as proposed with the pedestrian friendly development standards as well as housing choice which is further incentivized in growth management. In terms of growth management this project was scored 35 points and it was allocated 19 dwelling unit equivalents 15 market and four affordable. Since then the wetlands delineation changed the density analysis reduced the overall number of units so they're now proposing 14 new units 15 with the existing house and they did score eight points. Any of those affordable? Yes so they were scored eight points and they will have to provide three units of affordable at each level 120, 180 percent. Because the 80 percent units don't require allocation that changes the math on how many units actually need growth management allocation the long and short of it is that six dwelling unit equivalents two affordable and four market will be returned to the system and will be available. Next year also for growth management final plans and HOA bylaws must ensure that the criteria will be constructed and maintained. Primarily that part of their score was providing a neighborhood park with a picnic shelter or a gazebo and benches and community gardens as well as sustainable transportation amenities like EV charge and bike storage lockers and ensuring that those things get maintained and are publicly accessible by the homeowners association when they take over the subdivision. Access and connectivity so at pre-app or traffic study was requested and one has been provided that determined that beyond the usual measures of stop signs no traffic impact needs to be done and that the local and state impact fees will be a mitigating measure. I do note here that unrelated to this project but V-trans is planning to work on the route to a mountain view road intersection in 2024-25 that should improve the circulation at that intersection with the state highway. Vehicular access so they comply with the recommendation to connect through to Meadow Run however an easement or stub street needs to be shown to the west. If they were to simply modify this plan it would be connecting it between units 8 and 9 which would have impact on the class 3 wetlands. I also show on the right of the screen the March 2021 site plan this was what was shown at pre-app or no at growth management where that stub street connected through. The DRB and applicant should discuss this connection and the DRB may request to revise site plan. Pedestrian access basically that it's a one side and sidewalk to reduce wetland buffer impact but still provide connectivity for all of the homes. Final plans must also identify crosswalks where the sidewalk crosses the road in three locations. The applicant should also discuss with public works the potential for bull bouts, raised or textured crosswalks on street parking or other measures to calm traffic. Also the plan doesn't show any crosswalks or bull bouts where the new road will connect to Meadow Run and Whitewater Circle. The applicant should discuss this with the Department of Public Works because that's an existing town right of way. Off street parking and loading complies, individual houses will have barrages and driveways for vehicles, onsite circulation. Here's where I discuss a little bit more detail that pedestrian connectivity where they connect to the existing intersection. And that final plans must also show the multi-use path easement along Mountain View Road. Final plans must also show private utilities being located underground like electric internet and municipal sewer. So this is why we're recommending the continuance so that public works can finish their review of how the sewer lines will connect through to the Meadow Run neighborhood. Originally they were planning to connect with a pump station enforcement across Mountain View Road to Marion's Way. However, public works would prefer that it go downhill to the Meadow Run pump station. That is a private pump station that then connects to public sewer lines to provide sewer service. Maintenance, the draft bylaws and declarations have been provided and they do need to specify at final plans prohibit a use of wetlands and buffers like mowing and how that the growth management score was required and those elements need to be maintained so the HOA upholds those requirements. The plan doesn't show solid waste or snow storage. However, it is assumed that private residences will be responsible for their own trash recycling totes and driveway plowing. Density transfer of development rights, a TDR is not proposed here. The density analysis does need to be finalized to confirm the overall acreage. The assessor's records show 10.42 acres. The plan sheet shows 10.32 and then the zoning info table on the plan set says 10.52. So just clarifying the numbers, clarifying the number of acres that are wetlands and wetland buffers. Overall compliance is anticipated with 15 dwelling unit equivalents. The DRB should also discuss landscaping and some conditions have been drafted. Primarily the eastern boundary needs to have a type 3 buffer. At PREAP there was recommendations that where there is just meadow filling in some plantings to provide screening to the west and enhance the wildlife buffer. The south boundary, some more plants are needed to meet the requirements for a type 3 buffer, the density requirements of species. And then along the west boundary, which was requested in the butters comment letter about screening along the west buffer, particularly units 9 through 14 to meet the type 3 density requirements. Street trees along the proposed new street comply. However, the DRB should discuss street trees along Mountain View Road. The DRB can waive this requirement to preserve the scenic vista. When you're heading east on Mountain View Road, you have middle ground views of Nob Hill and Partridge Hill and Camel Sumpway in the distance. There are no street trees elsewhere on Mountain View Road. It's kind of a rural street where there's patches of forest and then wide open yards. So the staff recommendation would be to use the scenic vista exemption and not require street trees. Conservation areas. A significant wildlife habitat area is identified on the property. As you can see on this map, it's in the far southeastern corner. It does overlap with the wetland buffer. Therefore, a habitat disturbance assessment was not required. But the northern part of that boundary where it's a meadow, there's been the request to enhance that buffer with plantings. And there are no other conservation areas on the site like threatened or endangered species or flood hazard areas, etc. Watershed health and erosion and runoff control plan was provided and complies as proposed. The site plan for wetlands does show class two and three wetlands. Crossings of wetland buffers and wetlands are allowed where they're minimized, which is the case here. The wetlands delineation did change the configuration of the subdivision significantly from pre-app to