Good evening and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board hearing. I'm Matt Coda. I'm the vice chair of the South Burlington Development Review Board, taking the place of Bill Miller, who is out today, who is our chairman. Item one on the agenda, directions and emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room. If there is an emergency, there's two exits there, there's two exits here, and we'll meet in the parking lot right outside. There is a sign-up sheet. I encourage you to sign the sign-up sheet so we have a record to know that you're here. Are there any additions, deletions, or changes in the order of agenda items? Seeing none, any comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda? There's anything you'd like to talk about that's not on the agenda. Please let me know. If not, any announcements? Oops, sorry. Yes, if you have a comment about each agenda item, you're more than welcome to address each, any agenda item you wish to. If there's something that's not on the agenda that you wish to... Well, if you want to ask, come up and ask the general questions, this would be not the time to do it.  Just identify yourself for the record. Hi, I'm Denise Olskie. So when you were making these decisions that you're going to make this evening, I wanted to know, do you feel any obligation to consider the citizen's views? Absolutely. So how do we get our input into these decisions? Because so far, that's not been my experience. So there is an opportunity to speak at every time the issue is on the agenda and there's also an opportunity to speak in written form. Everyone that writes a comment, either favor or against or asking questions that is written to Marla or to the city, goes to the Development Review Board of Volunteers and we read them. So you can write a comment. As far as I can see, you don't really listen to them. The last meeting I was here, they were, the place was full and was sort of ignored. The other question I had is, when you're on these steps, which is the best time to make a comment? Because the last meeting you said, oh, it doesn't matter because we're only at this level. But then when you come at another level, it's sort of a done deal. Those weren't my words. I'm not sure. I would entertain a comment at any step in the procedure. I mean that it would really be considered. It's considered in every step. Yes. I haven't seen evidence of that, but I would like to. The one thing you've got to keep in mind, set by the Planning Commission, are rules for it. So it says we shall do something or we shall not do something. We cannot, even if the whole city said, we want it this way. The answer is the LDR says it's this way and we have to find that way. Objective, not subjective. Very objective, not subjective. So if what the problem is is that the land development regulations say something you don't like, you're at the wrong meeting. OK, I get that part. My question is, if there's some leeway in those land development regulations, and what about the long term commission that they have asking that a lot of the Southeast Quadrant land not be developed? That's Planning Commission. Pure and simple. That's not us. You have to follow what, believe me, I live in the Southeast Quadrant. I'd love to see less of it. But the reality is when these things are in front of you and it says, and the rules say, the developer can come and do x, y, and z. And if there are provable things, we need to approve it. It's what the land development regulations are guiding us to do. For example, the list. We can't speak open. This is just general comments. OK, but I'm just giving this as an example in a general way because it also has to do with one of these. So the developer came in and gave a plan with the development further back from the road with fewer houses and the city, which I'm not sure who. Yeah, we can't talk about any specific. No, I'm just saying, this is not just this case. There seems to be a lot of the cases that they're asking the developers to build so close to Dorset Street. We can't talk about it. Speaking hypothetically. And they ask for more units. But speaking hypothetically, not just hypothetically, the land development regulations for the Southeast Quadrant call for certain areas to be tried to be kept green. And by doing so, using what's called transferable development rights, you can take a TDR and move it elsewhere and add density in other places. That's, again, planning commission. The planning commission and the city council accepted this almost, I think, about 20 years ago. And whether you agree with it or not, that is the city's plan. So when the city, let me just finish. So when a developer comes to the city and says, I want to do four units in a place that should have 100, the city planners are going to say to them, gee, that's not the city plan. We think you should have density in this location. And so, yeah, that's exactly what happens in some situations. And we're not the place to argue that. Because we're here to judge whether things fall within the current city plan. And just last thing, the environmental issues. So these rules were 20 years ago, as you say, climate change and all kinds of other things are influencing what should be happening down there. Maybe we should look at those kind of issues. Totally agree with you. Again, it's the planning commission. They do update all the time. What the TDRs, the transferable development rights, came in about 20 years ago. But things have happened. There's been many updates since then. So and those include environmental and view corridors and open space. And there's all sorts of things that are in there that we do look at. So these questions are all valid. Most of them don't go here. At least one example of where the citizens had some positive impact and it was acted on. Mark's on the phone. The Trader Joe's would have looked entirely different. The CVS would have looked entirely different.  They wanted to build the Trader Joe's out of what I call wrinkled tin, galvanized metal skin. And now it's brick and looks like what we wanted it to look like for a city center. So there's lots of things. And as far as citizen comments, we take all comments into consideration. And you don't see us reacting because we can't make a decision on the spot on certain items. But any actionable item that we have purview over are taken into consideration during deliberation. The employer at the game tonight is not going to be cheering for the Red Sox or the Yankees.  And that's what we're going to do as we volunteer at the DRB. And that's a really good analogy because our power in what we do is a judicial power, right? So we're not able to legislate the way the Planning Commission can. We just have to take the land development regulations, as John said, as they're written and apply them. Now some of the regulations sometimes use the word may. When you see that, that's a sign that we probably have discretion in that area. But if they say must or shall, we have no discretion. And for us to try to exercise discretion when we've been told must or shall or must not or shall not is a usurpation of authority. So is there ever any coordination between you and the planning and saying, hey, this isn't working very well? We personally disagree with the land development regulation we have and continue to talk to the Planning Commission and say, we think that this should change. And we have group meetings once a year, roughly, to get together and say, gee, these are the kinds of things that we're having no problems with. What if we go two hours? We can't tell them what to do. I mean, we can suggest things. But we don't have equal branches. We're not one over the other. Thank you. Thank you. Good comments. Valor. If there are no other comments or questions from the public, not related to the agenda, any announcements from the board member? I'd like to announce Delilah Hall as our new zoning administrator. She's joining us in the audience tonight. Hi, Delilah. And she'll be reviewing the admin permits. And you'll start to see her here at the Bill and Review Board and then your future. Great. Thank you very much, Marl. Thank you, Delilah. So we'll go to item number five, which is design review application DR1808 of Town Square Association. Who is here for the applicant? I am. I'm Martha Lyons. Hi, Martha. Martha, this is a design review application. If you could swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? Promise to tell the truth, under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. Tell us a little bit about the Town Square Association master sign permit. Well, we would like to replace our sign that we have since it was new in 1969. So it's due for an update. If anybody's driven down Dorsey Street, you can attest it's kind of a ugly looking sign. So what we would like to do is update it and move it a little closer to the entrance way, because people coming from the mall area tend to drive right by looking for the sign. It'll be from the ground to the top. It's going to be a little less than 12 feet. And just update it and have it be a nice looking new sign. Have you had the opportunity to read the findings of facts and decision put together by staff? Yes. Yes. Do you have any questions about that? No. Questions for the applicant? Nice sign. We'll have any questions regarding the master sign permit for Town Square Association? If not, I would entertain a motion to close. Move that we close master signage permit DR 1808 of Town Square Association. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. No. Just for your own decision. Yeah, thank you. For the public, there is one development review board member. Mark Bear is on the phone. So there's one, two, three, five of us plus Marla. That's who you're hearing on the phone. Thank you, Charlie. Item number six, design review application DR 1809 of Allard Square LP. Who is here for the applicant? I am. Kate Grally or Katie Forleo. Sorry, it's my man. Katie what? Katie Forleo. Cathedral Square. Design review application. Could you raise your right hand? Promise to tell the whole truth and then penalty perjury? Yes. Thank you very much. Tell us a little bit about your master sign permit, your new sign. So the sign is going to be going directly below the art sculpture that Conant is putting together for the new building. And it's going to be made in the same material. So it's going to kind of have that look of pin letters and look in a stainless steel form, but more rugged, because it's going to have an injection mold. So it's going to be very durable material. This is attached to the building itself. There's nothing holding it up on the ground other than that. No. No, it's just pin letters attached to the actual elevator tower. Did you get a chance to read the findings of Act and Decision? Do you have any questions about that? Does the board have any questions for the applicant? Does anyone in the public have any questions about the sign, Hazel Square? OK. I would entertain a motion to close. Move that we close. Master signage permit, DR 1809 of Town Square. That's right. I'm looking at Town Square. 1809. Yeah, except I think I'm on the right one. Yeah, I am. Allard Square. Yeah, we've changed that. There's a typo on the draft. 1809 of Allard Square. Allard Square and Town Square. The address is wrong, too. Oh, we didn't. I move that we do so. Do close. Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sorry. OK, item seven, conditional use application, CU1810 of Marcel Bowden. Yes. Thank you. Marcel. Former member. Good old days. Marcel, could you state your name for the record? Marcel Bowden. Could you raise your right hand? Do you promise to tell the whole truth on a penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. Tell us a little bit about your conditional use application. This is a case where a retaining wall was built when the house was built to protect the foundation from a adjacent brook that goes into Shelburne Bay. At the time, we observed a lot of scour from seasonal floods. In those days, there was no water district. But out of this project, it became resulted in South Berlin's first stormwater district, coincidentally. But the wall now needs to be repaired. And the engineers are proposed to put a sheet pile wall against the existing wall. The reason for doing that, because the earlier consideration was to remove the railroad ties. But they felt that more crassogenic materials could end up in the lake. If we tried to do that, then their decision was to encase it. And that's been encased with pressure-treated piles. There are eight-pead-on-center with an approved chemical. And the sheet piling is horizontal, a 3 by 8 pressure-treated yellow pine. And essentially, for some people who will come there again, oh, no, see much difference, because the wall is below them and outside of their immediate view. But that's what you're seeing on the screen is the east end, or that's the garage to the left of the stairs that you see there. And that's pretty much where stairs exist now. And the ramp leading towards the lake is pretty much where it is now. The only thing we're adding is the sheet pile wall, which I described, the vertical elements you see there are pressure-treated piles. And the horizontal sheeting to hold the existing structure there. And the horizontal sheeting is just 3 by 8 pressure-treated planks. What you see in the front are gabions. If you're familiar with them, these are rock-filled wire baskets. They've been there 37 years. And they are in amazing condition. No sign of rust at all. Any bees? That's always the problem. Marcel, did you get a chance to read the staff comments? Yes. Can we go over them? Yes. The first comment is that the applicant needs an erosion plan that the staff doesn't have one. Is that changed or is that staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate compliance with this criterion with an erosion plan? So Marcel brought me yesterday afternoon escaping program, which I've done has up on the screen there. It's what I've described in narrative form with the landscaping proposed to be. And that's selected to help with erosion, where they have to remove some scrub. I have sent that to the city arborist. But he hasn't had a chance to get back to me. I sent it to him first thing this morning. So I don't have comments back on whether that's a good plan or not a good plan. But it deals with erosion and landscaping? Yes. It deals with both of those things. Those are the only two comments. Right. But we don't know if that's, I know nothing about whether plants are good for erosion or not. So I don't have a recommendation on their way, unfortunately. There any comments from the board regarding this proposal? The only comment I have is unrelated to within our curvy or for myself. Is the great difference between the path and the adjacent grade enough that the pipe rail is efficient, or do you need actual fall protection, like the 4-inch, no more greater pickets for a full railing? Well, we don't think so, obviously. It's not within our curvy, I'm just asking. It's, pardon me. What Mark was saying is that it's not within our purview as a DRB too, but he was curious. Oh, curious, yeah. Well, we checked ADA requirements, and they're not applicable. They're desirable, but it's an expensive thing to do. And this is a path that rarely gets used. And we just felt that we would do the minimum. Any comments from the public regarding this application? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close. Conditional exception. Close? I don't know. I don't think we can close if we're waiting for landscape. You're right. But I'm sure we'll have it by Friday, and then we can put them on for the next. Do you have a time constraint? Yes, we do. This was done by a professional landscaper person who knew. I'm sure it's in my estimation, it goes way beyond what is required. We still have to give the staff the time to review it. Yes, I understand. And make a decision. We can't close until that information is provided. So we will continue for October 2nd. Do I have a motion? I move we continue conditional use application CU 1810 to October 2nd. Second? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? Thank you, Marshall. Thank you. OK, moving on to item 8, final plot application, SD 1827 of jam golf LLC. Who is here for the applicant? David Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates. David, how are you? Doing well, thank you. Do you raise your right hand? I promise to tell the truth under penalty of overdrive. I do. Thank you very much. So we're back again. Yes, sir. Tell. Yeah, sure. Sorry. Any disclosures regarding this application of many of the board members? Conflicts? OK. David, continue. Very good. Jam golf appears back before the board with regard to this final plot application. Unfortunately, our legals were not submitted to the city in a timely manner in the 180-day period for filing of the Mylar's expired. So we have reapplied under the final plot application format and are back before the board with the same application as had been approved previously. Some things actually have been cleaned up between the time that you saw it last and now, primarily the conditions of approval for updating plans and cleaning them up. So with regard to the character of the project, it is still the same as that that had been previously reviewed by the board and the court prior to that. And I'll be looking at a full version, but the issue regarding the public and private pump stations and the water lines that's often resolved, is that accurate? So that was in the final decision from before. So I'm going to open it and remind myself what it says. So David, on the page two of the draft decision, the public works director had comments that the pump stations should remain private. The plan should be revised to show the access. The pump stations should become public. And then we said farther down that page, the applicant opted to retain the pump stations as private and has revised the plan to show the proposed access to each pump station. So that issue was dissolved at that point. And I suppose now that we're looking at it again, maybe we just take that out altogether? Yeah, I just confused myself. So I can take out. Can you say in with the water line? The water line one, I think, was about when they develop other portions. So I think that one stays. OK. We'll take out the section. Does the board have any questions for the applicant? Any further comments from the applicant? In your package, you'll also see a letter from Mr. O'Leary. He's an abutting property owner immediately to the West. Mr. O'Leary did come to the hearing last time to express his interests or concerns with regard to the proximity of the building envelope on lot one to his home. At this point in time, we have offered a number of mitigation measures on his property to assist in buffering between his home and the previous and lot one building envelope. At this point in time, the applicant is still looking to maintain the application as submitted and as previously approved by the board. But we are working with Mr. O'Leary in regards to certain offsite improvements as a private matter between the parties. Is it 11 feet from the employer's property? That is correct. Currently, the side yard requirements are 10 feet. And but beyond the side yard, front yard, rear yard requirements set forth in the land development regulations, there was also a proposed building envelope. Again, the goal of the project was to preserve as many trees as possible. And in order to basically make sure that those trees were retained and that specific locations were identified and executed as far as the future homes themselves, the applicant further restricted the location of those homes within those building envelopes into that end. So what is being brought up on screen is one of these civil plans. So that's a larger view. You want to flip to the landscaping plans? Would that be better? We can start here, but the landscaping plan will also be helpful, especially sheet L1. Maybe we should just go right to that one. That's fine. That's actually sheet L3, I believe. And this particular portion, the sheet shows the Westley, Northwestley portion of the project property. And what you're seeing in front of you is the hatched areas that run long, single lines as being existing vegetation that's to be retained. You see the lot numbers, 1, 2, 3, and up into the left of lot 1 is Mr. O'Leary's home. And also on this particular plan, it shows between the building envelope, which is primarily the rectangle around the number 1, you also see proposed plantings between the street and the proposed building envelope. So at this point in time, what we have proposed with Mr. O'Leary, again, it's off property, and it did from our previous zoning administrators say, though, that's not part of the purview of the board, but nonetheless, we've been trying to work with some landscaping improvements on Mr. O'Leary's property. There used to be a bunch of trees on Mr. O'Leary's property, but when the previous developer of that parcel constructed it, they removed all the trees right up to the property line and built a retaining wall there. So lot 1 does sit up above Mr. O'Leary's home. And we're looking to, again, just try to augment the buffering between the two properties. Is it their rock, or do I have to answer that? Yeah, so it's a combination of natural rock as well as a retaining wall and vertical expansion of the rock there. How do you manage the buffer around the rock there? All right, well, let me make sure we're all on the same wavelength. So Mark, you can't, well, maybe you can see this, Mark. This is the common property line between the two properties. And right along this line, there's also a rock retaining wall that basically puts that essentially, because of the land form, has lot 1 at a higher elevation than the lower plateau here. This particular retaining wall was built by the previous owner or the previous developer of Mr. O'Leary's ownership. And it's just the natural land form as far as how the land comes from Golf Course Road out just off the sheet here, up the hill, and then basically there's a sharper change in elevation at this particular point. And then basically the highest point of the land is right at this location here. So as you like. One second. Anything else? I just want to let it finish. Let's see. I think I just lost my train of thought. Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. But if you're done, I can ask comments in the public. Mr. O'Leary? Yeah. Would you mind coming up and grabbing the seat? You can see it. That's the taken from the back porch if you can pass it around. And so I just sort of marked off. It's a four-foot wall. And then hashtags at the same interval. One of the hashtags. I don't know how that works. Identify yourself. Tom O'Leary. I'll make sure everyone gets a chance to speak. We'll just go and take turns. What's the street address of your property, Mr. O'Leary? 194 Golf Course Road, which is that it's the existing house on this particular diagram. So yeah, as I have, I guess, questions and concerns related to what Dave has brought up. Did you, Marla? You good? Good. And then some general questions. I understand that this has gone back a very long way. So yeah, as Dave mentioned, apparently, there used to be trees wooded area on the back of my property, which I acquired in 2009. Sorry, 2011. I've been living there since 2009. And this particular building envelope, as you can see from the picture, there's no buffer there between the building lot. So obviously, for a development going in, that retaining wall is 10 paces from my back deck. And then it's another three paces from the rock wall to the building envelope, which really doesn't allow there to be a buffer between that wall and the house there. So the only option there with regard to creating a buffer is doing it on my property, which the developer has offered to do. But I find that to be really a suboptimal solution. Particularly when the building envelope, the statutory envelope for building on that particular plot as outlined, could extend another 30 feet or so to the southeast corner, if you can see the orientation there just below what is outlined as the building envelope number one. It could go, basically, you see three proposed or replacement trees there. The corner of that house within statutory limits could come down, basically, right into the middle point of those three. You're asking what you're asking in this letter. I assume you're still asking here tonight is a 20-foot setback on the property line. Is that correct? To the southeast corner, correct. And I'm unclear as to how that would happen. I mean, up until this point, it's been explained that if the builder submits for that, but I think everyone knows, as a matter of practicality, the builder has been through so much to get this approved, or the land owner, not the builder, sorry, that it's simply impractical to propose a change at this late juncture, having been through 16 years of litigation to say, oh, yeah, I'll just make this one change and run the risk that that could torpedo the whole thing. But yeah, it's just that. And I guess my, so that's my specific comment. I think my general question is, at what point was the lawsuit filed? This will be a multi-part question. I would really like to know the background, because what I don't understand is why having taken this to the Supreme Court of Vermont, apparently the regulations that the Supreme Court deemed vague have not been updated, which is germane to what I think the person was speaking about when we came in. You're saying to follow these regulations. We work and committee. And yet here we are after a Supreme Court case. The town is rebuffed, legal fees, no update to the rules. And I think there's also, I mean, this is the tough question. I would really like to see as a solution, but with regard to the progressive nature that the town takes when planning things like city center, I've met with Paul Conner just out of interest for what a cool project it is and how much planning is going into property that is not owned by the city. That's private land. I'm just, I guess, I don't know how to say this without sounding like a complaint. So I'll just say it. I just don't understand why at this point the town, if there was an express interest on the town's part to say, we don't want to see a development here because it's going to spoil a natural environment. Why having failed to win a victory in the Supreme Court, the town hasn't come back and said, OK, that didn't go over well. This plan, which was proffered 16 years ago in kind of a haphazard manner and proposes to