 Hmm, that's good because we wouldn't have been able to make quorum Okay, Charlie L is going good. You guys all good Mark is there We forgot that click the screen looking one We have no mouse. We have no mouse. So we're like, you know all thrown off now. It's just a shame We'll raise doing admirably All right Welcome to city of South Brunswick department of planning and zoning Development review board for June 5th, 2018 First thing we'd like to First thing on the agenda is directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room If there's an emergency, we will exit either through the doors you came in from or these doors and we'll meet in this parking lot Scroll down the South parking lot To make sure that everyone who signs the sign-up sheet is safe and sound So if there's an emergency, please let's do that Number two additions deletions or changes in the order of agenda items. Are there any additions change the deletions? Hearing none comments questions from the public not related to the agenda and when you have any comments or questions on items Not related to the agenda During none hearing none number four announcements Well, it's good. Good to have you back Bill, but but we've had a record breaking Speed on the last meeting. So you've got a challenge ahead Doesn't take any time to watch that on Item number five miscellaneous application Ms-1802 of Merrill Kate To alter the existing grade for stormwater improvements the improvements consist of Regrading the lot and installing two stormwater manholes connected with a perforated pipe to an existing drain manhole at four Who is here for the African? Thank you very much Yes, that's great. That's great And if it's first raise your right hand you promise all the truth the whole truth and nothing much truth on the penalty of Pertry. Thank you so much. Oh And state your name Thank you Probably Small sway That goes on the left side from top to bottom and a deeper one that goes from left to right along the boundary lines there Which is the blue is the water that you can see so There is a manhole where it says current manhole that is about Probably 24 inches below the level of the street on my property And is I think was put there to manage this water flow as it was But the sways aren't quite deep enough can't really get them deep enough So my plan is to put I had a have a landscaper coming in his suggestion was Or two just you call manholes two greats one in the top left there one on the bottom left and Pull that water from those two primary areas and all with perforated pipe underground As a fringe drain and then cut into the current manhole that is there And I think that that you know he believes and I believe that that would manage this water problem Houses all around are affected by this my plan is definitely not to increase the The grade to push water back on to them But to actually pull the water from their property into into these manholes so that we can drain this and actually Improve the value of those five properties as well. This is the On the previous screen the bottom left It did get worse than this on the only complaint from these neighbors am I doing this is they they enjoy the ducks that come here sometimes Other than that they had no problems with it if you scroll down a little more there's I did this This is one of the sways that was cut in Pin there that is my property line. So you see the water does go on to the other two properties there As well Motion to close has he have you read the decision? Oh, yes. Have you seen the decision? Photos in your application I'll entertain a motion to close I move that we close 1902 of Meryl Kate for force local street Second the move in second would close this application all favor say aye. Aye. Aye opposed Thank you very much next steps Ray and Marla will Or you can please contact Ray and Marla and Give their plans and so on. Yeah Great Sounds great. Thank you so much. Take care Next item on the agenda continued continued Continued conditional use application see you see you 1807 and site plan application SP 1815 of Toronto fuels to amend a previously approved site plan for an auto repair facility the amendment consists of constructing a 1600 foot square foot addition to the existing building adding a paved parking lot and changing the use to Contractor or building trade facility a portion of the proposed work is located within a stream buffer requiring conditional Conditional use review at ten limerock limerock road. Who was here for the applicant? Is Jeff Galler from Trudeau consulting engineer and landscape architect on the project? Did not you are not here at the last so this is like continued from last week, right? For the last meeting, but he would need to be sworn in. Yes, right Please raise my hand. You promised all the truth whole truth and nothing with the truth under penalty of perjury Thank you so much. Please describe What's changed? The first plan we did not Allow for the replacement of the landscape that was Being removed. There was a 16 inch maple that's died that needed to be accounted for and So what I did is I planted seven willows on the back of the property down in the the grass of the wet area and Also just the number of Shrubs that we removed to move the sidewalk in the front of the building. I Didn't have enough Plants in there as As a trade-off so we added more There Yep, you see the plant list And you have you've seen the is there a draft decision. Yes, there is a draft decision, right? That's there. What is there draft? No, there isn't after the after All specs whose site plan with the but it's still red line. So it bread and so staff is happy that the Requirements are met for replacing the tree caliper That's great. So I have no questions That was not gonna be my question that this does replace all the calipers. Yes So if as explained in the cover memo The trees that are measured on a caliper basis are replaced on a caliper basis The shrubs and lilac the standard of industry standards is not to measure a thing on a caliper basis So he's provided comparable size and value replacement Okay, other comments question from the board mark you okay Okay, there's one red comment, but it starts at number two. Is there a number one or is that just all on the draft decision a Stream buffer which may be more suitable for snow storage Or is that just from last week? So those are that should not Yeah, sorry That should be removed because I added a condition to reflect what Abby had agreed to last week which is to relocate the snow storage I love that it's great not a tape but Other comments question from the board I'm all set Comments questions the public. Thank you other comments questions from public hearing none entertain emotional problems. I move that we close SP if I got this right SP 1816 and CU 1807 of 10 Lime Rock Road Is it 16 or 15? 