now, but they do minimize impact. They also show that home foundations are at least a five foot minimum from that buffer, so people can, you know, mow and have room around their houses. And the wetlands report does show that the class three wetlands have no functional value. So impacting them for the road connection is okay. Scenic viewshed and visual impact. So this property is located within the primary foreground, and it does have views of Nob Hill Partridge Hill and Camel's help. Staff review finds that the applicant has addressed the recommendations numbers nine through 11. The DRB may want to discuss the homestead placement in viewshed. So they provide a rendering. This is above the street quite a bit from the Trinity property. You can see Mountain View Road in the foreground, and it shows that the homes are set back and they don't block the view of the mountains in the distance. I do note that the bylaw says people should expect to have views that include residential neighborhoods in the RZD. Outdoor lightings complies as proposed. A lighting plan is not required for one or two unit houses or street lights. And impact fees will be assessed at the time of administrative permit for each dwelling unit. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. I'd like to ask a question of both the chair and the zoning administrator. Okay. Why are we looking at this? Why are you looking at the staff report? This is a discretionary permit that should be presented to the board reasonably complete. It's not not even close. It sounds to me like we're designing the project for them or they're asking us to design it for based on based on Emily's analysis. So it's a rhetorical question. We're here, but this shouldn't be in front of us. Not even close. That's my opinion as a board member. Can you be more specific about deficiencies? Well, I don't have a site plan that I don't have a, you know, other than that, there's changes. There's changes to it. We don't have, we don't have public works, which may change it again. And then can I list them off? Just listen to Emily tell me all the different things that we're missing that are going to be provided at the next hearing. So we're doing, we're going to do this twice. Again, it's my opinion. We are definitely, well, my recommendation is that we continue this for many of the reasons that you just cited. But I do want to go through some, some public hearing component tonight. And I, and I'd like to start with your, your comments are duly noted. Thanks. And I'd like to start with having you walk us through, please, the, the site plan that you presented at growth management and the site plan that you're presenting tonight and the evolution. The complexity is we came to see staff several times and we actually had kind of feedback from staff that kind of do a cul-de-sac. And then we dramatically changed the layout to connect in that. That was a very strong emphasis. So the plan that you see here tonight in front of you has changed dramatically because of wetland configuration by a natural wetland that was verified by the state of Vermont. So they go out and they give, you know, what do we call it, sort of like your report. So we provided that. And then we said, look, you want to throw it, we're going to have impacts. We're going to try to basically have the least amount of impact possible. And so when you're looking at the sketch statinally so well provided side by side, you can see that the road, you know, hugs away from the wetland and we're trying not to impact buffers, we're trying not to impact wetlands, but we're trying to make the road go through a metal run. The road to metal run is very important connectivity-wise because it connects our water to. And so although we're going to have impacts, you know, it's very important for public works to have the sewer go through to basically they own the road, they own the sewer that goes to a private pump station. So I've been back and forth with Lisa and Dr. Bruce had meetings with them. And so our intention is to fully try to comply with public works. It's unfortunate that public works wasn't able to have their review in time. And as Emily mentioned, there's a lot of outstanding items. However, we feel like some of the items are just like, okay, provide any, okay, let's talk about, you know, we can take them one, one thing at a time. But I think some of them, I understand Scott's frustration's idea. But I think some of them are just like, we're just going to check them up and just comply. We just, we want to comply. I think the hardest thing for me to say is we're really pressed for time to come up with this layout in time, because you're heading a total different direction. If you saw the plan that I submitted to Emily like two months ago, you'd be like, what is this? And I don't think we even have that plan because there's no one showing it to you. That's not what they want to see. Well, that's it right there. So honestly, I don't, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but we met with staff and we were kind of led to this layout that you see on the screen right there. And it's a whole different looking product. But even though we're going to bring it in to show it to you in this configuration, we're kind of, I don't know what you'd call it, Emily, but it was not a good idea to bring this plan forth. I mean, would you say, I mean, I don't know how to say it, you want a connectivity to metal run that was super important. So we would have built less units, we would have built less infrastructure. There was an issue with that layout with flowering and not having the through road. And so basically I, we could boss that plan and work very hard to get something in, to get it to comply and meet all of public works, staff and basically all the comments. So the plan that you see that we're presenting tonight, those connectivity as Emily was super nice and she actually sent us a sketch showing the sidewalks on both sides that made the most sense. And if we fully agree, you made it look just like the plan because we agree having sidewalks in front of each unit made sense instead of, you know, trudging through all the wetlands and associated numbers. So that part, I feel like if you guys want to have sidewalks and it's super important, we can do that. It's going to result in more impacts, but I think that's one of the important things to talk about. Mr. Weaver's here tonight talk about, you know, the 88 Mount View parcel connectivity. You really didn't have a layout for those folks. You certainly aren't opposed to providing an easement. If that's something that is dire, necessary, we feel like the views are kind of further up on how to do it. And maybe they don't want to crunch through to our project, but we don't have a layout. It's really hard to decide first. So that's why we decided just to go from the layout that you just showed you to this layout, just connecting through. We certainly have room