build a road through the tallest, largest stand of trees anywhere around. Forget about tree replacement. It's like if you walked a lot as I did today, it's like, here is the stand of mature trees that is stately over butler farms and dorset in our community. It's like, well, just build a road right there. That seemed to be possibly mitigated if the town had come back and said, OK, we lost that. Fine. What we really were after was not sort of a statutory tree preservation plan. What we're really after is sensible development. And here we sit. And I just I don't see how when we have 42 acres here plopping one of 11 houses, three paces off my property line with no buffer. It's kind of a hard argument. I won't ask you to make the argument, but it's kind of a hard argument to call that sensible development. So there's this. I understand your comment. We're not going to rehash the lawsuit. I can't rehash the lawsuit. I wasn't here. And I don't know it. No interest. I know that staff that could provide a better summary than perhaps we could here tonight. But your comment is hard and understood. Well, I mean, it's hard. And I understand where you're coming from. I happen to be a neighbor of yours that's going to get spanked by future development fairly soon. And again, I'll go back to what I said earlier. You're in the wrong place to be making this comment. This is the intention of the city is to preserve large forested spaces, large open spaces, not five acres in the middle of a golf course. I'm just telling you what the city's plan is. It's not our plan. It's the Planning Commission and it's the City Council. The Planning Commission comes up with a plan. City Council approves it. And that's the plan that's in place. And it's not different than it was before for something like this, because it's in. Then why go to court? It's in why go to court, because we get sued. I can't tell you enough about the court case. I mean, again, I think maybe Mark might have been around for it, but I was here, but I can't tell you the details. Can you? So if I could do a quick redirect to address the portion of Tom's question that we can address, which is the proposed building envelope does meet the applicable setback requirements. The board has in the past asked the applicant on this project to make small changes. The board has the authority to ask the applicant to relocate the building envelope somewhat if the board wants to take that up. Like I said, the existing proposal is within one development regulations that were applicable at the time. But the board in the past has exercised some discretion, especially in places where it doesn't seem to do any harm to the applicant. And I don't know if Dave wants to respond, if whether it would do any harm to move the building forward. As an engineer, my opinion is that you don't want to get too close to existing trees, because you'll damage them during the construction of the building, but moving it forward towards the road seems like something the board could ask for. We did look at moving the envelope. When you look at that particular plan, if you could imagine taking the rectangle and moving it away from Tom's house, the existing vegetation to be retained creates an easterly limitation on ultimately how much, how beneficial that particular movement can be. When we couple it with moving it to towards the roadway, it gets a little bit better, where we can gain about 8 and 1 half feet from where it is today. The applicant, we discussed this, and they felt they just wanted to retain the building envelope as originally proposed. Can we hear from other members of the public? I'm just confused of where this is, because you're saying God force road, and then you show a map of four sisters and now the form. If you could just, do you have a map where this is? Four sisters done it in their second, now four sisters. This is not four sisters. It's nowhere near four sisters. So if I may answer the question, I think just when that drawing was first brought up, it was focusing on the very top, which happened to show the four sisters area. We then intentionally wanted to go down to the south. This particular project site is located in the south, excuse me, north, it's to the right. Down in the southeast corner. So I will point to you the proposed subdivision area right there. And this is golf course road. And yeah, this is the proposed access road that would come in off golf course road into the project site. This is the 13th green of the golf course and the 14th fairway and green complex right there. Is there any access between this property and Lieberbeth's property? No, it's between Mike Provost property. Sorry, I'm blanking on his name. Mike Provost, yeah. And it's been identified that way before you bought the house that this was an access road, correct? Yes, yeah. Any comments from the public? I just wanna ask for some clarity because what John had said was that this is not the place. And I think as a citizen who is busy with other things, it's hard to know at what point you can interject and being a relative new Vermonter, everybody's like, well, act 250, act 250. And then I hear this isn't the place. So if you would kindly explain to me what is the place? And I also am asking the board a direct question, which is, is it under the board's purview to suggest to the planning commission, the department of planning to work with a developer to create a plan that is more beneficial to the interests of the community as opposed to a plan that was not optimal when dropped in 16 years ago. So every project that is a subdivision goes through sketch, preliminary plot, and final plot. Sketch plan on this project happened, gosh, before 2006. Sketch plan is generally where the, is this project a good project or bad project? Are we on the right track? That kind of conversation takes place. This board didn't have the opportunity to review this project at Sketch. This board's ability on this application is actually very, very limited to just a few criteria based on the e-court decision. So this is sort of a funny case, but in a general sense, the answer to your question would be the board typically provides that sort of general feedback and opinions at Sketch. And if I could just add to that. Our function as the quasi-judicial body we are is to pass judgment on contested cases. So this sounds like a contested case. We have the jurisdiction that we're given and we can reach a conclusion on that. But if you're talking about changing the LDRs to implement the land development regulations, the law, the codes that were required to enforce, that has to be done by the planning commission. We do not have the authority to do that. You're approved by the city council. And so this concept that I said, open plans, open forested areas and more densely populated areas where development is moved from these open areas to dense areas, this being one of them, is part and parcel of this plan. This is what the city is asking the planning department and the DRB to make happen. It's the city plan. So we can't change the city plan here. The planning commission can change the city plan. And so how does a citizen... Welcome to talk to Marla offline about how to get on the list of people to go and see the planning commission. Because that's the step. We push things back to them all the time. It takes a long time to get through planning commission. So because they're working on lots of things. Think of the judicial role. Got it. We're the judiciary, they're the legislature. Think of it that way. Can I have her comment? Sure, go ahead, Mark. Yeah, as I guess the old hand on the board have been on the board now for, I don't know, 12 years or something. This actually is one of the few projects that previous me, you know, this was already done. But I would offer the comments that during the sketch plan would be the time when we as a board would be taking into consideration the comments like if your house was existing with that proximity to a building and below that closed and tree clearing, that would be the time when we would be working with neighbors coming in with concerns and developer and the board to take up, you know, say, you know, we think that you need to expand that building and pull it back to get a little more of a buffer. But this application is one is, you know, I'm not fully informed on what the actual lawsuit was, but at Marla try this over to, this is one of the most applications where we were basically given the project and said this is the court decision. And as she said, there's like very few little legal room areas, but we're basically, sometimes we're used as a tool to, you know, quasi-judicially approve a plan that's been given to us by court decision. And that's one of these situations. So while you can work with the developer and the marshal to work on some mitigation on your property, they could voluntarily, we don't really have the power to enforce or request or push at this point for them to try to adjust the building envelope that's, you know, directly adjacent and, you know, impacting your property at this point. That sounds to be the opposite of what Marla was saying. Oh, I'm sorry. So looking at the draft decision, which again is the same as the approved decision, under applicable standard letter H, the board may have some latitude to require. And as Brian implied, the board has input from the applicant and input from a interested person. And unless there's additional information, we may wanna just move this to a deliberative session. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Is that an offline session? You're not pressed to vote it. And so one last question, if I may. What changes based on the applicant having missed the deadline for filing? In other words, my understanding of the reason for this hearing is that there was a deadline for filing. So can the applicant simply miss deadline after deadline and continue to push a 16-year-old plan through that almost none of the residents were privy to the sketch review in 2006?  I think Mike Provost is the only abutting neighbor who is there at the time. The court decision specifically addressed that issue. And the court decision was that the application was complete and the board must hear it as submitted. This is a different one. There's no question. This is different. This is unusual for us. But explain that to me. What do you mean by this is a different one? In other words, so I don't think you answered my question is what I'm saying. If the applicant missed the deadline, which happens from time to time, the board, and in this case in this project as well, the board says, sorry, you missed your deadline, you have to start over. In this case, the applicant appealed that decision and it went to the Supreme Court of Vermont and said they in fact did not miss their deadline and therefore, what's the word, rescinded it back to the board? Remanded it. Remanded it back to the board to review. So in this actual application, that typical situation doesn't apply. We were told by the court that you're wrong, you have to review it as it's submitted. I thought that was the prior time that that happened. Yes, and then. But now we have another time that that's happened. Right, so. So can this just keep happening? Fair question. What is the deadline that's been missed? So the applicant had 180 days to record their milers and there were a bunch of things they had to do before recording the milers. Right, to me though, to me that's not a deadline as much as it's an expiration of an approval. Right. And I think it's a crucial difference here because if you fail to supply information that's a condition of your approval by a deadline, then you don't get that approval. Whereas here, you've gotten the approval, you have 180 days in which to record the document, you fail to record the document, then you've got to go back and start that step again. So you're saying that it's the board's understanding that this is a perpetual approval granted by the Supreme Court of Vermont? So if the applicant fails to record their milers within 180 days a second time, we would require them as we did here to restart final plot. We wouldn't require them to go back all the way to sketch. And decisions of the Vermont Supreme Court are perpetual unless stated otherwise. So yes. Thanks. Do we have an RTN motion to close? We close final plan application, SD 1728 of J.M. Gulf LLC. Second? All in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Thank you very much, David. Thank you for your time again. File that miler. We now move to item number nine, final plan application, SD 1828 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC, who is here for the applicant? I have to step out of this one too. Yeah, you have a quorum with Mark. Good evening, Paul. Oh, Larry will. Larry Burke, civil associates. Brian Currier. Oh, Larry Burke. Paul and Brian, could you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. It's certified off in disclosures for this one or conflicts and I'll start with myself if that's all right. I am a resident of Cider Mill. I do not think that that requires me to recuse myself in this case. However, if the applicant or the fellow board members. Yes, my law firm MSK Attorneys represents a party who owns a beneficial interest in this development. And because of that, my duties as an attorney, require me to recuse myself from consideration of this application. We push off doing minutes to next time, maybe. We actually don't have any minutes. But we do have a few considerations. Can we push them to? That we just heard the three begin, oh, I guess the two beginning design review applications. Besides, so we can go out in all. We could take five minutes. Or can Mark can be the fourth member if Mark can stick on the phone for deliberations really quickly after the meeting. Yeah, Mark. Oh yeah, I expect the deliberations should take more than an hour. I'll be ready by phone if you need it. Thank you, Brad. All right, thanks a lot. Thanks, Brad. There are concerns about my staying on board and we don't have a board member. The applicant has no concerns. As a board member, your past comments and actions don't give me any concern. Thank you. Okay. Can we talk a little bit about final flat application? Yes, we're into a final flat application. 