1816 and CU 1807 according to the cover There's a typo in the agenda. Yeah, the agenda has 1815. Yeah, which is correct It's 16. Well, I'm closing the right one Second it's been moved in second with closest application all in favor say aye. Hi Opposed thank you very much. Take care Item number seven final application SD 1815 of Ernest and Eau Claire family trust to subdivide an existing parcel developed with a single family dwelling into two lots of 15 acres lot one 31 Hinesburg Road Who is here for the applicant? Hi, I am Andrea Dottolo of Trudeau consulting engineers and the owner Jennifer Eau Claire more way And this is a swearing Please raise your right hand promise tell the truth the whole truth and nothing about the truth under penalty of surgery All right, so this is Final application Subdivision subdividing off a 15 acre lot with a remaining 117 acre lot Nothing has been changed since the initial application although We do have draft findings That we'd like to review with you guys Great. Let's see. You are obvious. You are obviously looking at the draft decision Okay I don't see any comments. Do you send in comments when you pay attention to they're not highlighted in red? Oh, no, I didn't think they were a big deal, but the two items were That are conditions for amendment of the plan. So if you scroll down to condition number three everything else is boilerplate except condition number three which Requires that the plat plan be revised to show a 25 a 20 foot wide access easement on the 15 acre lot to serve the 117 acre lot and Show a utility easement on the 15 acre lot to serve the 117 acre lot The 20 foot wide access easement is required by our standard not explicitly, but access is required The board can't approve Subdivisions without access And then VTrans also sent us a note requesting that easement And then the utility easement is simply for the purpose of the existing electric line That serves the existing barn So I see the access easement. I don't see the I'm sorry. I'm not finding the utility easement Which item number nine Okay, just needed okay comments on those Yeah, so we were wondering About the 20 foot access easement from the 15 acre parcel it seems that the 117 acre parcel would have more than adequate room for access It's got over 4,000 feet of frontage along both route 116 and choose factory road And it does have two existing curb cuts along route 116 Unfortunately those plans don't highlight the 117 acre parcel There's a small cut out on C201 Which is a second plan We do have pictures of the curb cutouts if that's helpful though Yeah, Marla, what's the purpose? I mean they've got a ton of frontage, right? So it's to provide access to the existing structure If it were completely undeveloped a lot, oh, you're saying this little dairy barn at the bottom Is it were completely undeveloped a lot? Then we would say we'll figure out access later or the whoever develops it will figure out access later Because it does have so much frontage But we felt the whole concern is the dairy barn at the bottom. Yeah, we felt that the standard requiring access It's currently a road that goes from 116 through the back where the curb cut is to the barn Yeah, it's like a farm access road You could go to choose Yeah Right about there, okay, maybe a little far, but so you can start to see the so the barn is Here and you're saying this is the curb cut. Yes. Yeah, and there's the second one somewhere There's one just Right next to it where this one 16 Everybody following Is that adequate as far as the staff is concerned? Right, right, I think the question is just about the Okay, okay, and that satisfies v. Trans requirements as well Under item three. I'm just reviewing what it says They know that the standards of section 1111 require an access plan to be provided for the current use So if the access plan for the current use is the driveway to the south of the barn, I suppose that qualifies I do sort of wonder what the definition of access plan is for v. Trans purposes I don't want to approve something that they that wouldn't meet their standards So maybe that's something I can do quickly during our discussion is look up the definition of access plan Try that right now That particular section does not have its own definitions so we'd have to look elsewhere for them So we probably want to take a little more time Access plan means an actual plan Would you be able to provide a plan with a different view that shows where the access is? Yeah, absolutely This requirement is really a v. Trans is not an LDR requirement, right? So we're just trying to accommodate possibly the v. Trans So is that an administrative payment? I guess I'm wondering if we can close it here and figure out what access Plan means and then if it just means a plan of action then we just put a condition Yeah, we can put a condition in that requires something and then if it requires a physical plan That sounds good fine by me Okay, other comments questions from the board okay comments questions from the public yes, sir, please identify yourself We're not Regular payment just like characters Using that just understand that you're even saying that they haven't worked very well and I think we know familiarity with them and other sites and know what we have to do. But is the issue of whether they work on us and if we use them then shame on us if we come back and ask to take them out without having to make some other changes to get the coverage ratio right. The problem is you wouldn't have a curable site without the parking spaces that you don't need in Permian because you'd be below your required parking if you had to remove them. So if you needed to remove them in our place in Permian then you wouldn't have to have a site and we wouldn't be stuck with this construction project but it doesn't comply. There's a second issue in our minds as well which is lot coverage acts in most districts as a surrogate for open space and character of the