there in the Class 3 wetland that we talked about that is, like I really said, I don't know the proper terminology, but my will then, since I'll tell you, but it's basically a Class 3 kind of like not super significant wetland, I guess. It's not a significant wetland. So we could definitely put a road through there if that is something that... Can you point on the screen some possibilities of where that easement would be? And we can go through that Class 3 wetland between Yeah, that's it. Can you see that? Oh, I see. The red line. So Emily, are you doing that? Mm-hmm. Thank you. It's magic. And there's enough room there. Measured between eight and nine, and you might have to shift some of the driveway orientation a little bit, but you could get the 64-foot right of way through there. Okay. I guess how important is it, and I feel like judging by the staff report that is something super important. I would like staff to weigh in on that, please. I think so. I think what the bylaw says is that there's connectivity where there's no property ownership barrier, no physical barrier. It's a Class 3 wetland, but it doesn't serve any functional value based on the report. And if that property to the West were to come in to develop, having more connectivity, especially with that Mountain View intersection at 2A being so constrained is a better thing. Okay. And what I'm hearing is you don't have any opposition to an easement there. Correct. Okay. Okay. One point. If we can do that, not sacrifice units, that's pretty important because you can see that's a very long road. You know, per unit, square-footed, length of the road. Is this an easement or is this a stubbed-in road? Yeah. Because at growth management, it was shown as a stub. And right now, we're talking about an easement. So would you be willing to do a stub? Of course we would do that. But the one from Meadow, Meadow is not there. It's just an easement. That's kind of how we would propose it. One of the problems we find is that easements are wonderful, but when they're on a fully developed property, can't get anybody to build them. So when the next door comes up for development, they're going to say, well, great, I'm going to run the stub to my property line, and then that's my responsibility. I'm not going to run it across your property line. And of course, at that point in time, you guys have moved on and the homeowners are going to say, well, can't afford it. Don't want to do it. I really don't know how to answer that except to say that right now, around a property in a single property. Understood. We have talked to those folks, and there will be some. Right now, if they do a connection, they'll connect to our road. I mean, through that easement, just like we'll connect to a federal run. And, you know, and anybody who does a project like that will know and is aware that they'll be required to do it. We can't make a, if the property comes in next to it, the board can't make, cannot make that applicant install a road on your property. We can only require them to install the proper board on their property, correct? Right. I might have used the word easement correctly. I could have said public right of way with an irrevocable offer because that's how they're connecting to Meadow Run is, it's Meadow Run common land, but there's a public right of way. And then the town can play a ball there. It's very different. I don't assume that's right. So I think we would give up the ownership of that piece to the town. Okay. That's a different matter. And I don't think it's a good idea to put in the stub road then in that case, because who knows if that property ever gets developed or, you know, it would be a shame to have just a stub road to nowhere for years if it's not going to build. It could be. Yeah. I see both eyes. That's a great point. I was actually going to say something similar, but given your irrevocable offer and having the town almost the ability to construct that odor, you know, have it deconstructed, but in the event that it may never be constructed, I totally agree. It's like provide the land for ownership so that it can be done just like what we're doing with the Meadow Run because we're going to connect to Meadow Run through that sliver that's basically on our property plan that we filed with you guys in the last page. So we do the same thing here with 64 foot right away and if somebody wants to build a road onto us, then I will make a combination so that it's possible. But that 64 foot right of way would clip those driveways though, right? I think you'd have to move those drive those. Yeah, I absolutely agree. It's a rotation right and a rotation left. I mean, that's yeah. Yeah. Right. And with the curve of the road in the intersection confirming it with public work specifications. So it might shift a little bit. Some of the units might shift around, but I think you can get in the 64 feet and get in 15 units. Okay. Well, I look forward to seeing how that all is done on a site plan. I don't want to interrupt and be in the wrong direction where we're heading, but I just wanted to say something about the fire. Were you guys talking about the 30 feet apart? Is that the issue? Is that the, or the 10 feet on the case-like, case spaces where the approval from the fire chiefs are dizzying me because I'm looking at the memo from Wilson fire. Those are only four things. I mean, the hydrant location is 1,000 feet away. I can tell you 500. That's the problem. This is why I brought that up. Yeah. So I don't want to make sure I'm just not performing too, because I'm not sure if I do. Yep. It's that one, the distance structures, less than 30 feet apart addition of sprinklers or cementitious board. So that's, okay. Because I mean, hold on. I'm sorry. Hold on. One person speaking at a time. So that's not anything that's in our zoning ordinance. And they may say in their plan review document, but that's a plan review policy. It's not an ordinance or a fire code of the town. And we identified at the beginning of tonight's hearing on this, that we would like staff in the future to identify what is a regulation and what is a policy. Because we don't want confusion of an applicant if a request is outside of the bounds of what our regulations say. And so you zeroed right in on the one. Well, the cementitious board, I mean, I've heard that in other towns, too. And all of a sudden, it wasn't issued and then it became one. So like, what about the units that aren't like, we're going to take the sighting down to put it back up. It's, yeah, it's one of those things. We just want to comply and make sure everybody works. Yeah. So I think in fairness to you, we're going to be asking you to update your plan. And we're going to be asking for public works to complete their review. And I would like staff to update and provide clarity on an overreach by the fire department. And Pete, can I just ask Emily a question in the staff notes? There is a highlighted pending