142 unit project, known as Cytomil-2, currently has full approvals, town and active 50 for 109 unit version. So we're in for an increase of 33 units. We have a mix of duplex buildings, 30 single family lots, 66 single family lots, a mix of properties and proposed development. So a plan has really not changed whatsoever since we got preliminary plan approval for you. A couple minor additions. On the original plan, we did not have a street tree plan for NATO crest that's been added as L6 to the sheet. I think we added a little bit of landscaping down where we connect to Cytomil, Summerfield Drive, but other than that, the lot layout, the utilities configuration are the same as approved at preliminary. Paul, can you hold on for a second? Denise, just to talk a little bit about, is it, sorry, is it Denise? Yes. Yes, just the protocol. What happens is we have the applicant discuss the plan, we talk staff comments, the board has comments, and then we make sure it open up for the public so everyone in the public has a chance to file for their comments as well. So we are prepared to go down through the staff comments. Okay, so let's start with number one. Number one, staff recommends the board require the applicant to demonstrate the single and two family lot coverage maximums are met for each of the shared lots within each included zoning district as conditional approval. A lot of math there, but we're okay, we'll provide that information to staff. Number two, staff considers it appears possible to lower lots 18 to 34 by at least two to three feet without affecting the roadway or their constructability and recommends the board require the applicant to make this change to reduce the perception of these units being artificially higher than the surrounding grade. Staff further recommends the board consider requiring the applicant to reduce the proposed grade of the home so the minimum required to obtain positive sewer drainage. I would disappoint it that this item is back. It was here during preliminary. We had a long discussion and I thought we agreed that we were fine. So essentially we're talking about the lower street. I think it's Linda Mac and Linda Mac in places is anywhere from three to about six feet above existing ground. And it's designed like that so that we can get positive sewer flow back through item one to the pump station. So we've talked to public works, public works would much rather have the street elevated than have an additional pump station to maintain. So the issue comes is that your maximum allowed building height is 28 feet and the reg say it's measured from existing ground. Now we've maintained the last time that the purpose of the regulation is to make sure that someone doesn't come in and purchase a lot and build a house six feet in the air so it blocks his neighbor view or blocks the guy that view across the street. Now in this case, when we design a project everything is based off the housing height. It's based off centerline grade of the road. If you think about having a home, worst thing that can happen is to buy a house and have water drain towards it. Very worst thing is to have a driveway slope down. So the water comes off the road it runs down your driveway into your house. So typically, obviously you live inside a mill one, you see all the houses that normally we start at centerline grade. We like the garage to be anywhere from two to three feet above centerline grade and then depending on the house design it's usually two or three steps into the finished floor or if you work backwards you've got finished floor of the house, you've got 12 inches of wood, you're flooring and you like to have 12 inches of concrete exposed and then you want to have a positive slope back towards the road. So typically it puts the finished grade of the road somewhere between three and four feet above centerline grade of the road. Now if you look at our plans and look at the grading we've done, not only on the single families but on the multis you'll see that typically we've set the grade so that the house elevation is three to four feet above the elevation of the road. Now we've all driven in these developments they're all very consistent. When you drive down the street if the street goes up at 1% pretty much the houses follow all the way up through. Putting six feet of build the road is not an economical thing for the developer. We only fill the lots and fill the roads if we need to do it to make the utilities work and that's the case here. We much rather be able to build a grade and keep our costs down. In this case we've designed that road to what we feel is a minimum comfortable grade. Obviously if there's a water pond with some of the houses the city isn't gonna take responsibility for the fact that we built the house a little bit too low. That's on us and so we're very careful. So we have positive drainage issues and then we have the other issue is to make sure that we have basement drainage. The other kiss the desk for the developer is build houses that have wet basements. Word spreads like wildfire, that you have wet basements there. So we have to pay attention to the under drain and make sure that we have positive flow from the basement level out to our storm drain features. So in this case we think that the grading plans that we provided in the road elevations are essentially the minimum elevations that we are comfortable with going forward. These are single family lots. Single family lots but also applies to some of the multifamily lots. Further item, I think it's maybe item 18 or 19 further on the same issue comes up. But this comment 18 and 34 single family lots. Yes. I guess what I'm getting at is the concern that we're building, is there any restrictions? They could go two stories. There could be a single story. Nope, but they're gonna be able to go the 28 feet and that's what we're asking is that. On the center line of the road. Right. We're giving what we, we're recommending what the board should consider to be the pre-construction height on the lots and then we can go 28 feet above the pre-construction height. But they're all gonna look the same.  It's gonna match the house next to it. It's gonna be the same developer. We're not selling the lots. You know, it's gonna be very consistent just like if you drive through Sight of Mellawan or you drive through any of these similar housing developments. Oh, where are you picking up the great change connection back to existing grade on the back? On the back, on Linda back, we have a most of them designed as walkouts. So we have that fill. And so we expect that the developer will build walkout units along the back. So that's how we grade back to the existing ground. Some of the multis, I think they're graded as garden style units in the back. I have no issue with this. I didn't, I didn't the first time. I think John's question gets to what staff was concerned with the pre-construction grade that the applicant is proposing is not the centerline of the road. So the pre-construction grade is, as Paul just said, and I just, I was looking at it as he was saying it, three to four feet higher than the centerline of the road, which is then higher than the homes on the other side of the road. We expect, we only graded the homes on the downhill side of the road. The homes on the uphill side are gonna be the same. The road elevation is the same.  The house is gonna be higher. We probably need to grade the inside lots too, but it's creating a tremendous amount of work and a lot of confusion for everybody on this. It's like, now we have all these charts that gives pre-construction. If you wanna just give a condition that to finish full of these houses be no more than say four feet above the centerline grade of the road in front, then we're comfortable with that too. And that fixes everything for you. It's just, this is a very simple thing and it's getting very complicated. Logistically, the LDRs require establishment of a new pre-constructing grade. And we could say that grade is four feet higher than the centerline grade of the road opposite. That's all it would take. And then when it comes in for approval for a building permit, I mean, as it's now comes in for the building permit, we have all these tables, all these charts we have to look at. And not to speak of how much effort is taking us to produce grading plans that we really, we don't know what the units are gonna be exactly. And we know the grading plans are gonna change somewhat. We don't expect the elevations to change much, but the grading plan will look different than what we're producing. So it seems like an exercise in fertility here of what we're trying to do. So in the staff comment, in the paragraph immediately above, I think I gave the worst case example, which is that one home on the south side of the street, which existing conditions is lower than the north side of the street, will be six feet higher than the home across the street. So that's sort of the worst case scenario. And several of them are that, and then it tapers off towards the end. So that just to clarify for the board, that's the concern is that you're creating a situation where this home is a whole person high, higher than the one that's built on existing grade. So it ends up being more than that because it started out lower. But it's not going to be. All right, because if you bring up that drawing, I'll bring up the drawing and look at it. We'll explain it. So if you look at Linda, so when we did Linda Mac, we had this issue before we thought it was resolved, but we graded all the lower lots on Linda Mac. All right, this is the low side. This is Linda Mac. This is the low side. All right, so basically, if you look at this existing grade here, I can't read it because it's too fuzzy from here, but you can see this is the row of grade. Then it goes up one, two, three feet to what we think the high point will be across the street. We didn't grade these, right? But, and so that's what Marla's looking at. She's looking at the grade here and she's looking at the grade here and saying, gee, this house is going to be six feet higher. But it's not because this house, this house is of the finished grade. It's actually going to be at the same elevation. We should have graded all the lots and given you a pre-construction grade for every single lot on the project. And that's my complaint about it. It seems like we're making this so difficult, which is a very easy thing. I mean, everybody can visualize going down this street.  