Good evening everyone and welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board meeting for June 1st 2021. My name is Dawn Filibird and I'm the chair of the Development Review Board and with me tonight are board members Mark Baer, Alyssa Eyring and Dan Albrecht and also in attendance from the city is Marla Keane, our Development Review Planner and Delilah Hall, our Zoning Administrator. Let's dive into the agenda. I'm wondering if there are any additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items? Here I am. Dawn, just a point of clarification. Where will the public comment time occur? Mr. Vosage, I will get to that. Okay, we just want to know what to expect. I will address that. I promise you. Thank you. Thank you. Any additions, deletions or changes in the order of agenda items? Okay, hearing none. A few announcements. Just so you'll know, this meeting is being recorded and anyone who wishes to participate in the hearing should sign in the virtual sign-in sheet in the chat box and if you're on the phone, please email Marla Keane. That's M-K-E-E-N-E-S-Burl.com and let her know that you are a participant. This is necessary in order to ensure that if you want to participate in an appeal of any decision that you will be considered to have party status. Also, what's worked best with Zoom is if everyone mutes their phone except folks who are talking and if people who are participating, it's not actually Zoom, it's GoToMeeting, if you turn off your camera unless you're actually being spoken to or you're speaking to the board, that makes it easier for us to figure out who's speaking at any one time. Can I just add, and I apologize for not putting it in the agenda, the board has decided as a matter of policy that comments made in the chat box will not be part of the official record. It's just too difficult to keep an eye on the chat box. Please don't use the chat box for private conversations during the meeting. It's akin to having a side conversation during the meeting. You're welcome to text each other or put yourself on mute and give each other a call, but please don't use the chat box for anything other than things of a technical nature or signing in. Thank you, Marla. Also, one other comment. I think we're hoping that by the middle of July we will be having in-person meetings at the new City Hall, but we will also be incorporating go-to-meeting or some other virtual way of people participating. So, more about that down the line. Okay, first up on tonight's agenda is the Continued Bono Platt Application SD 2106 of Black Rock Construction for the 6.91-acre Wheeler parcel phase of a previously approved master plan for a 450-acre golf course and 354-unit residential development. The planned unit development consists of establishing three lots for the purpose of constructing a public road, 22 dwelling units in two family homes, and 10 units in single family homes at 550 Park Road. Are there any members of the Board who need to recuse themselves or that have a conflict of interest they would like to disclose? And I know Stephanie Wyman, one of our Board members, has already recused herself. So, who is here for the applicant? I'm here. This is Benjamin Avery with Black Rock Construction. Also this evening we have Brian Currier from O'Leary Burke Civil Associates, and we will have several representatives. I know Joseph Appy is on the call from Main Drilling and Blasting, and I do believe another associate from MD&B will be joining. Okay, thank you, Ben. So, for your information, this is a Continued Final Platt Application, and Final Platt is the final phase of an application, and we have already met several times to review this application during the Final Platt phase. And I believe that everyone, Ben just mentioned, has already been sworn in, and therefore is still under oath to tell the truth. So... Ellen, can I interrupt you for one second? It's Joe with Main Drilling. Hi, Joe. Wonderful. Hey, how are you doing? Pat Pochette joined in on the phone. He said he can hear people beeping in, but he can't hear what you guys are saying. I, as well, was on the phone. And was unable to hear, so I joined on the Zoom call, and I'm able to see you guys and hear you guys. Okay, have you been sworn in? Yes, I have. Okay, all right. Thank you. If he's on the phone, can you speak so we know who he is? Patrick Pochette is calling in from an 802 area code number, and he's unable to hear what you guys are saying from the passcode that was provided for the meeting. Will he be calling in? Yes, he called in the<PHONE_NUMBER> with the meeting access code, the 834. And will he be justifying? Yes, he will be speaking along with myself on behalf of BlackRock. I don't believe he's been sworn in. Has he? Hang up, pause. Time out. I think that the passcode is incorrect. Oh, Joe, you were saying the phone number worked fine<PHONE_NUMBER>, but the meeting access code, the meeting access code in the meeting we're in right now, and maybe you can text him or send him an email. It says it's 505-318. 505, okay. 316-81. What was that last three? I'm sorry. 581. Okay. I just sent that over. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. We'll give him a minute and then we'll swear him in. So the way we're going to proceed tonight is we're going to give Mr. Avery an opportunity to briefly say any introductory comments at this point, and then we will go through the staff comments and have a discussion about them. And after we have finished, we will open it up for public comment. And I just want to ask those of you who intend to provide public comment. We've had a lot of public comments on this project. At our May 4th meeting, I outlined the themes that we've heard and understand. So if you have public comment to offer tonight, please keep it limited to any new issues or perspectives that you think it would be helpful for the board to hear. So thank you. Mr. Pockett, are you on the phone yet? Are you on go to meeting yet? Joe, can you hear me? Joe, happy? Yes, I can hear you. Would you keep an eye out and when Mr. Pockett is able to join us, would you let me know so we can swear him in, please? Absolutely. I just texted him the code. Sorry about that miscommunication. No problem. Thank you. All right. Mr. Avery, do you want to give us some introductory comments before the board starts discussing the staff comments? Nothing too exciting. Just to say, as I'm sure the board has seen, as they've had a chance to review, we have made some substantial changes to the makeup and the layout of the upper part of the circle. And I just would like to actually thank the board for giving us some feedback, some of the ideas that we employed here to get where we are today. We're just the suggestion of the board to think outside the box a little. And I think what the layout you're looking at today is dramatically improved from a visual standpoint and actually serves to even better meet the criteria set forth in zoning. So just a thank you. Thank you. And to members of the public who have had some questions and concerns about this project, this really is a process of determining compliance with the LDRs. But as the process unfolds and we go from preliminary plat to final plat and starting with sketch, the board's feedback, which is often based on public comment and certainly based on the LDRs, does help applicants to shape their application, improve their application, and make it more suitable for South Burlington. So I'm glad you recognize that, Mr. Avery. Thank you. Okay, let's start going through the comments. Ellen, Pat has joined us. If you want to bring up his name, we'd be appreciated. Pat, this is Dawn, the chair. Thank you for joining us. I need to swear you in because you have not been sworn in before. Fair to tell the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth under LDR 3. Yes. Thank you. Okay, let's go back to the staff comments. Comment number one. Staff recommends the board familiarize themselves with the related applicable criteria excerpted above and then determine whether the proposed elevations generally meet applicable criteria. So let's go on to staff comment number two. This is a call for the board's attention to the three specific elements of the revised home design. And they are elevation facing Horses Street. Let's talk about those. Staff recommends the board require the applicant add two windows spaced in greater than three feet apart in each of the second stories of units, Maple, and a board. What do you think of that? Yeah, Dawn, park here. Yeah, I agree. If we can go to the page number four, which has all of the elevations for Horses Street. So that comment on the two windows for Maple and Oak, you can see it just has that large uninterrupted gable element on the second floor. And, you know, looking at the floor plans, it's bedroom closet stairs. I mean, it's there's nothing that includes them from putting some windows into those building elements. And I think that's what staff was raising. I agree with them. Thank you, Mark. Just to jump in, we are both of the points in two way. We are happy to accept those as conditions. So including the second one, vertical break deciding. Yep, no problem. All right. Thank you, Ben. Okay. Number B, staff considers the board. So I just lost on my screen. The board made... Can we go back to the siding issue just a little bit? Sure, Dan, go ahead. Elevations. I kind of jumped into the designs when I was looking at this morning. Marla, is there a specific comment that talks about the left and right elevations of some of the units? There is not, no. Okay. Do you mind if we jump to them just to see what Mr. Avery feels about them? Or... This would be C-R... Well, I guess let's see, I'll go start with the first one here. I'll just be sure I have them. This is in the packet after the, after the blasting stuff. So Apple, Apple looks good. Apple's our thing. You were talking. Yeah, Birch, the first of the side elevations, T6. Somebody please get your phone please. I believe that's Pat or someone who joined, who's on the phone. So I can mute them, but I can't unmute them if they're on the phone. Okay. So page 43 of the packet is the side elevation of Birch. Birch, yeah. The T6 side elevation of Birch is all just, and