independent review next to public works. Are we getting a third party reviewer as well? Yes, sometimes public works gets independent engineering review before they finalize their memo. And so the timing on that independent review, do you have a sense of that? Because we're going to need to set a continuing state. And I don't I don't want to say something that's too aggressive. I think if we did a continuing state of, let's see, May 24, maybe the second meeting in June, that would be June 28. And May is a five Tuesday month. So we have even more wiggle room. I think that should be good. We should probably have it by early June. Okay. Okay. And that'll give you time to actually do a site plan. And, and have something that we more traditionally see a discretionary requirement. Is that would that be an accurate statement on my part? Yes. Okay. Yeah. I think the big ticket items for us is the sidewalk and talking about the 64 foot right away. And I think, you know, we nailed that. I mean, the rest of stuff is landscaping, like the easement. And we're actually under the impression, maybe that the path easement wasn't going to be on the north side amount of new, but if you want one on south side, I mean, we control that. So we can definitely throw an easement. That's the problem. Have you started the discussion with public works and the private landowner who owns the pump station? Yes, we have. In fact, I talked to the president one of these folks today, and he said, it would be fair to say we're just going to reduce. They gave us the figure that we would have to pay in order to look into that policy. And we agree. And so now we have to just reduce the right of the budget as far as their concerns. So you think you think you got a an agreement in principle? Yeah, and I might add that when we started this, there was that would not be made available. Because you weren't connecting through. So we, we thought to move the state on the other side of the road today and made a degree now to put a portal and we were going to go up mouth and cross over to one catchphrase sewer sewer. I keep saying catchphrase. I know that there's a new superman on their property, but public works is wanted in the right of way. And we didn't realize that. We're back on them and there won't be. Just got to get it. And certainly by the end of June, that should be. Okay. Yeah, I have a question. I was going to open it up, John, to the other members for questions. John. So this is my one. This is what really bothers me issue for tonight. Um, I'm looking at where this road is comes into meadow run almost opposite whitewater circle. Um, I don't know why that bothers me so much, but it just looks like a traffic nightmare to have that almost lineup, but not quite. I mean, I see that on the opposite end, it's lining up directly with a future paved road for the church property. And I assume that that's based on the plans that have been approved for the church property. And I'm wondering why that's not lining up at whitewater circle to make a true four way intersection. So we center the road in the right of way that 64 and then that little sliver that's basically 64 blends into 60 and we're centered in the road. So the only if you want us to ship it over, we don't have to be centered in the right of way, but that's what's traditional. So sort of the right hand pass coming out of our project. Right. It's not perfectly lined up with the actual road that shown. I guess I would defer to any, any traffic engineers on the board if they had an opinion about this. So I guess you're on stage. I guess you're on stage, Mr. You know, as the traffic study shows, I mean, this is going to be very low volume road. So I agree it is kind of a visual from above. It doesn't look ideal, but I don't think it'll be any issue from an operation standpoint. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Dave. Thank you. Okay. Other members of the DRB questions. Pete, I had a couple quick ones. Yep. First off, I just curious, did have you gotten sign up from DEC for the class two buffer impacts? We have some, we met with the wetlands and we got a report by our wetland consultant, has it filed with DEC? So it's been feel verified, but do they know? Yes, by our consultant and the, yes, the state of Vermont, that's correct. And we decided that report to Emily, right? Yeah. And so they're aware of the area of impact for the buffers, the class two buffers? Well, when we showed them our under a plan, we weren't too happy, but we have shown them this plan, but we haven't formalized like an application yet because we want to make sure that we're going to get everything finalized. Well, that'll be important because they may, you know, they may, they may ask how you're avoiding and minimizing impacts to those buffer impacts. So that, that could change. I guess that would be an important thing to have by the next time you come back to, you know, some read from DEC on the, on these impacts. I'm actually thinking we're going to show that 60 foot road, 64 foot right away and just, I just call that impact and then, you know, submit that plan to them at the same time we submit the bills to get some feedback. So that's the plan that's showing up on the screen. So there's, it looks like a six foot drop kind of between the road and the, and the, the wetland area. Is that, is that just a graded slope? And then, and is that, is that a fence at the bottom? The three on one, that's a solid fence. And then we were proposing to put four by four posts to show that delineation so that nobody would impact any more than what we need to grade. But when we talked to the conservation, conservation commission, they preferred folders. And so we're going to show that at the next level as well because we just worked with them last week and they recommended folders instead of like five more posts. So we're going to do that. So that will delineate what's green on that plan and what they're grading and that's a solid fence. Okay. The pre-emptive demarcation will be boulders as recommended by the most in conservation commission. And I, we actually fully agreed with them. Like, yeah, we're fine. If you want us to put boulders instead of posts, we're, we're completely fine with that as I'm hopeful that the DRB will allow. Yep. And then on, on buildings two and three, the, I see how you kind of aligned it with kind of parallel with Mountain View Road, but the driveway's come in at a kind of weird skew angle. Just picturing somebody coming home from Meadow Run, trying to make that right turn into their driveway. It's a, it's a pretty sharp curve and might want to just give that a little bit of thought. There's a way to maybe rotate those buildings a little bit just to make it more of a perpendicular driveway. Does that, does that make sense? Yeah, two and three rotate it kind of clockwise a little bit. Yeah. Yep. Exactly. And then, and then just, I know Emily had noted the missing crosswalks and, you