You're going to have this house. This house is going to be a half a foot or a foot higher. This house is going to be a half a foot higher. It's going to be the same elevation as this house. This house is going to essentially be the same elevation as this house. That's how all these streets look when we drive around and these developments. That's how this will look. Drive down site of L1, that's how this will look. Can they not put? There's some concern that you have about them identifying what the built first floor grade is. I think that's what you were talking about, is you could identify if the street is at 100, that the grade of the house will be 104. Correct. And same thing across the street. Could they not mark that on each lot? I know it's a hassle. That'd be way better than grading each lot. But trying to grade this is a big deal. Or that the construction grade is 102 or whatever. I mean, it doesn't really matter whether it's the first floor level or the finished grade. So our concern is that these homes, it was based on the standard, which talks about the homes being consistent from building to building and fitting what needs to be seen topography. So whatever we need to do to satisfy that and not have the homes on one side of the street be the tall side when they were originally the short side, is what SAF was thinking would be the ideal solution. This is only really a concern on this downhill versus across the street, right? So can we just fix that in between? We can put a finished floor elevation or a construction grade elevation on each lot. Construction grade elevation should do it, right? SAF recommends the board require the applicant to accord in the land records a conservation easement for the 26.7 acres prior to obtaining a zoning permit for the 116th dwelling unit inside of middle two. We are fine with that. Item four, SAF recommends the board require the applicant to submit a state wastewater and portable water supply permit and obtain final water and wastewater allocations for each building prior to issuance of the first zoning permit for the building. No issue with that. Number five, SAF recommends the board require the applicant to confirm that 3114-9020.2, that's our, what I like to call, erosion control permit, will be amended to reflect the proposed project prior to closing the hearing. That permit will be amended. Has to be amended. Number six, six deals with the extension of Cytomil Drive. As we stated previously, we've been opposed to being required to extend Cytomil Drive. It's our feeling that it was never part of Cytomil One. It was never suggested to any of the residents that it was going to be extended until some future development happened across the street or further down the street. We've been back and forth with staff. We have made a proposal to staff that the developer pay an additional fee of $1,000 per lot to go towards the construction of the extension of Cytomil Drive. Is it per lot or per unit? Per unit. So it'd be $142,000 total in fees that would be paid. We have not discussed this with our finance department, and they're going to be shocked and appalled. Staff thinks we can figure something out. On a, just to give a little history, on a different project, and I actually got on the street that I don't know what project it was, there was something where the developer had to pay into a bank and at a certain point in the development, when they got to 75% or whatever, they said, hey, can we just pay the rest? So we're off the hook for this. And then the city said, sure. And then they went ahead and built the project a little early. So something like that may happen. It may be that it comes in, it triggers until Cytomil 2 is fully built out. It feels to be hammered out, but we feel like we can do that without a board approval. We've just had history in the city of taking development fees for specific things that never, that disappeared. I can name several. So we need a lock box, is what you're saying? Maybe, yeah, maybe Matt ought to hold it or something. But, or put into a, I'm just saying, yeah, well, that's not the point. Back to the issue. The issue is obviously traffic and access for these 100 and, I'm sorry, 142, is that what we're at? Right, 142 units. 142 units. And I know I've seen the traffic study. I understand that the impact, I don't have a good answer for this. Yeah. I thought about that road a lot because I stare out the window every day. And it's clear that if they build to the north of the solar panels, that that road has to be built. And you are right that at least in my, when I bought my home, that was the implication, that that was not part of any cider mill development, that it was not in the plans, that was for future developments, should they occur. And if future developments should occur, that that road should be built. I think the offer is generous. And I think we're going to need that money if the solar panels are taken out and homes go in, the area to the north is built. 100 is going to be necessary. 142,000 won't build that, will it? No. No. No. OK. On 500,000, is it a number more like 500? That's what, that's the number we have in our sheet. Oh, OK. Plus elements for 200,000. OK, got it. Additional elements. So that would be incumbent on the developer of that, of the other properties. Stay on north. That's my understanding. OK. Number seven? Well, Jen, did you have an opinion on this? No, I don't know where to go with this. Mark? I think that's the best we're going to get. I know we've clearly, that's the safety of that horse, but I think that this is a generous offer. And I think that's the alternative, pushing too far and ending up with that development that we really haven't had chance to reply to. And at least, getting something into the coffers, whether it's the escrow or something like that, towards the future connection, I'm supportive of this plan. Number seven? Talks about the connection. Can you talk about that, Paul? Yes. I'll also include in the applicants cover letters is a suggestion to make the Aurora Road Summerville Avenue connection only available to emergency vehicles until the 50th unit is constructed. This connection, the connection to Heinsberg Road are proposed to be otherwise fully constructed in phase one of the Saitama 2 development. Staff strongly recommends or deny the applicant's suggestion of an emergency-only connection based on experience within this project and elsewhere in the city that a firm in a roadway construction results in stronger opposition to construction when the predetermined threshold is triggered. So we really don't have any additional comment. We made a proposal. Staff, as opposed to it, we can certainly obviously live with it being open. Believe it, not just that, but public works wait in that they'd like to see the connection operable. Our intent was always to build the road and we were basically just going to gate it. But obviously, we don't have an issue either way. Good. Number eight? Number eight, staff recommends the board require the applicant to update the open space management plan to specify how each open space type is to be maintained in addition to who is responsible for maintenance. We agree that should be updated and we will do that. Number nine has to do with deputy fire chief comments. Staff recommends the board incorporate the deputy fire chief's comments as conditions of approval. Staff recommends the board allow the applicant's engineer to make a recommendation as to which side of the street shall be no parking with the goal of providing a meaningful number of spaces where parking is allowed. I guess we're looking for a little bit of clarity on that. Like if you look at the single family home section, it's a 26 foot wide road and I thought that typically you allowed parking on both sides. Are we saying that we're just going to say that we can park on one side and not the other? Like some of the narrow roads, the 18 footers, that's clear. The deputy wants no parking on both sides. Right, so on the roads that are wide enough for parking on one side, his recommendation is that you guys pick which side and sign the other side as no parking. No parking on this side of the street, right? Right, because that allows fire apparatus to come through the street without having to do one of these. But typically parking signs are not something that we... It's typically something that public works and the city council has to decide where it's like placing stop signs or anything. It's usually not us. Right, so public works only has authority to add signs if it's a safety issue and that authority is very limited. So what, and I believe that DBW comments reflects in signage things as well. What DBW and the Fire Chief have been trying to do in recent history is to proactively get this project set up with signage because it is so difficult to get it changed later. All right, so is that the board's desire that we just mark those streets so that you can only park on one side and not on the other? I mean, we would go parking this side only when I'm not gonna sign both sides, but... Think that you'd want the parking on the side of the street that has the sidewalk, no? Well, it's just that if I have a single family home, you know, I'm gonna want to park right in front of my house. You know, and someone comes in. And that's when people are gonna pull up and park, but I can understand if you were having a block party, people could park on both sides, but... Can you see it in the neighborhood so people are parking on both sides and it's not clear, considered that long? Yeah, and it's a 26 foot wide road, so if you think about, you know, the cars would take up 18 feet. If you put up the signs and stuff on the ticket, people that are parked in would be towed. I think the city council has to pass an ordinance, has to include it if you're gonna be able to ticket people. I think. Yeah, I think it would be a suggestion that... No, I mean, there's rules around no parking signs and no parking signs mean no parking, and that's enforceable. How that's enforced, you know, I actually have no idea, but you know, the suggestion of Fire Chief is to prevent the fire trucks from having to weave in and out, and our merchants of vehicles, presumably school buses, delivery vehicles, that sort of thing, is to restrict parking to one side.  We'll prepare a plan and we'll let public works approve it, and the fire chief can look at it, and we'll put some parking signs up, but just a little different, that's all. Number 10, staff recommends the board require the applicant to confirm that the state will require 3114-9020.2 to amend it prior to closing. Yes, it will need to be amended. Number 11, staff recommends the board require the applicant to regularly maintain all stormwater treatment and conveyance infrastructure. That's part of our permit. The only thing I would add is the applicant has to maintain it until which time the city of Burlington takes it over. City of South Burlington takes it over. We get the city of Burlington to take it over, that would be good. That would be good. That might not be much more difficult than getting South Burlington to take it over to take it over. Number 12, staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide a revised grading plan demonstrating at least a five foot setback for retaining wall prior to closing the hearing. We agree we'll make that adjustment. 13, staff notes the presence of swale grading beyond the applicant's property along lots five and six. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to adjust the grading to remain within the subject property or provide a written agreement with the adjoining property owner allowing the proposed impacts. I think we have made that correction, but we will double check and make sure that we're not grading. Sorry, I was writing. Can we go back to 12 for a second? Sure. What was the answer on 12? Yes, we will adjust it. Okay. And same with 13. 14. 14, 14 deals with public works comments. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to work with the director of public works on the street signs and incorporate the remaining comments into the plans, including recommendation one as a plan note. Recommendation one was that phase one of the phasing plans show a road connection to existing Somerville Avenue from the proposal border lane. Once that connection is made, the road should be open to travel at the connection point. We're fine with that condition and we'll make those changes. 15, staff notes that a slope impact is shown on the NATO parcel at the intersection of Hinesburg Road and NATO Crest Drive. The board has no authority to approve anything offsite without the property owner's approval. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to adjust the grading to remain within the subject property or provide a written agreement with the adjoining property owner, allowing the proposed impacts prior to closing. We're not grading on the NATO's property.  And we'll go over that with staff, but we're not grading, we'll make that clear so that staff understands it. It is confusing in the look of the two different line works. So we'll correct that. 16, staff recommends the board require the applicant to revise their request to include only buildings which actually need an alteration or pre-construction grade to allow the board to better understand the proposed impacts under this criteria and further recommends the board consider whether to acquire the applicant to show their request graphically on the plans in order to provide a visual way for the board to evaluate the request. 17 is similar, staff recommends the board require the applicant to measure the new pre-construction grade for each building as the average of the underlying grade at the base of the structure. So these two comments apply to the units that are on common land. Originally that applied to the units that are on the lots. So our objection is the same. You know, we can specify a finished floor grader or pre-construction grade on the plan for each of those lots, but it's the same thing. We've got a road elevation. It's 18 and 34. Correct, same thing. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to revise the plant list to comply with the city arborist comment and the city arborist approve the revised plan prior to the zoning permit and approval. Apparently a white fringe tree has recently been found to be susceptible to the ML-BOR. So we will make that adjustment and resubmit plans for approval. Number 19, staff recommends the board adopt a condition requiring the applicant to include in the homeowner documents the following conditions in order to protect wetland in associated buffer areas. No pesticides nor herbicide application within wetlands and buffer areas. No mowing in wetlands and or their buffers. Disturbance of wetland vegetation should be limited to remediation activities and no planting of non-native species in wetlands or their buffers saved to meet the conditions of the project's individual wetland permit issued on June 2nd, 2015 by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. We are perfectly fine without being in the homeowner documents. Number 20, the overall open space management plan indicates boulders delineating the neighborhood park land B and D, but those are not shown on the landscape plans. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to confirm all delineation features are consistent between plans. We will make that correction. Thank you. 21, the applicant has not provided delineation at the side yards of lot 34 or unit 109 or at the rear of the units abutting the mid-site storm water pond. Staff recommends the board consider whether to require demarcation at those locations. We'll make it simple for the board. We will add those to the plans. So I think we may have talked about this at preliminary and my notes were, didn't say what was concluded. So I've just brought it up again and whatever the conclusion was. It should be delineated, that's easy. It's just using boulders to delineate that we're fine with those areas. Applicant met with the Recreation Park and Parks Committee at the December 2016 meeting minutes from that meeting note that the committee was going to provide a list of recommendations to the board meeting took place between two separate sketch plan applications for the project and thus the committee recommendations were never reviewed by the board. Staff is attempting to locate the committee recommendations and we'll have an update for the board at the hearing. How's that going? Yeah. Should have wrote myself a note on that one. I'm sorry, guys. We're coming back again. So you'll have another crack at it. It was two years ago. If you do find it, we'd appreciate it if you forward them to us so we can address them in advance if we... I mean, you don't have them either. Let's prepare that one. Number 23? Yeah. I'll be curious to see if they exist. The board found this criteria met at preliminary Platt. Staff notes the submitted landscape plans indicate that they have been revised for the final Platt submission but is unable to identify what has changed. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to identify what has changed on the landscape plans in order to determine whether these criteria need to be reevaluated. So most of the landscape plans didn't change, but we always change the revision date on the plans because when we refer to the plan set, instead of having to list each plan and its date, you can just say the plan set 1-35 dated, such and such. The only plan that changes, we actually added a plan. We added L6, which was the street trees along Nato Crest. Because Mr. Nato pointed out to us after the last meeting as, hey, how come there's no street trees up by my house? And I was like, ah, you're right, there's no street trees. So we added that plan and that's been the change. 24, staff recommends specifically considering the use of the word guideline in the name of these documents that the board require compliance with these documents as a condition of approval. So we're talking about the residential building guidelines that talks about the colors and the heights and the different features. So we'll label them whatever you'd like us to label them, be quite honest with you. If you don't like guidelines and you want them to be requirements or something else, hey, just let us know, take us about two minutes to fix that. So guidelines, whatever you like there. We've had some historic discussions about the word May versus the word Shell. And we don't need any more of that in our lives. That's for sure. 25, staff recommends the board require the applicant to address the issue of flooding on the Nato parcel prior to closing the hearing. We will do that just, we have a, the Nato property is about 10 acres and it all drains towards us. And so our new road creates, you know, somewhat of a dam along their property. So we have, we have two culverts that go under the road that drain. But in the 25 year storm, as you expect when you see culverts is a water ponds at the inlet of the culvert.  Well, because the culvert is only about five feet away from the Nato property lines during the 25 year storm and actually ponds back a few feet onto the Nato's property. So we're not flooding the Nato's property, but we do have a little bit of water that backs up, which is, which happens actually in every street in the city, you know, when they have a culvert, they back up water in a big storm onto the adjacent properties, but we'll, we'll take a look and see if we can't resolve that problem as we go forward to the final. So flooding is a little bit of a strong word, but we'll, we'll look at that. 26, staff considers the transfer of applicant does not affect conditions previously required by the board for what is essentially the same project. Therefore recommends the board replicate these conditions as a condition of this approval. Staff considers the applicant must record these easements and all of the easements prior to issuance of the first zoning permit as is typical of all approvals. So, so what we're talking about is in site of middle one, there was a 50 foot wide road easement to the Jewer property and then there was a 10 foot and 20 foot wide pedestrian path easement from Somerville drive to the Eau Claire property to the south. So, I. Final plant decision SC-18. 08-34 with Cytermil-2. So keep going. Oh, okay. Cytermil-2. So, Cytermil-2, I thought to fit, all right. So we will add those easements. We think they've been recorded. We think the easements have been recorded. They don't show up on our current plat. We'll add them to the plat so they're on there. So, I guess we'll have to just chat more because I haven't been able to locate them in the line records. I understand from Mr. Jewett that they were drafted. So they may be just something that needs to be dusted off and filed. That's fine. But they should be existing because they should have come in as last time round. And 27, staff considers that in addition to requiring review by the state addressing coordinator, the addressing plan is an important document referenced by internal and external parties after the project is approved and recommends the board acquire the applicant to provide a single plan sheet for the purpose of correlating lot numbers and addresses without extraneous information such as contrast utilities or lot coverages. Staff considers the addresses must be approved prior to final plat approval. So we have all the addresses on the plans but they are busy, you know, they're hard to find. So we'll gladly produce a separate plan that has just a lot number and the 9-1-1 address. One more layer. It is the single most referenced piece of paper once the final plat approval is issued for every project it is. It's really helpful to have it be for any of you to read for everybody else. Mark, John, or Jennifer, are there any comments from the board before I open it up to the public? No. Brian, if you could help me out to make this order, if you could, just so it's easy on Charlie, could you just, you could just scooch, you could just scooch this way to the right and then move the microphone a little bit over. So thank you, Charlie. So I want to open up for public comment. And when I ask when you comment, just state your name for the record. Is there anyone that would like to speak about this project? Come on up. Hi, Royce. Well, the microphone needs to catch it up because we put this on the television. And my name is Susan George and I live behind this mammoth development. And I'm concerned about the drainage onto our property and I haven't heard anybody addressing that at all. And also, according to the regs, we should have a right of way that goes onto our property and I haven't heard anything about that. So the right of way was what we just talked about was comment number 26. And the applicant indicated that they will dust that off, show it on the plans and get it recorded. Thank you for that. But what about the drainage? We have provided drainage plans. We have a series of detention ponds on the project. The wetland is to the west of our proposed project. Between your property and our property, we expect that that wetland public collects any runoff that we have, both off your parcel and off our parcel. Well, can you direct it to stay on your parcel, please? It doesn't so much anymore as it used to. The other development, Sider Mill 1 put ponds in so it wouldn't drain on our property. So they are putting ponds. Just to give a little bit of background, the project is subject to a state stormwater permit and it's also being reviewed by our stormwater section. Our stormwater section has reviewed the plans and aside from a few things, only things that it is adequately protective of downstream properties. One of the requirements of these permits is that they meet existing flow rates at the property line. So the state has approved this permit for operational stormwater. Are you all ready? Yep, so that has been addressed. Where can I get information about that? You're welcome to come into my office and talk about it. All right, that sounds great. Thank you, Susan. Those are my concerns. Thank you. Are there any other comments from the public regarding this application? Come on up, Denise. Comments and questions. Could you state your name for the record again? Adonis Olski. Thank you. I think it's a little bit deceptive to say that there wasn't an increase in the amount of units because when I bought my house in Cytermil-1 and I was shown the plan for Cytermil-2, it was very different and the units have been increased. They may have not been increased since the last meeting but they certainly were increased over time. So I think fair is fair and say how many units it really was increased. So the other thing about the parking, I was just to... I don't understand what you mean by that. Okay, so when I bought my house in Cytermil-1, they also had a plan for Cytermil-1. Can you say in this scenario? Bartlett-Weaver when you... Got it, yep. And that plan was 109 units as I stated early and now the supplies plan is one more. But what you're referring to, when you, you're referring to what you were told by Bartlett-Weaver was the plan. They had a plan on the table that you could see. You say this is what's coming. So I think you should record the real number of units of the increase from the very first. Yeah, and we have... But really what's happened here, just in terms of approvals, is that there is an approval in place that they're not exceeding the number of, except to actually fill in a spot that was allowed to be developed. Additional units, it was called for additional units in that space. So that space hadn't identified the number of units that were gonna go to it, but the rest of it has not exceeded previous permits. So they could go out today and go off the old permit and built. 109 tomorrow, up until March 2020. And then they could go up and it's that upper, that North release section. And I don't know what's the max you could have built there a lot because it's multifan, it allows... You don't need to approve. All this density is what I'm saying. And I know you're saying... It's already approved. It's already approved. You don't understand, it's already done. So what we're dealing with today is a revision on a plan that was already approved. But that plan was already an increase from the first, the original. Okay, but it's already approved. Okay, but I'm just noting that because... So when you were talking about... This doesn't make any sense as far as order, but I was just taking it. So when you're talking about the parking on one side or the other, why don't you just make the road wider? I mean, my road, they park on both sides. When you have a narrow road, I ride my bike there, yet you can't see.  