neighborhood. It favors to not come towards lot coverage along with in theory place them across the entire site and then there would be no aesthetic quality to the site. So our inclination, go ahead. Oh no I was going to say what Marla just said. The district already has a pretty high lot coverage and it's going to be open space green space and if you heard these painters whether they work or don't work still have the appearance of paint. And so in theory we did allow this as a standard, we put paint in their site and just say we're going to take care of drainage. The 30% remaining is for green space and we always sort of get to that especially when we come into these non-conforming sites that are free existing conditions of way over lot coverage. So I try to get on the brutal green space like in the front yard lot coverage by adding green and not for this favor. So I personally want some for this favor which you get to go over the lot coverage. A strong low, sorry. The next issue is there are some non-conformities, some existing non-conformities at the site and I'd like to discuss these one by one if we can. I will mention that the hotel building that's there which I understand from Skip Hockner, he says the police are there twice a week handling issues that arise at that building. That building is also in, it has a setback issue, it has setback violations and we would fix those setback violations so they didn't exist anymore. Nevertheless there would be some other non-conformities that exist and that we would ask that they continue to exist but we wouldn't be making them worse. One of them is the canopy structure. There was actually a variance that was granted to allow the canopy structure to be built. We proposed to take down the building that is on the service station property and replace that with, and so there would be less, we would add two pumps and some more canopy. At the end result is that there would be less structure on the service station property. Where we would build we would not be adding to the setback non-conformity. The existing canopy would say a lot of money has been invested in doing the pump and tank upgrades and so we would keep those but we would propose to take the building down and add two more pumps. We think we can do that under the allowance that simply says we can, as long as we're not adding to the non-conformity for the structure we can spend up to $125,000 to add to it. That's just the easiest way to get there but that's what we're going to be proposing. Can I just clarify, the structure that you're proposing to tear down is not connected to the non-conforming structure, is that correct? It is not connected to the non-conforming structure, yes, that's correct. So you're removing the conformity structure and expanding the non-conformity structure? In a way that the non-conforming structure is, we're not expanding the non-conformity of the canopy. We'd be expanding it in an area within the setbacks. It's the back part of the canopy. It's the part away from the street. It's not the part out by the street for which it varies historically. So the next is... So just a quick question, are we all okay with that? Mark, John, Jennifer? I don't know. I just don't have a straight answer yet. Do we have to see a little more detail? I just don't have a straight answer. I don't have a problem with the old service station going away. I'm a little confused on the legal side of it and I don't want to think about it a little bit. We're happy, as I said, this may be an unusual sketch plan if it takes a couple of weeks to get through these issues to get to the bottom of them, but some of these are go-no-go for us. So there's a question about whether we're changing the non-conforming use. And we believe that what's out there now is a service station use. I have interviewed Mr. Skip Hawker. He's happy to come here and confirm at a meeting that, yeah, what I do fits within the definition of a service station use. There have been at least three decisions that have looked at that and said, yeah, this is a service station use. The only question seems to me, Skip Hawker has done what we think of what he says are minor car repairs there. And his, I hope I've got his language, the current owner describes this work as light-duty, quick, in-and-out auto repairs. And I can go in and I can tell you what they are. We think if you're a, the definition of a service station includes minor repairs, the allowance for minor repairs, we, staff has raised the issue that no, what may be going on there is that you're doing, it's a car repair service station use and a major car repair or motorcycle repair business. We think that it is not a major, we think there's one use that's a service station use and we base that on these facts. The use of the site has always been described as, in all, in at least three zoning applications as being a service station, there's never been permission granted to operate a car repair or motorcycle repair. The vast majority of the service station is devoted, properties devoted simply to the sale of gas, which is clearly a service station use. The, there's an accessory use of the site that has included the sale and installation of tires, batteries and lubricating oil. That falls under the definition of a service station use. The other automotive services that have been performed at the site include motor vehicle inspections and there are some other services, but there is, as Skip Hockner will tell you, they're all quick in and out, they're very minor things, he's not, he's not doing engine reconstruction or anything like that. The site has not been permitted or used to sell autos or motorcycles. The site hasn't been permitted or used to perform major repairs on autos and the site has not been permitted or used to sell auto or motorcycle parts and accessories. So for all those reasons, we think it's a service station work, we would propose to keep it a service station use. So I have a couple concerns about that. And I want to ask Araya a question. The adjoining property in the file, there's a letter that says you are operating as an extended big hotel, you only have a triple crew of hotels. What will be the use of that property today? I believe it's currently apparently being used as an extended stay for even residential units. Regardless of what the prior people said. Right, apparently, but it appears to have been