know, one thing I would encourage, one thing that seems to make sense because you're missing crosswalks and there's an encouraged traffic calming. I know we heard from, from some of the public who was at the last hearing, first hearing, I guess, that we're concerned people are going to, you know, when you've got the big delays on two-way, people are going to cut through Meadow Run, you know, to get to Mountain View. And so I think it would be good to have some traffic calming along here anyway. You have the curved road, which is good, but I guess I would, I would consider a speed table with the crosswalk on top of it, kind of like in, on Zephyr Road around Finney Crossing. They don't have the crosswalks on top, but, you know, a raised section of asphalt with the crosswalk across that, that speed table, something, something just to consider. Yeah, I appreciate that. The bull valves and the crosswalks, we actually, I have an email in the Lisa and Bruce talking about that, but I think they're waiting, you know, maybe the third party review to give us the full comments, but we're, we're definitely in discussion with Public Works about, you know, what is the best, because obviously there's a lot of geometry in this road trying to do the avoidance and there's just a very small straightaway and then it's basically, you know, looking at it for meadow run, it's, you know, kind of a, you know, barely sharp turn left and then right and left and then back straight. So, you know, that'll, that'll probably calm traffic. Absolutely. Then it is, but I will definitely take a look at that. Great. That's it for me, Pete. Okay. I have another one. Yep. Go ahead, John. So, I'm looking at the community gardens and I see that are sum up by the, by the, geez, what is that, what is the building there? Is that, there's a gazebo and then is that a driveway right off of the street in front of the community gardens? Are those parking spaces or what? Yes, those are EV chargers and stations. Oh, okay. I don't know if that means the basically a bicycle store because we'll leave it at 50 and then you can see both and then the community garden. So I guess my concern is that if you've got two community gardens, then you could potentially have people coming from not in this neighborhood to use them. And where are they going to park? And that's especially true on the community gardens that are shown back behind unit number four. And how do you see access to those gardens and how is that accommodated? I say that because the community gardens that are at say Bren and Woods have some parking where people can come off the street and park and work in their gardens. But I don't see how that would happen here. I guess the thought process was, you know, we're kind of instinctively thinking it's going to be for, you know, mostly residents, but the parking issue, I guess that's Is there a requirement for a community garden? Can it just be a garden for the HOA? Right. The neighborhood space can be private. It's only the sustainable transportation stuff, the EV charge and the bike lockers that have to be publicly accessible. But everything else because EVO, community gardens. Maybe you said a community garden should be a garden for that community, but I mean, we're not trying to single anybody out. No, no, but you know, if you call it a community garden and John brings up a really good point that says, well, if people are driving in from the outside, you've got to have some place to park. But if it's a garden for the community, then maybe they just walk. You don't have any, and you don't have a parking space for, you know, for that. So, right. So you can, I mean, it's a good point on John, John, John. Yeah, no, that's a good point. Yeah, it's, yeah. Neighborhood garden. Yeah, neighborhood garden. Neighborhood garden. Anything else, John? No, I mean, I guess I just kind of chime in with where Scott started tonight, which is I do feel like a lot of the input we're giving here is something akin to what we would do at a pre app and, but this is a DP. And so I'm not, I'm a little frustrated with that too. So I'm going to come down on Scott's side on this one. Okay. I'm not hearing anybody not on Scott's side. Yeah, I would like to add that my comments are not, you know, a coloring of your project. Okay. It's, it's, it's more lack of information. It looks like a good project. But, and I do like the connectivity. I will tell you that, but the board wants the board wants more, you know, more information completed, you know, a complete application for us to review it. We started with that. Understood. I was, there was a lot of changes after you recorded me. You know, we hear you believe me. Next time we come back and we'll be completed. Great. Nate, Paul, questions. I'm shocked to find out this flat. Two wetlands on this place since Henry Ivy used to have this property and he cut everything out this way. I know that for a fact. So are we. No, I'm just saying is that, you know, it's amazing. You know, I'm wondering did Henry Ivy make the rules by paying class two wetlands and the guy who's next door was complaining. They just an area that's supposedly the class two wetlands just this year. Anyhow, that's another story going on. I don't know what to say. I don't know. Stay on shock. I find that this actually the class two wetlands on this property. Yeah, we're a little shocked as well. I guess this is a question more for staff. But could you go back to why we're why we asked them to change course on the connectivity here versus the original plan? All reasons. I mean, is it was it just sewer connect connectivity or are there other bylaws that force that? So last fall, they got the wetlands lineation and it it changed what the potential layout could be. And then they showed the cul-de-sac. We talked about options as if that connection wasn't going to be able to happen. Or maybe the wetlands lineation hadn't been finalized, but it was. I don't know. I'm thinking back along the way. The wetlands is was confusing because it's you said it's class three and it's not important what it is. I guess that's where I'm. Yeah, the class three is the class two is what's hatched in green. And then the class three is kind of behind the existing house. And then between unit seven, eight and then nine and 10. So that's where the class three is the class two green hatching. We do care about. So the conversations back in. Last summer fall, it was sounding like the connectivity wasn't going to be an option. And they worked on a cul-de-sac with five units on a private driveway. And then that when that was presented to staff in a more formal way. Back in February or March, it was like, well, looks like that road could connect through. And you could have a better layout with a cul-de-sac with the driveways. Just going to create issues with that, that private driveway scenario in terms of plowing and fire. So then my staff recommendation was looking at all the pre-app