this shows up on Birch and then some of the E-R-R-W-1s or ever C-L, yeah, the C-L. So anyway, side elevation of Birch, just, I mean, particularly that left elevation is quite a lot of that rear or whatever, sort of in the back third of the building or whatever there, back two-thirds, just some, just some blank space there. I'll just highlight them. And then same thing on C-L-E-R-R-W, same thing with the side, the side elevations, left elevation. There's a couple spots where just some, some large blanks besides there. The fronts look good, the backs look good, but I don't know, sort of thing. Some of them are pretty large chunks of it. E-H-W is another one. Yeah, I apologize for the funny names that it's a printing error. They did have real names. Right. Yeah, there's some, yeah, that's a, that's right there. That one, for example, yeah. Some of the, and without, I don't have every floor plan for every house in front of me. You got a couple of things going on. First of all, it does account for stairways, closets, things like that. Right, okay. Second of all, the layouts are designed, these houses are very close together. So, you know, the value of having your bedroom window 12 feet from my bedroom window is, some people, they appreciate that sort of thing, others, not so much. And so, really, we've tried to concentrate the layout of the houses and how we're shaping, how they interact with the street is very important. And then, of course, the, they're close together, which is a downside, but the upside of this type of design is it really lends itself to having the back of the house be a focal point for windows, outdoor views, things like that. Grown up in a city, I can tell you, I can appreciate when your house is 12 feet from your neighbors, maybe not necessarily having as many windows facing each other. Okay, yeah, I realize that's a consideration. I didn't think of the closets too. So, anyway, just a comment. Overall, I think it's definitely an improvement. Thanks, Jan. Okay, are we ready to move to number two? Or B, staff considers the board may wish to ask the applicant to come meet the affordability requirements. Board, what are your thoughts about that before we have Mr. Avery weigh in? No comments? Yeah, I do think that I would like to have the applicant commit to meeting the affordability for which how many units? How many units of affordable are there? Sorry, the dog just started barking, and I was going to put on the headset, but if you pardon the barking for a second. So, this was a conversation that the phone where he said that some of the units they're now proposing are much more affordable. And, you know, you guys know that historically the board has always said they should be indistinguishable if they're going to be affordable. And I think that's really the case here, because I have no idea what are affordable. Ben just mentioned it to me casually on the phone. So, I have no idea. To clarify, none of these are designed to be perpetually affordable housing units. On the phone, we did discuss that these are smaller units. They have a single car garage, and they are designed in a manner to be more affordable than, say, your average new construction home in the SEQ right now. The art behind designing project and homes that can meet an 80% standard is completely different than what we've done here. We've taken great time and expense to meet all of the requests of as many as we can of the board as far as making these homes be aesthetically what they need to be, the variations of what they need to be. It just is not economically designed to be an affordable project. That the history of the case, the cost of the land to us due to the history of the case, the likelihood that we don't know how long this is going to take to permit or what the expenses are going to be. This is not an inexpensive project to move through the works. It is always our goal, whether we are providing affordable housing in the form of perpetually affordable deed restricted housing, which we have done in other projects, or anytime we are doing a mixed housing type, such as this, where we're looking to mix up the neighborhood, even if we can't do a perpetually affordable, we do try to build a product that can come in at the entry level of the market, which is what this product is designed to do. Now, exactly what the entry level of the market in the southeast quadrant of South Burlington is now. I'm not a realtor, so I'm not here to speak to what that is. We don't even know what that will be by the time this comes to market. But just the volatility of where everything is at today, it's just impossible to tell you I'm going to build one thing and commit to restrictions, which can affect what I'm going to build there. I will tell you that every I'm building a project right now, which 25% of the project is perpetually affordable, but I do not have design restrictions. I can mold those units to be what they need to be to fit into a certain economic pro forma, and that's just not the case here. So, where we don't feel that we need to commit to that, what we do want to do to be a responsible member of the