approved already by the hotel. But the existing use is not, there's no need to be in compliance with the support. The existing service building that's detached from the fuel pumps has a sign on it. People would raise their voices because the microphones are not working. So you might want to raise your voices. The existing building, not the gas pump, but the enclosed building has a sign on it that says full service auto repair. If we apply that same logic, that's full service auto repair, auto service, auto and motorcycle service repair use, not service station. I don't, I have no stick on her because the sale of it to him ages, when I see him occasionally. I think a big piece of his business is actually tow truck related. Is that not correct? Because there's a bunch of tow trucks sitting on his back. I don't, I think you've done more work. Yeah, we did work for him in Hinesburg. I think his towing facility is actually out of an Act 250, which is like in Hinesburg. I don't know, but there are tow trucks that have a large scale of tow trucks sitting on this property that get out on the highway very quickly. I don't think he skips all that busy in this shop. So, I mean, I hear you, Marlon, but I don't think it's, I don't think he's doing all the lie in there. I think it's basically a gas business. I think the bottom line is that whatever use is around the property or not, pre-existing non-conformity. Gotcha, yeah. Proposal, I know more, but the proposal is to increase the use, is to expand the use by adding fuel in positions. Expand the non-conformance. And regulations do not allow the extension of non-conformity use. And the service station is a non-conformity use. Service station's non-conforming auto repair when it's minor or major is not allowed. I can talk to the expansion use if you want when you're ready. Go ahead. Okay, so the expansion, we believe that 100% of the service station property has been used for service station use. We're not proposing to change that. And if anything, we could actually reduce the amount, the portion of that, because some of the parking might be, you might say that it's being used for the new grocery store or retail use. So we might actually reduce the size of the non-conformity site that's used for the service station use. Whenever I have looked at changes, issues of expansion of non-conforming uses, you always look at the area that is being used. I've never seen a question where you look at what traffic is being generated, the non-traffic that's being generated by the uses that are occurring in the non-conforming use. The size, the area of the non-conforming use is all that long, and that's before and that will be true after. It is true that we propose to change the product mix of the non-conforming use so that more of it will be gas sales and less of it will be auto, the minor auto repairs. But the only way that you get to calling that an expansion is if you look at the, the only way that it suggests is if you look at the traffic generation. I would ask you to look at, as a lawyer advising people, it's never occurred to me to analyze this on anything, but what's the size of the area before and after? It's never occurred to me that you have to do a traffic study to figure out, gee, do you have more traffic before or after? It's the same area that's being used for the service station before. With four additional fuel stations. With four additional, but with no building. With no, you know, the auto repair businesses. That part of the service station business is going away. Before it's the same area, we're not, we're not expanding off the site. If you look at the definitions of how you calculate air expansion, they all go to square footed Jews for, they all go to square footed Jews. They don't go to, gee, what's the traffic generation? Is that? No, it's not. We disagree. The canopy, which covers the, which is part of the service station, is being expanded. So you are expanding an area, you're expanding a canopy, which is being used to house, if you will, the fueling position. Service station includes a definition of dispensing of gasoline, dispensing of using gas pumps. But if they remove, I'm just guessing there. If the building is 600 square feet and they're removing 600 square feet and they put back up 600 feet of canopy, have they not left in the same? It depends on whether it's a expansion of, or a swapping of one use for the same use or a swapping of one use for a different use. So the first, the first question of nonconformity affects the second question of nonconformity. Remove the two uses, the auto repair and the repair building, and then you have the canopy, which has the service station component. But if you were to tear down, say, 300 feet of canopy on the other side of it, improve site circulation or something, that would not be an expansion. I'm sorry, the service station includes minor repair, sale of odds and ends and so forth, right? The minor service repair may be when, as Marla put it out, there is a sign indicating that it's a full service, not a minor repair. And because that's going away in my brain, there's a little bit of a net benefit. So when you wave two, you're getting rid of the two bays that are there now. And yes, you're adding two pumps, but it seems like it's a little bit. The size of the building that's going away is larger than the area of the canopy that we would propose that. So the net benefit is actually towards conformity. Yes, so the existing building is just for size comparison, it's 1,680 square feet, so that'll be raised and demolished. And the canopy expansion that's currently proposed is 800 square feet. So just size-wise, just so you know that. All right, it's sitting on the floor. That's the thing up. Yeah, there's going to be anybody not going to use the service station. So if I talk to my lawyer and I'm often been accused of that, but there are two issues here. One is, are there two uses or one use? You don't have to listen to me. We'll have Skip Hotner come in, he'll tell you. If you come to the conclusion that there's one use, then there's one use. If you come to the conclusion there's two uses, there's two uses. With that issue aside, then the question is, are we expanding the one use, the one we think is one use, are we expanding that one use? And that, I think you are onto the issue of, are we going to have smaller, less buildings then? Yeah, I think this is the question of the two uses. The question of what? Of the two uses. If it's a single use, I don't have a problem with it. Good. So. Yeah, and you know from my, you know, 15 years ago working on the gas station, you know, yeah, we said full service auto repair, but. It's poverty. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, we didn't break jobs and, you know, we didn't do engine overhaul. So. And I have to say to staff that unless something miraculous happens, my feeling is that this project in general is a huge improvement. So my bias is going to be to try to shoe home this project in with, you know, all the respect to the LDRs and all the respect to you guys. So I am, I just have to lay that bias out there that I'm in favor of this project because it's going to be a big improvement. Well, I've seen that two times a week. I'll go with two times a week going to the hotel. Yeah. I tell you, I used to run that hotel. That's what I sold to Skip Hockner. And if it was only two times a week, it was pretty good. Yeah. We were, that hotel was really bad. Yeah. It was really bad. Yeah. So I apologize to my, you guys clearly have, you know, a different opinion on this, but I think this will be a, and I just don't think there's a better use for that space, you know, unless somebody is going to put a dance, there's only a dance to it, you know. Yeah. We're missing one of our members who is a start-up improvement of affordable housing and I can foresee that discussion. Yep. That's where we're going. Yep. And that's coming up. That's, I'd like to add another story, like the sort of housing that we just made. I think that's realistic, although I will say when we sold that building to Skip, it was barely habitable. I hope he's done things to it to make it better, but it was really bad. Very bad. It was a bank property, foreclosure property. The thing a good wrecking ball didn't fix? A wrecking ball was exactly what it needed. He didn't tell me he had done anything. So he said, he described it as being stuff that was there from the 1950s. Yep. Okay. So the relationship to the comprehensive plan, the, in general, the zoning law, and I'm sorry to go to the law, but the law is that you can do anything you want with your property unless it's clearly prohibitive. And the language... What's going on? Don't you want to... Excuse me. I'm on the relationship to the comprehensive plan issue. Okay. So I'm following... Skip is over. Yeah. Oh, did I? Oh, okay. Well, okay. I just put it in the wrong place on my notes, but let me say my... What I've recommended to the Valleys is six issues have been raised. If we can get to... If we can see daylight on five of those issues, the six being traffic, then that's a good place. I'm happy to walk through the traffic analysis that we have done. I believe the way it's going to get resolved, and I think we've got good solutions, but I think the way that you're going to have certainty that it's resolved is for your traffic engineer to talk to our traffic engineer and for them to bless the... You know, make recommendations and to decide stuff. And I'll... I think the Valleys are reluctant to invest in the traffic issues until, while these other issues are out there. And... But then my recommendation, and who am I? They sometimes get mad at me, but my recommendation would be if we can get through those issues to try to hire some people to see what would resolve the traffic issue. Nevertheless, I'm happy to go through it. And that is, we think this is in the traffic overlay district. We understand that the traffic overlay district is being considered for some changes. And this may well illustrate the need for those changes. We've decided that we couldn't wait until those changes were made. We have to proceed with this project or not. But basically, I understand that the traffic overlay district, really what it does is it allows traffic... The purpose is to allow traffic to move faster between Burlington and Shelburne without really considering whether that's beneficial, how it's impacting people in South Burlington. And I think this could be an example of that. We believe... So you start with the budget and then you figure out what you're going to generate. And you've got to come up with ways to treat the difference. We think that the budget that we're starting with should be the 125.2 trip ends that are generated by the service station property today, which we're not changing and which is a separate law. And then... And that's calculated by eight fueling positions times 15.65 trips. And then the hotel property we think is entitled to an additional 7.5 trip ends. So you add that up and it's 132.7 trip ends. So this is different from the staff gets? Yes, yes, no, I understand that. There's a disagreement here or not a disagreement. There's maybe... Well, anyway. We, using the 10th edition, are using the same edition. I mean, is the base the same? Is the what? So... The staff, I think, is analyzing this as, gee, this is going to be one law and we think we can continue to treat it as two different laws. We think if we treat it as two different laws then you get to keep the traffic that you... the traffic budget that exists. And that's why I get into the issue of, gee, why would you take away somebody's traffic budget? What they already have so people can drive faster out under 7.7? We, I think the ordinance says that we get to keep what we have. We don't get to add... We don't get any credits for what we have but we get to keep what we have. So that's where the difference is. But I'm not a traffic engineer and I think it's an issue that is worthy of people thinking about more. I've thought about it a lot with our traffic engineer but I don't think it's worthwhile. I would encourage people to not make this snap judgment. Let's figure out. So anyway, we're at... If that prevails, we've got a budget of 132. We think the way to analyze this is that we need 229 trip ends. And we think we can connect to three different properties and get 15 trip ends per property. So then the increment we're down to... What are we down to? A difference of about 40 or 50 trip ends. When I, working with our traffic engineer when we got that far, he said, look, the way to solve this is to go to Hanifers and to negotiate an arrangement across easement with them. Because once we have the cross easement with them, then we can start