recommendations and how they could be charted out was going to require a major reworking. So worked with them on, you know, getting the street to come through. And then got it to the point was like, all right, I've done what we can as staff. Let's get a little feedback from the DRB before it gets, you know, goes too far down the line. Okay. So it was all about the wetlands and yeah, I mean, I got, I share some concerns about that being used as a shortcut. But I think it's the only way it works. So what, what, what being used as a shortcut, the connect, the connection, this road off of Meadow Run. Yeah, Meadow Run. But the town does have a state and, you know, a statement inside the bylaws indicating that connectivity is paramount and we should be doing. That's what I was wondering about. Okay. So that's, that's what I wanted to hear about. Yeah, yeah, that's the bylaw. Right. And right now Meadow Run is, and Meadow Run and Forest Run is like 92 units. So today we only allow 40 units on a single point of access. And this neighborhood has nearly a hundred. So getting this point of connectivity will give police and fire and emergency service another way in and out. That's not the busy Route 2A. There might be a little bit more cut through traffic when the Route 2A intersection is being redone. People might try it once or twice and then find out it's pretty windy. And then once that intersection gets redone, the traffic in the area should be blow a little bit better. Yeah, this isn't going to be that much of a shortcut to anywhere. It isn't. I mean, there is an emergency access or an emergency vehicle access through over to Katie Lane into the woods there, not that it's maintained very well. And I have no idea if it's a cloud in the winter or not. Yeah, I guess once that intersection is fixed, which isn't happening, it won't be as much of an issue. The only other comment I want to make is that there was another project where I see there's an easement for a multi-use path here. Is there, does the wetland affect that? Would we want to consider asking you to actually build part of a multi-use path like we have in the past? Right, so you are correct that with the Catamount project, we did ask them to actually build a stub of path along Mountain View. The staff justification there was kind of, you know, the proportionality in nexus, Catamount's much larger subdivision, and that portion of path is a little bit more feasible. Here they would be dealing with the significant level of impact to Class 2 wetland and it's a smaller project. So giving the town the easement and then the town would have the option if we're working Mountain View right of way, or the town's going after building that contiguous path, we have the rights to it. But it would be a pretty big ask to have them build a section of path that, you know, maybe the desired route is to have it go along the north side of Mountain View Road. I think it's easier to do flexibility with the number 26 and easier to promote like you stopped on Mountain View, shall we provide a final plan? Something like that, we'll confirm it with Public Works. Thank you. Okay, any questions from the public? Pete, I don't know if you want to unmute yourself, you're still there, and I'll ask you a question. He's not there. Right, you asked. I didn't hear who you were talking to. Tony, would you like to ask a question if you state your name and address the record? Yes, I'm sorry, I couldn't tell if you were talking to me or somebody else. I'm Tony Stout and I'm representing the estate of Josephine Haynes. I'm her son-in-law. I also do land use planning, development planning for a livelihood. I think we filed a letter with our comments. You've addressed the key one tonight, which was the connectivity. And the only comment I have in particular is if the connection goes through the Class 3 wetland on Michaud's side of the line, it will also have to go through additional Class 3 wetland on the Haynes side of the line. An alternative that would impact less wetland if we're making minor revisions would be to slide units 9 and 10 to the north and put them up so the back of those two units are in that Class 3 wetland. But the connectivity onto the Haynes property is at an upland location. So the total amount of wetland disturbance in the end would be less. That would be my one comment on that. Otherwise, since they're going to be coming back, my comments on drainage and a little bit of grading tweaking, I know they had to rush the plan through. I believe they can deal with at the next meeting. Okay. Very good. Anything else? That is it. Okay. We mentioned some landscaping, but that, again, we'll get to that. Yeah. Okay. Any other members of the public with their hand raised? There's no other members of the public here. Okay. We repeat question. All right, we can do. Pete Kazavan, before we left, asked whether the intersection with Meadowrun would be a four-way stop. So I guess that's question for the applicant. That's going to be public works, I would think. Right. Yeah, that's public works. Yeah. So that would be part of the public works input that's pending. What was it? Okay. Okay. DRB members, any final questions? For tonight, no more. Okay. Any final comments before we officially continue this? Thanks for hearing us. Thank you very much. I understand what you're saying. Okay. Didn't go on step here. Great. Thank you. Paul. Did you, one question about the sweat line, this class 2-1, did you confirm with Henry Ivy whether or not that was created, that divot was created for drainage for that farm field? The reason I asked that question is, like I said, we hate that whole field back in the day. No. I would contact Henry Ivy at the corner of the mountain view. Thank you. And Dr. Lyman, if that's one. If your head, his house is the one just before the driveway, back to the power loop. But does the origin of the wetland make a darn bit of difference if it once has been classified as a class 2 wetland? If it was created by a farmer, it should be able to be destroyed by a farmer. Well, if it was, right. So if it was created by God, it can be destroyed by God, I guess. So the best way, the best way I can explain it, whether I like it or not, truth of the matter in this project, we'll end up creating greenery and non-mobile area that is always been molded historically, like you say. I mean, that's the trade-off. You do the project, we let it be, you know, unmolded field in exchange for putting, you know, our boulders and preserving it as open space. I mean, that's, that's basically the- I would just, I would just curious whether or not- No, that's a great point. I think another comment I could make is that, you know, as time goes on, you know, I've been doing developments for a long time and as time goes on to become more and more complicated, there's more and more things that you have to, things you have to meet. I mean, you know, one of the first ones I did, there was a file about that there, where you're doing that thing. And back when you were doing the hanging, there probably wasn't even a concern. So, you know, that regulation probably came into effect after- It was called a soft spot. Yeah, I've heard that term. I think we all have. But yeah, like Mr. Weber said, times have changed significantly. And I agree with the file. I mean, the files are enormous when we're all done and it's, it is the way it goes. Everybody's trying to do all the right things and there's a lot of complexities when you add it all up in the hole for sure. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So, it is 810 and we're going to continue DP 21-05 until June 28th. Okay. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The next item is DP 22-08, which is a request for a pre-application review of a two-law subdivision that's been continued to a date uncertain. So, the next item up on the agenda is item number three, communications, final plans, other business, final plans for DP 09-01.23, which is an urban park on Holland Lane and Market Street and Finney Crossing. Mr. Riley, I assume you're refusing yourself on this one? Yes, I am. Can you use your question? You do this one time? No. No. Yes, I am refusing myself from this. Riley, continue an interest in it. Okay. Thank you. All right. And it looks like Chris Snyder and Andy Rowe are attending live on Zoom, but they don't need to say their names into the record because it's not a hearing. Okay. Great. So, this is final plans review for the urban park at Holland Lane and Finney Crossing. The restaurant is currently under construction. This was all approved last summer. So, tonight the DRB should review the final plans and decide the proposed park meets condition number one or if the applicant must further revise the plans. I include some excerpts from pre-application review as well as the applicant's revision at discretionary permit in November 2021 about changes to the urban park in response to DRB and HAC pre-application recommendations. The discretionary permit was approved in November of 2021 basically that the urban park needed some more activity and enhancement in order to uphold the growth management score of 67 points. So, conditions of approval from the HAC were about adding more picnic tables and relocating the concrete spheres and suggesting colorful concrete spheres and that they would be clustered for children's play and adding some benches to the southeast corner facing into the park. So, the applicant response at final plans have been four picnic tables are now proposed in the stone dust paving area. The concrete spheres have been eliminated. Additional types of seating and boulder steps have been added. Instead of benches, a varied type of seating has been added including on the easterly side. And I'm going to jump over to the plan set. I excerpted it in your packets highlighting these pieces. The benches and picnic tables they provide are a little bit more comfortable. A lot of the HACs review is really focused on, you know, the backless granite blocks were not very inviting for people to come sit and hang out or people with families. They are proposing some Adirondack chairs. This is what was shown at discretionary permit. These are the concrete spheres, you know, kids can climb on them or jump off them. Those are what have been eliminated. And they are proposing some Adirondack chairs that can be moved around. So people could sit in a group or sit in smaller clusters. And there is a lull swing that is provided. This is what the swing would look like. It's kind of like what you see on the Burlington waterfront. And they're proposing one of those within the park area. So you can see where landscaping and a berm, a small berm has been added on that eastern side of the park to enclose the space. The Adirondack chairs are shown on the plan near the boulder climbing structure, which is another small berm. The boulders stepped into the wall for seating or play. So my recommendation in my review, that I'm unsure about the removal of the concrete spheres, the intent was a playful, somewhat artistic feature that was inviting to children and adults. The next condition, number 10A, was about screening between the dumpster enclosure and Curtis Lane that has been provided. And short-term bicycle spaces near the southwestern corner. This was a condition of approval. The applicant has noted that there are existing bike racks already near the hotel. And I find that those racks are sufficient because that's the area where the DRB wanted more bike racks and they're already there. So condition number 21 stated, final plan shall include revisions to the park to add elements that activate the central area and provide a defining feature of finny crossing. The applicant response is, the park has been configured to provide an easterly landscape berm for the enclosure of the central park area with various types of seating. Options will include Rondack chairs, wall swings, boulder seating, picnic tables, and benches. A boulder climbing structure is added to the westerly berm and the stone dust paving area along Holland Lane remains with additional picnic tables and bike spaces. My review is that the easterly berm will provide a sense of enclosure. However, only one wall swing is provided on the plan and we're recommending more than one. We're also recommending bringing back the concrete spheres or providing another interactive playful park element. The number of Adirondack chairs should also be specified on the final plans in the event they are stolen or misplaced and the DRB should discuss the number of the swings and the movable Adirondack chairs. Thank you. Okay, so Emily and Matt coach me on what happens next is did we just hear your recommendations in the record and we go straight into deliberation on this or is there more of an interaction with the applicant? The applicant wasn't sworn in. It's not a public hearing. And so this is really just a public staff report. And then we'll discuss it in deliberations. Is that correct? You can discuss it in deliberations. I think you could also discuss it in open session and ask clarifying questions of the applicant. I don't think you need to take a motion or a vote necessarily. But you could say, you know, please provide, you know, three benches at final plans for staff. Okay. Very good. So I will open it up to the DRB then. There's been staff recommendations which I support and believe makes sense. What are other DRB members positions on this? Yeah, I agree with the staff comments. The only question I guess for Chris would be the spheres, the concrete spheres, why he took them out, was if there was a reason for it? Well, there's a lot going on there. And so the question was, were we creating like not enough space to do much of, if you locate those and you have the boulder little wall and the berms and is there just too much stuff in there? And that was really more from the