And I think it's a safety issue. Comment noted. Okay, so the next thing I wanted to talk about was relates to what I said in the beginning. So the last time we were here, there were all kinds of people here with concerns. And I was wondering were any of those concerns taken in consideration? There was environmental concerns about paving. There was wild left quarter that was going to be cut in half. There was all the paving and the draining. And then he said something about draining into Cytermill 1. I don't want them draining into Cytermill 1. I don't think this is well thought out. Where is it going to drain? May I ask that? Where is the rain? Where is the rain from all this paving going to go? So there's a stormwater management plan that in great detail that is approved by staff and by the state of Vermont that dictates that. To make sure it doesn't get off. We're not stormwater experts. Can you tell me in which direction it's gonna go? Is it going to go to Cytermill 1? Yeah, I'm trying to pull up. I'm trying to find the page that shows the master plan in the packet here. Because I think that's probably the best way to show the locations of the plans. Looks like sheet 54, if you don't mind. Are we seeding you or which, the one you're in right now. So if you're gonna direct the water towards Cytermill 1, that's... Well, just hang on while we pull up the plan to answer your question. So Brian or Paul, would you like to point to where the drainage features are on the Cytermill 2? So there's three stormwater detention areas, one there, one at the top, one here, and one here. Everything flows, but then it catches an existing wetland and starts going south pretty much down through the property line. So it grades down, going to the wetland and the low spot. That's why it's a wetland and then back up as you go towards Summerfield. So it originally goes towards Cytermill 1 because it's the low spot, but then it drains naturally to the south. So is that higher than Cytermill 1? Parts of it are. It's about the same. If you look at Hinesburg Road, Hinesburg Road is high to the right. Dorset streets to the left, and that's high. And then the parcels slope downhill basically to the middle of that plant. So that's the low spot between Hinesburg and Dorset. So Cytermill water all goes basically to the east and catches that channel. Our water all goes to the west and then flows south. So both flow in the same direction. That doesn't sound like company. So what is the road connection between the Cytermill 2 and Y? And where are these people going to, what street, main street are they going to use? So it, what's, does it go out to Hinesburg? Does it go out to Dorset? Yes, yes. You can do both. Yes, please. You can do both. And how are you going to connect the two neighborhoods? And that's always been the connection point. That plan that they showed you, that Bartlett and Weber showed you always showed that connection there. And are they going to extend Cytermill Road to where? So as, as the, as discussed today, Cytermill Road will not be extended as a condition of this approval. Maybe. Well, yeah. Depends on how we vote. The board has to deliberate about that. But as it stands right now, that's not, that's not been proposed in this, what has been proposed is that. And how far are they going to extend it? That what has been proposed is a thousand dollar per unit impact fee in order to build the road at a future date. That's the proposal that essentially the developers has offered. But how far do they want to go? All the way to Hinesburg or? No. You have to stay on the property. So it's just, can you identify that? Yeah. It's just this, no, no, it's that chunk right there. Yeah. Little connection. Yeah, it's not going to go beyond. The only time it would go beyond that is if there were to be a development in that area, and then there would be a connection there. And then there'd have to be a whole different application. I guess my last comment is somebody said that that was a generous offer, but it would only pay for 75% of the, of how much it was really going to cost. Oh, it wouldn't pay for 75%. It wouldn't even, wouldn't come close to that. So why would you put that burden on the taxpayers then? It's not on the taxpayers. Be the developer. So like where the solar panel, you know where the solar panel farm is. Yes. And then there's land next to the solar panels, and then there's land north. Someone at some date could say, I want to build on this property and the land development regulations allow it. And at that point, a connection would have to be made and they would pay for it. It probably won't be, it could be these guys, it could be a new developer, it could be someone, but in order for that to happen, it's likely, I can't say for certain, but it's likely that that connection would be made at that time and that developer would be on the hook, not for 100% of it, if the $1,000 per unit offer happens, but for some percentage of paying for that road. But then once it's made, then the city is on the hook for maintaining it, right? You know, all the other city services. If it's a public street, the city pays to plow it and maintain it. Just wondering if you take into consideration, besides the environmental issues, the increasing costs for city services and sewage and all the other things that make our taxes go up. No, no, but you're paying a whole lot of taxes, just as all these other people, if you put in say 80, 142 houses, every one of them are paying taxes just like you do. And the way that the city is going, more of those people are two person families than three or four or with kids, and the kids are the real expense in this town. 80% is school tax. And so the point is that we're an older generation, our town is getting older by the minute and frankly the taxes are positive to the town, not negative.  I'm not saying that the town isn't spending money on all sorts of other things. Without building the property tax base, your taxes would go up much higher. I'm sorry? If we don't build it without an increase in the property tax base, it's possible that your taxes could go up higher. Oh, it would not just possible, they would go up higher because 80% is a huge piece. You should look into the grand list, go see Kevin Dorn and get an instruction on that. There is research contradicting that anyway, saying that an increase in population does not, in fact, decrease the tax rate. You're welcome to come see me with this. You're saying 80% are kids? No, 80% of your property tax goes to the schools. 80% goes to the schools and 80% of the housing, it doesn't have kids. So the point is that actually it's just the other way. Anyway, if you find a study, I'd love to see it because we've studied this for years. I just a comment about what the other people spoke about the last time they were here, asking for the increase, the wildlife corridor, the environmental impact. Was that taken into consideration? Absolutely. In fact, one of the conditions are we're going to talk about the connection road to make sure that there wasn't any. I mean, I satisfy everyone, but there was taken into consideration that when the road is built connecting one side of the one side of the two, that there not be guardrails or anything that would block wildlife from crossing. One, there's a park too, but there was a park and it's been returned to wild space. So that corridor has been widened by at least one development lot with. So my answer to you is yes, it was taken in consideration, action was taken and we appreciate it public. You ready for comments? Please come up. Good evening. Hi, I'm Laura DeMaroni and I just have a question because I had gotten in touch with Justin Rabadou at the beginning of summer and then again, maybe a month or so ago because at one of the meetings, it was suggested that there could be an additional traffic study on Cytermill Drive. There was talk about how fast the traffic is and where the bike path comes out and then connects on. There was a lot of discussion about how dangerous it was, not only for speeds, but just the different intersections. Initially, he said it would be done and then when I got back in touch with him, again, later this summer, apparently there'd been a equipment malfunction, but he hoped that it would still be done. I wonder, I haven't heard anything more and I wondered if anybody here had heard anything more about Justin Rabadou's department going ahead with the traffic study that we requested, I mean, me and some of the other neighbors who live in Cytermill. Harry, do you know anything about that? Yeah, so we referenced the, I'm sorry, looking at my memo, the BFG memo. Is that perhaps what you're referring to, Laura? I don't, well, so this memo was created to study the potential Cytermill connection, Cytermill Drive extension, I'm sorry, and it addresses a bunch of things. It addresses traffic, it addresses bicyclists and pedestrians, it addresses expectations of residents, it addresses functional classification. So this is the study that the board asked to be prepared. That talks about if the road were extended, right? It weighs whether, yes, it weighs in whether they recommend the road to be extended. My discussions with Justin were, as it exists now, there seem to be some real serious issues about the safety on what Cytermill, not so much new development, but just right now what can be done to slow the traffic, make it safer for people crossing or just being on those roads. And I'm not sure where that stands because my second request to Justin was, has it been done yet? Knowing that there was an equipment problem, I haven't heard anything. So I'm just wondering if any- So you're concerned, just to summarize, is the traffic mitigation in Cytermill one? Yeah. And concerns about Cytermill two? Right, but do you know if a city study has been done on what is there now? I've never heard of any. Do you have any suggestions on, other than to just keep in touch with Justin, Rabidou? When neighbors are concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and want to know if they can install traffic mitigation efforts, they typically bring that up at the city council, is that, am I wrong there? Oh, no, I mean, going to Justin is the right place to go. That's why I was told. He is straight, so I think you're in the right place. That's what was suggested way back when I first started this, and so that's what I did. No, I think you're in the right place. He's got an amazingly busy summer still left. So my guess is that if he's got time, it's going to be a month from now. Why don't I get in touch with him? I just wanted to make sure that it hadn't already been done or that there was something else I should be doing. No, you're in the right place. Okay. He may need approval in the city budget to be able to do these things, but ultimately, it's his recommendations for what happens to city roads that really make it. Okay, all right, so I'll continue on. You're in the right place. Okay, thank you. Any other public comments? Come on up. Hi, you state your name for the record. Karen Vino. Hi, Karen. Hi, I live on Winesap Lane. I had a question for the DRB members, and that is, I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but correct me if I'm wrong, that the 142,000 from the developer was to be put in escrow for building the road, which is the Citadelville Road extension. Is that a correct assumption that that is? That's what they're proposing. There's a proposal that we were, we continue to review. Okay. And I don't have a problem with that. What I'd like to point out in thinking about this, because the road could either be built now before the development impacts Winesap Lane and Brabant, or it could be built many years out, if I'm understanding you correctly, when additional developers want to tap into that connection. I want to point out, as you're already aware, that BFJ did the independent review and supported the building of the Citadelville Road extension, that the comprehensive map in South Burlington has already planned for that extension to be in, which we know. Our South Burlington land development regulations in the Southeast Court Quadrant, Article 9, Article 15, support the extension of that road. I provided the DRB with 55 signatures of people in Citadelville 1, who support the development of the Citadelville Road extension. And we also had the traffic review study indicating that Brabant and Winesap Lane would see approximately a 75% increase in traffic on their neighborhood streets at full build out of Citadelville 2. That was noted. So with all of this information, as we know, this has been a one-year project of you guys listening to me and me listening to you. Hopefully it hasn't been too painful. With all of this information and going through the process, I learned a great deal and I'm glad I got invested in it. I'd like to point out though that there is millions of dollars that are being made by our developer and I support that. I'm all for people making money. And there's certainly millions of dollars being made by South Burlington as they collect taxes off of each of the units at full build out. So I understand the big picture, money is flowing. My request to you people as DRB members is to consider that this building of the Citadelville Road extension is only $700,000 by comparison as all these millions are going back and forth. If you delay in requiring that road to be built either by the developer as part of the permit process or delay it for whatever your reasons are, the burden goes on our neighborhood streets to collect that traffic and deliver that traffic over to Dorset Street which to me just seems high, it's just so unfair to have that happen. We know Citadelville Road was designed to be a collector street. That's the intention of it. And we know that Winesab, Rainburn were designed to be neighborhood streets. So I encourage you as you have to deliberate and make your decision as to when this road would be built that you go sooner as opposed to later. So thank you for considering that. I appreciate it. Any other public comments? How you doing? State your name for the record? Jack Darling, I live on Winesab as well. So with all the information that you've been given by the different traffic studies and the proposal that you've been given by JJJ, I guess my question is, is there any way of instituting when the road would be built? Because we know if the city, just from all the time I've lived here, they have yet to really build a road other than Market Street and that's questionable as to whether they really did it. So with them not being able to build streets and you having $142,000, $700,000, I guess my question to you would be, if that's an acceptable policy to you, how do you plan to get the street built other than relying on the next builder that could come through in 40 years from now? Because this directly impacts the price of my house, it directly impacts the quality of life I have at my house and everything else and I pay currently taxes in South Burlington which are substantial. So it seems like you're hearing us but there's other deals going on behind the scenes and it seems like if you have more money, you're gonna get what you want and