looking at how traffic will be able to access the gas station without going out on route south. It will be able to come in the back way. And oh, by the way, Hanifers said, you want an easement to use our property, we're going to want an easement for our people to use your property. In addition, you open up... There are so many interconnections back there as far as being able to figure out, well, okay, we can't do it on our property, but where could we make traffic improvements that would allow us to make... to come up with the end result that we have that the traffic situation is better off for our project having enough. So we don't have all the answers. But I'd like to sort of do it in a two-step process because my client doesn't want to invest a lot of money in traffic engineers if these other issues are happening. That's a problem. Staff has analyzed the traffic from the land development evaluation perspective since that's our requirement. Under land development regulations, the budget that is for these two properties combined is 15.56 triplets. That is the regulatory budget under the land development regulations. That's simply a mathematical calculation based on 15 peak-hour trip ends for 40,000 square feet of land area. You take the land area divided by 40,000, you have to plug in 15, you come up with 15.56. So that's the budget. Then you have to sort of quantify the trips that the property currently generates, which we estimate using the IT through generation management for both the motel and the gas-slice service station to be 117.24. We also estimate that the opposable with the additional fueling positions and the replacement of the motel with a 9,045, I'm not sure how to reuse, a convenience store to be about 203 triplets. The credits that Mr. Anderson mentioned under the regulations are added to the budget, the budget being 15.56. So the outfit has to come up with 102 credits just to get them up to what they currently are generating. And then it doesn't take into account the additional traffic that they're going to generate by adding four fueling positions and replacing the motel, which is a low-traffic generator, which is a much higher-traffic generator at the retail store that's at 25,000 square feet. So we think that there was a difficult, with a big hurdle that the applicant needs to overcome to comply with LDRs as far as traffic generation. Okay, so obviously we'd better table this part. See whether we can get through that. I think you're right, John. I think we've got to get through everything except for traffic. And see if you're still happy enough moving forward because obviously staff has an opinion. And frankly, every time we come into one of these very complicated traffic situations, we have to look to experts because it's beyond us. Speaking for me, it's beyond me. And so I think realistically, it's a question for the pros. And staff obviously has a significant issue. If we can put that aside for a second, can I go backwards for a minute? We skipped over non-conforming parking, which was 2D on the list. I think parking's kind of different. Oh, so we're moving that up. Okay, never mind. Okay, yeah. Never mind. Go ahead. Okay, so I think the next issue is the issue of the relationship to the comprehensive plan. And what we're required to do is do a tension by the applicant should be given to the goals and objectives and the stated land use policies for the city of South Burlington is set forth in the comprehensive plan. You know, my son picked up his tires. He's living in a rented apartment. I feel for young people, I remember how hard it was. I think it's only gotten harder for young people to start out. I think the housing situation is something that we all have to worry about. But what we're, I'm not sure that it's we're legally required to keep that hotel there particularly where I think what the ordinance says is that we have to have, allow, you'll have commercial development out on Route 7 and then have allowed a good entryway into the neighborhoods. And we're certainly providing that. Or we could provide that, especially where people would be able to come right to us without having to go out on Route 7. I don't think we're required to do, even if we're required to do that, I don't think the ordinance requires us to do a whole lot more. Okay, let's open this guy up. Or Jennifer, I know Jennifer's. Right there. I was just going to say, I don't think it's a requirement for saying quotes, but I think that the, the effort to preserve the affordable housing is where the, where the hiccups is. Now I'll go back to my, add another floor and somebody managed some affordable housing and got it built in. Above a service group, above a convenience group? Yeah. It's a built-in clientele. I think my take is that you're talking about a major intersection off the highway immediately after that. This is not where most people want it. Well, no. There's a reason that that, that that motel doesn't do well. It's not a great spot for housing. I'm not, I've always been of the opinion of the way Burlington does it, where you may have to buy credits for destroyed units. It makes no sense. There may be a give to get. We don't have that. And I, I don't think this is a place to be trying to do that. I don't think this is a place to be trying to place affordable housing. I know it's not a good one. I'm with you, but I don't, I don't agree with it in this case. And I do think the interconnection is pretty vital. I mean, you know, getting people out of that street and into the back, you know, Haniford unfortunately is building right on the, on the same footprint that was there. If they hadn't been, we would have had a whole lot more interconnection back there based on what the city plan was. So, this is a good, this is a good start. I agree. Mark. I've been trying to follow this, but I'm getting scattered blockages in and out. So we're talking about the relationship of the comp plan right now and the affordable housing issue. Yes. I think one thing, you know, I don't think that I'm not in agreement with that consistent with the needs and objectives of the comp plan. You know, Bill, I heard what you were saying about the, this proposal is a vast improvement of what currently is there. And, you know, we're trying to figure out a way to make work. I'm not sure I'm in agreement of that, that concept and principle because, you know, it kind