landscape architect than from us. It was just, they were concerned about how they might play into that space. Just seeing the picture of the kids trying to balance on top of the spheres, I was wondering if it was a liability concern too. I'm sure there's always liability concerns, but we're going to have boulder steps and kids are going to fall off that too. Yeah, thank you. Okay, other DRB members. So when Emily was talking about the wall swings, I was thinking, I don't understand, I see three of them on the plan, but I think those other ones along the set the east side are, those are Adirondack chairs. Yeah, not the crappy screenshot. They're not nailed down. They'll be gone. There are ways to deal with that. Put an Apple ID tag underneath them and then go find them after they've taken. Well, so Chris, are you saying that these three things are low swings? No, I said I thought they were, but they're not called out that way. I think that they're Adirondack chairs. I think there's three of them there. Yeah, can you hold it up on the- Oh, I'm sorry. I'm not screen sharing. No. That's all right. There we go. I was just looking at it all on my own. On the other hand, well, it's hard to tell. Now, as I see it in a bigger picture, are those meant to be more low swings? So that, it looks like it, yes. I think those along that side of the park are a great idea. And the Adirondack chairs, then, are kind of concentrated and traded over by the circle. Yes. In this area. They're definitely different, yeah. And what is the ground surface there in that circle? Grass. Okay. Can you scroll up the page there a little, Emily? So where the Adirondack chairs are, that's grass? Oh, I'm sorry. That changes. It's my understanding that Andy can wane here, but that sphere, the round area, the material changes in that location. I think that's more of the stone dust paving in the circle area. Okay. Well, you know, again, I kind of missed the spheres. I thought those are really fun little pieces. And if they were inside that circle, where the moms might be sitting watching the kids climb on the rocks, I'm not sure that's going to get in people's way because there's a change of surface there as well. But anyway, I think this is a huge step forward. I'm so happy to see something like this. Right. Thank you. All right. Other feedback from the DRB, Nate? No, I'm good. I think in terms of the busyness with the concrete spheres, if they were, you know, kind of kept to the perimeter, so you could still, you know, run across or toss the ball across the lawn, but then have those, you know, tucked into the side, that would probably work. Okay. And I'm a little confused on this swing thing then. Are there more swings than your staff report contemplated? I think so. I think I misread this one definitely as an Adirondack chair, but it is a swing. And I think this one is also supposed to be a swing. You can see the swing is basically the Adirondack chair vector image. And then this black bar was probably supposed to be layered on top and not on the bottom. So I think it is supposed to be three lull swings. Okay. There. You know, says the 60-year-old plus, there is a theme here tonight, and that is really tiny plants, and which makes it really difficult from a DRB's perspective to evaluate these things. And so I'd like to maybe offline have a discussion about what we can do. And I know, I know you can read it online and I know you can blow it up and I get all that. But when you're sitting in your favorite chair reviewing the DRB package, that's not as easily done. This was sponsored by Len Spratt, or they wanted to add a new one. I just, I have to, I got the light over the thing. Speaking of light, is there a lighting plan with this? Like where, what will be, you know, Yeah, there, there is a full plan set that goes with this. For final plans review, we usually just do the screenshots and don't mail out hard copies. So I'm not trying to be funny. This, this stuff is really hard to read. And. Right. Well, even me looking at the 24 by 36 plant, the full-size one, I misread the swings in Adirondack chairs. Okay. So let's collectively try to solve that. So I have one more comment on the swings. Which is, I'm not sure I'd want to sit on one of those swings and look at somebody else sitting on the swing. I think I'd like to be focused on the, on the activity in the center of the, of the open space there. You know what I mean? Yeah. Like degrees. Well, some of them are already facing into the center there. You know, and I think you want to be able to see the frisbee that's suddenly coming at you as well. Yeah. Anyway, I mean, that's a small comment, but I think it would make that, you know, I mean, like the swings on the waterfront, they're all kind of facing out towards the lake because that's where people want to look, not at each other. On the other hand, the Adirondack chairs, you're going to be wanting to watch as he's got them shown kind of what's happening probably on that wall because that's where your four year old is. So anyway, I did, this is great. And I liked the way it incorporates the seating area for the, for the restaurant. And the, if you, if you zoomed out further Emily, the, it even kind of really ties in very nicely with the pedestrian walk there over towards the hotel and the landscaping that's on over there. So I think, and that's a pedestrian walk. It goes all the way down. So, and, you know, and it kind of ties then into a little bit of the landscaping now kind of leads across that pedestrian walk to the hotel and it really starts to incorporate what's happening over there. Especially when you think in that space where that says 109 DC, I think that's where that little fire pit is for the, for the hotel. So I did, this is good. I like it. Yeah. I agree. Okay. So I can, I can just get with you after and provide final comments and as the chair, correct? Okay. Okay. Okay. I don't believe that we have any need to go into deliberative session. We've got the site visit, which is deferred until June 14th. We've deferred EP 21-05, Scott Mishow until June 28th, EP 22-08, Malcolm Willard is continued to a date uncertain. We just had a discussion about final plans of the urban park, which I as chair will deal with staff offline. So I think the only outstanding item that we have is to approve the minutes of May 10th, 2022. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of May 10th, 2022? Paul has made a motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Sean. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, please indicate yay or nay, please. Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Jay. Saladino? Yay. Nate Andrews? Yay. Chair is a yay. Six in favor, unopposed. The minutes are approved. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Okay, Scott, I made the motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. John seconds it. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, everyone.