what they want is to not build the road. What the neighborhood seems to want is they want the road built. You have the authority to do that. To me, settling for $142,000 which we'll probably never see on this road being built will be used for something else than South Burlington. So I don't see this as a win at all. That's my comment. Thank you for your comment. Thank you. Any other public comments? Sarah, can you state your name to the record? I'm Sarah Dopp. There's so many concerns I have with all of this and most of it's carved in stone so that we can't do anything about it anyway but I'm really worried about that wildlife corridor even though it's been somewhat widened. It's really going to create a plug, excuse me, in a North-South corridor there. I heard some things about water tonight and maybe I'll concentrate on that mostly but one quick question. I may have misheard but did I hear the phrase some of the units being built on common land or did I mishear that comment? Cider, my home on Ciderville 1 is built on what's called common land. It's a, I don't know if you could answer it better than I can. It's a sense of like condominium plan. Condominium. You own the unit but you don't own the land around it so a number of the units will be similar to condominium. They may be single-family homes but the land is in common. You own the land underneath it but you don't own the land around it. You can't build a structure. I can't build a structure in my backyard because that's common land. I see. This was long cares taken care of by a property management agreement. It's quite common for these large developments in our area. Yeah okay I know there's common land in this and other developments I understood that but I guess I really thought that was exterior to the housing. That's what we call the open space. So we have lots, then we have common land and then we have open space. I see, okay. So the open space are the portions that no building is allowed and the open space changes. Some places will be allowed to brush hog. Some places won't be able to touch at all. Other places we might keep mode as a player. So that's one thing that the board has asked us to come back with additional information as to just how each different area will be maintained. Yeah okay. Well so I've learned something that's interesting to me. The term common land means sort of land held in common for everyone's use. Well you don't put a house on it then. That's where my logic was going. So thank you for that explanation. Water, I've heard some things about the general flow. I know the stormwater ponds, but the general flow would go south and west. I think I heard that correctly. So where will the Scott property be impacted? It's this one. Exactly. So yeah, the wetland connects through and then it flows south here. I do indeed know. Flows south here. Yeah. So that's pretty, I don't know if we have contours where the Scott parcel is, but all the stormwater system is designed to basically mimic what's there now. We designed the stormwater ponds to discharge at a rate that's equal to or less than what's there now. I hope it's less because there's a significant, I think you've shown it already, a significant wetland environment that runs down through there. It feeds a pond on my neighbor's house. It's a significant wetland when it freezes in the winter. It's many feet wide. Anyway, if more water is added to that system, it will impact my property as well. So I understand that the joits were concerned and it will impact my property as well. I already have a very wet field south of the Scots on the west side and it'll be... I'll just go into that a little bit. There's an infiltration requirement, right? A bit? No. Okay. I don't think I saw a peak so far. Okay. So the one year flow has to be no higher peak or no higher volume. Just no higher peak then. Peak. Okay. Everything's based on peak. Okay. So the water will be treated. The total volume will increase, but it'll flow out at a rate no greater than... Existing conditions. Correct. So that means you'll have, if the faucet is dripping today, it will continue to drip, but it'll drip all night rather than just after you brush your teeth. But ultimately, there'll be more water in the system. That's what I'm concerned about. Right. But that wetland today handles that drip. So the idea is that it will continue to handle that drip as long as it comes out at the same rate. If it became a torrent, then the state would consider that not meeting. But if it comes out at that same rate, then the state considers it adequately protective. That leads me to my next concern, which is a little bit, I'm hearing some trivialization of the notion of flooding and interestingly in the week that our friends to the south are experiencing the second of two 500 year floods within two years. In many parts of North Carolina, where flooding has never occurred before, we sort of think in South Burlington, well, we're high enough. We don't have major rivers. We're not on the seacoast. We're basically safe, but we also have really impacted and clay based soils in this area of the city. So there's not great drainage. So when I hear statements like, well, the culvert would normally carry the water, all right, but when it really rains hard, there'll be some inevitable ponding around the ends of the culverts. Okay, 25 or 30 years ago, not sure it's so okay 25 or 30 years from now, when I don't think we've got any conception of what major rain events will be like here and in many other places. So if we're building new infrastructure, I think we always ought to err on the side of planning for carrying more in the future, an area that we really can't predict. And I hope the state people are thinking of it in those terms as well, because we could really find ourselves in a bad place because we haven't anticipated. We're doing all this gerry-rigging of mother nature's systems for taking care of water and plumping all these houses in the middle of it. It's going to come back to bite us someday and we may not be here, but our kids will be to deal with it. Another thing I wanna know, and this is sort of in a general sense, not just about this development, but any development in South Burlington, we sit here in a meeting like this, we put many conditions on the developers, we increase their costs, we put many conditions there for them to meet and they try their best to meet those while they're building. In 20 years, they've moved on to something else. The city doesn't seem to have any staffing particularly assigned to, I'm searching for the word at the moment, but monitoring developments and other projects for compliance, compliance officers of all sorts. Who signs off on the quality of the building work before occupancy? Who signs off that in 15 years, yeah, that wetland buffer really hasn't been mowed by the neighbors. The house has changed hands two or three times. Yeah, they read the paperwork, but we'd really like to not have those weeds there in our view and stuff like that creep happens over time. And I'm really concerned, not just about this development, but our pattern of just adding more and more and more without any provision for checking that these guys have really met your conditions up front and that those conditions and others in our regulations are adhered to 15, 20, 50 years down the road when none of us are here. We need systems to monitor continuously and make sure that there's compliance in all sorts of arenas. Thank you for your comments, Sarah. Any other comments coming up? Can you state your name for the record? Hi, I'm Dorothy Epinare, I live on Summerfield and I'm here to basically support the plan for putting some money aside for building the road when the extension of Cider Mill pretty is developed. People will be traveling past my house so I just want to put that out front. We're concerned of the cut-through traffic that will be increased. We already have a lot of speed on that straight away into Cider Mill. If we don't extend it and extend it all the way to 116, we're really inviting that cut-through because we're making it much easier. So that was our understanding when we bought, purchased that that was, and you can even see the little part extending towards the north that that was the intention. It wasn't intended to mitigate Cider Mill too. So I think that that is a reasonable solution. If and when that extension ever gets built, I think we need to learn from what happened from the Cider Mill, that original section, that that width is a problem and it really invites speed. We don't have anything to mitigate that. We have four or five crossings that really need some bump out. It's very difficult to see people crossing. I had to stop really on a dime as people are coming off the bike path. When we do extend that, when it's developed to the north, I would suggest a narrower road because it is a very important connection for wildlife also there. So mitigating that in the future would be extremely important. And to also put a pitch to developers, these developers and even our own Cider Mill is that we have a lot of open space that's part of the plan and it's always mowed in the middle of summer which is discouraging as things are suggested about budding for our pollinators and birds.  It doesn't do any good. It helped that open space even though it's just grasslands and has wildflowers really helps to mitigate the buffer zones to the wetlands. And it serves no purpose. So I'd ask the developers if you have some open space, don't mow it until the first frost. And that will really help the wildlife corridor even as narrow as it is. It does give a little extension to that. So basically supporting their plan. And I think the Van Wurthes wrote a letter. Ned and Kay, two, two. I have a letter from Barbara Groves. Oh yeah. But I think Kay and Ned Van Wurthes sent something that ends so basically in support of their letter too. Thank you. Barbara, would you like to speak or would you like me summarize the letter or go ahead? Sure, yeah, when someone writes and if you feel like you didn't get a chance to say what you wanted to say or think about something later, please feel free to submit the comments. If you're not here, I do try to at least in Bill, if I'm not the chair, summarize what the comments are just so we get a full scope of it. But go ahead, I'll put yours aside and you can summarize your own letter. My name's Mark Groves. I'm Barbara's husband. I live on Summerfield. We bought our house two years ago with the understanding both from Barlett Weaver and the South Perlington Planning Board that the Sider Mill extension was only intended to be built when the land north of the solar panels was developed. When I spoke to the city planning board, they said there was no plan in place and even if there was one put in place now, it probably would be many years before it was approved and development would start. So we bought that with the understanding that that would not be put through because we don't want it to be put through. We feel it would negatively impact our quality of life on Summerfield because of the added traffic that it was never intended to alleviate the traffic for Sider Mill 2. Sider Mill 2 was already approved and in place and that was not part of the original approval for Sider Mill 2, it was not a condition of approval and we don't feel it should be a condition of approval for their revision to the original plan. Not only traffic and quality of life, but we had concerns that Dorothea also voiced is the wildlife there. We're right there on that corner and we see eight point bucks. I think Barbara included a picture of a eight point buck in our backyard. There's animal trails that cut across there that come and cut across that entire section of Summerfield across the backyards of those four houses that are along Summerfield north of Braeburn. So I just want to make that comment. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. And thank you for your letter. Any other public comments? Are we none? Any other comments from the board? Mark? So we've got a number of issues that we're going to address. Do we do it close in this situation or do we? No. Continue. Continue, you've got a date. So if I don't think October 2nd is viable because the applicant would have to get us everything by this Friday. How do you guys feel about that? No, October 16th. We need it the Friday. Let me pull up a calendar. Let me just look at a calendar that might be better. Okay, so October 16th. So I need it by October 5th. Today is the 18th, so that's a little more than 15 days. Next one's November 6th, I'll actually end it. Yeah, that's fine. Okay. I entertain a motion to continue this item to October 16th. I move we continue final plan application, SD 1828 of JJJ South Burlington, LLC to October 16th. Second. Mr. Second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed opposed? Thank you very much. Thank you. And we are now minutes, number 10, none are available. No minutes are available. Is there any other business? Seeing none, we close. Sorry, go ahead. Barf, did you say something? You have a deliberate on the master sign? Yes, yes. We're gonna deliberate on the signs, but right now I'm gonna close the public hearing. This has been the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting. Yep. Good night. Charlie. Best day of the night. Thanks, Joe.