of goes to what have kind of stuff gone along over the years. The big projects that come before us that we may love, but it doesn't work. It doesn't fit. And we may not be able to approve it. And then there's very big projects that we really hate and we have no other request to approve it because it meets the needs. I think we're kind of as, you know, probably in a gray area here because it does seem to be a lot of issues with this project in general. Just based on the staff notes. You know, we haven't even gone to parking yet. But I am a little concerned about the fact that we're getting rid of what is arguably and notably, you know, sort of like a known issue, you know, residential parcel. But we are just replacing it with a service station. So I I'm not that's sitting on the fence kind of answer right now, so I'm not really sure how I stand. I just don't think it does meet the needs and the objectives of the COMP plan in what's currently there. Okay. You're getting a split decision there too. Yeah, I do that. Okay. Could I, before we leave that, could I just point out, I think Ray identified an issue that and that is I guess the bill, the project is being used as a long-term stay hotel, but I couldn't find a permit for doing that. I think there's, I agree with Ray that what it's permitted for is a motel. I'm not sure a motel is you know, is if that's the baseline. I'm not sure it's really contributing to housing in the city. It's contributing to, but anyway. Unless, if I could just add, unless we invoke the 15-year statute of limitations on zoning violations, in which case the property is in compliance, if it's been used this way for more than 15 years. Okay. I can tell you before we sold it, it was being used as a motel. We had to get people, we had to get them, get them to pay on a very regular basis. They stayed longer than you might have for a motel, but they were on daily arranges and we didn't, we didn't put them under I think the issue is really front yard parking. We recognize that there's a parking, we will meet the parking requirement. Exactly how we will do it if we fully develop the bottom floor. I don't know. We don't have enough spaces right now to meet the requirement if we develop the bottom floor. But the issue that I think is out there is the front yard is whether the parking can be in the front yard. And what we would propose to do is to solve it and there are really two ways, well, there are two ways to solve it. One is to keep the building where it is as shown or the other is that we're prepared if we have to to put to put the front, the parking that's shown under a porch so that it is behind the front of the building. If that's what we're required to do. We think we can do it. My concern but my concern is that if we put it under a porch, the intention is to have a one of a kind building here that will be designed. I recognize your zoning ordinance doesn't allow you to look at that but it will be a one of a kind building because we want it to be canceled. Because you want what? We want it to be canceled. We want a good looking site and I think that it is maybe more challenging for an architect to do that if we have parking in front under a porch. But we thought about it from a convenience store point of view and what a concept. In the wintertime people could drive in and be essentially indoors. The so we think we can solve it keeping the building where it is. Now staff memo has suggested that we have to move the building up to the street and the ordinance that you have is almost written for this site I think. You have the slope first of all but then you have the Champlain Water District easement and if you I don't know if we can show where the how far the Water District easement comes down but the only the Water District easement that we can't build on top of is in the middle it is in the middle of the two properties. So the alternative is if we come out to the street building where we've got the entrance coming where we've got the second the southern most entrance exit. If we put a building there and we still have the interconnection to Hanifers which everybody wants us to have it's in your ordinance then the way we would have that interconnection would be to go through the middle of the two properties. That would have our people our people it would have the building being further from the gas pumps and it would have a lane of traffic running through between the building and the gas pumps. We think that is a bad design because for safety reasons there is nothing else. So your ordinance allows you to allow us to have front yard parking if the law has unique site conditions such as a utility easement or unstable soils that allow for parking but not a building to be located adjacent to the public street. So we've got this huge easement that's in the middle of the property and although we don't know that we have soil issues we do have a huge slope issue that we're trying to address. So our pitch would be to allow us to keep the building where we've got it but if you say no you can't park in front of the building then we'll put a porch on. Right? Can I ask a question? Yes, please. Bill can I bring in Marla? I guess I'm saying I don't see how putting a porch eliminates the new apartments you can't park in front of the building because you're not parking under it. Is that would you feel that solves that you can't park in front of the building? The other problem that double loaded the parking in the back is that the first apartment is in the parking space. Yeah, I don't know that the parking space is the same but if it were a parked branch in the back that could solve the grade issue and the parking in the back issue. Like Ray said the building was a different shape maybe where the apartment was really came out to there and sort of cut off where the easement is that full size of the easement is because the apartment was really seem like that are you know work around the easement. Yeah, I think John, I think Yeah, I'm sorry, go ahead Marla. No, no, I was just saying I would be okay with that. I mean, I obviously want to hear what Ray and Marla have to say about the easement putting a porch on it I would say that we still are seeing parking in the front of the building pail lines, cars that's built into the deep earth is not parking in front of the building. It would have to be super high too because you know somebody with a bike on top but the parking area is different. Right. So I think the sense of the four members that are here would like very much to see like a new configuration No, it's three members I'm happy with that. Oh, you're having a report. Yeah, actually I'm in favor of parking in front of the building. Okay, three out of four. Okay, so I guess now I guess what I hear you saying is that you might want us to consider other designs I don't know could we not determine where we are what we'd like our next step to be right now and we talk about it and figure it out and I guess I don't know in terms of warning requirements for an adjourned sketch plan if you need to notice us for the next meeting and okay, so we'd really like to come back I think and see if we can get just, you know, you've been very helpful to us but if there's a little bit more certainly we can get maybe we can work that out now you've got a lot of hurdles here The other Mr. Valley says if this were easy, everyone would do it Yeah so and the last step coming out of the plan is development standards staff doesn't consider the layout presented with the criteria for classification of the BUD it's not particularly innovative inefficiently uses available space by increasing impervious and doesn't represent infill as both processes were already developed so we wouldn't have to figure something out so I don't, you know, I don't know if you want to keep going or not but our thinking is that the language that's being referred to is from the purpose section of why you have appeal it is not a legal requirement that we do those things now we think we're pretty innovative here you know we think we're very innovative we disagree with that we're not sure it's a legal requirement that we be innovative we think we need each of the legal requirements really approval and I'll just say that and maybe it's something when we come back and look at moving stuff around we can convince you about it but thank you John, I would say one of the things I mean, while I I'm not against front yard party that's just one of my things this is not, this is a service station and it's arguably one of the entrances for the city of South Brunswick it's really, you know, it's a little bit like CVS is up on the corner they came to us with a lot of different things we looked at a lot of different options and it was a very difficult project because of where it is this is fairly similar you get off the highway and what's front and center an old golf station whatever it is and you could be a lot more innovative in terms of style I mean, I recognize it will cost more money to do it but you're up against a lot of things and if you take Trader Joe's position and move from a wrinkled tin building to a nice brick frontage, you can sway this board to get something and give something I think that's fair there may be things that are impossible to get over I don't know because there are some staff issues here that are big when I talked about one of a kind design, I mean I've worked with Valley all over the state they've done some really good designs you're going to call it the maple leaf or the maple field and they'll hire an architect but we got to get through these other issues I only bring it up because you need to be prepared because you're up against a lot here and some of these things may not be fixable so we'd like to come back and have a second visit great and you will work with the staff on coming up with time for that so the meeting to continue so if we wanted to be on for the next hearing which is June 19th I would be advised materials by this Friday which is a pretty high bar and the meeting after that is July 17th the first July meeting is a recess July 4th skip out there we haven't had the public so July 7th so before we close we do want to see if anyone public has coming yes thank you my name is Sandra and I represent the abutting land owner of promotion properties at 833 Clean City Park Road, LLC our property if you want to scroll down a little and put the cursor on it it's in the upper left hand corner right there that's the property that I'm referencing to the right yes so our property lies down gradient and west of the gas station property it's currently being utilized as a 30-unit apartment building and parking lot for the residences we'd like to go on record to state that there's a pending claim of its property owner skip hopper it has been determined that the property owner's past operations have resulted in petroleum contamination of our soils the state of Vermont has performed extensive testing of our property continues to test to determine the extent of the plume that is migrated on to our property this information may not bring that we bring up this information that we are bringing up may or may not come to this hearing but we want to go on record letting the board know that this is an ongoing case we also want to express that future development and excavation of this property could lead to future releases and our contamination of our adjoining property we have a duty to look out for the health and welfare of our tenants our property has already been degraded by the past operations of the abutting land owner and we are protecting our interest to make sure that more impasses do not occur thank you thanks very much 2 July 17 do you want me to motion that because this is a discussion so I move that we continue sketch plan application SD 1816 out of 793 and 907 Shelburne Road 2 July 17 we will be seconded to continue this to July 17 all families say aye aye thank you so much thank you next time on the agenda minutes of May 15 we will all have a chance to oh yes thank you did he stick around for the minutes that's nice we should have gone out of order and done the minutes first yeah we should have we should have gone out of order and done the minutes next oh that's right oh that's right look at the minutes so comments suggestions for changes I've told you we're actually coming do not need that you don't need to have a present I'm here for our attorney a while ago he said we do not need to have the same people present Bill and I watched the videos that's right looks as though the minutes reflect what I saw so I move that we approve the minutes May 15 2010 we approve this application all families say aye opposed okay it's not like you lost Mark and that's the end at 844 p.m. thank you very much take care