building community is we do want to have a quote entry level option, which is meant to give some diversity to the community. The whole concept behind this, the whole concept behind the zoning in many cities and towns is that we aren't just plopping a dozen McMansions on this thing, and we're trying to make it a little more vibrant and have some diversity in who's living there. This is likely to have a very broad range of pricing. I could see this project having a range of up to $200,000 between what the entry level pricing is and what the finished pricing is on some of the larger homes. So, where does that leave us, Board, in terms of a commitment to perpetual affordability? Yeah, with that explanation, that understanding of it, I understand the, not even just the reluctance, but typically the little a versus big a affordable type housing, it comes with the density bonuses and other types of things that the applicant is going forward. I don't think that any of that applies to this project. I think the applicants just offering a variety of housing types where some of them are smaller, where it's going to be priced at a price point, which will be affordable, but it might not actually hit the price point of the qualifications to be a median income because that typically also comes with subsidizing costs and a program and things like that. So, I don't think we need, I don't think we can need to require them to commit to it. I think that, you know, I think unfortunately in this market, just the market's so hot that unless something drastically changes, it probably won't actually meet the true definition of affordable price point, but it'll be for the market right now, lower price point. I'm fine with that. What about other board members? I'm okay with it. Okay. Any other, I'm sorry, Alyssa? No, I just, I think what Mark said was more eloquent than anything I could have said. Great. All right. Let's move on. See. Staff recommends the board can sit requiring the applicant to make the homes solar ready, including the design of locations of roof penetrations as an enhancement to the project. That's something that we're actually working on a larger project in an adjacent town right now where we are working up a program. We're talking to a couple of solar groups, but we actually want to feature in our sales process a prepackaged solar add-on. So, that's something that we're actually preparing for a project we're going to build next year and we'd be happy to do that here. So, pre-wiring forum isn't a big deal. That's something that we do pretty standard on most of our higher-end homes anyway because there isn't really a cost effect to it to run the box up into the attic, but we'd be happy to go the extra mile to offer a package through one of the solar providers and it becomes like anything else. It's like upgrading your hardwood floors and then looking at where that's been done in other markets in the mid-Atlantic and some stuff in the Pacific Northwest that's actually been fairly successful in upping the amount of rooftop solar that we see because it really is very simple to do and not when you talk about the scope of a mortgage, it's just not that much. So, we see that being successful and we'd be happy to commit to doing that on this project as well. Any comments from the board? It sounds good to me, but any other perspective? I think the only other thing was just that it's one thing to pre-wire for it and to offer it as a package. If someone doesn't elect to do the solar at the get-go, I think one thing that staff is asking is that the roof penetrations are spaced such that the solar panel design is sort of factored into where your vents go. So, you know, you see all the retrofitting of solar panels and existing houses and you see they've got to be split because they have to go around the bathroom exhaust vents and stuff like that. So, I think that's what they're talking about when they say design location of roof penetrations. They're all consolidated or off to the side or something so they can have a larger array. We'd be happy to deal with that as a condition. That's fine. Perfect. Thank you. All right. Number three, staff considers the applicant's response to be irrelevant and this is a response about zoning permit instructions and passes are required to your warranty period for the satisfaction of the city public works department to the purpose of the standard and recommends the board limit the disturbance related to, so we're talking about ledge removal now, disturbance of ledge removal to three months, which is greater than the time estimated by main drilling and blasting at the April 6th meeting of one to two months. So, I have a question for staff and how has the city dealt with, I mean, things can happen. There can be, and I don't know this for a fact, but, you know, issues can come up on a site. Is it measured by calendar days? Is it measured by working days? What if there was a, you know, another pandemic shutdown? All these kinds of things, you know, even without pandemics may bump up against the thing. So, to me, there's the issue of setting a calendar date that says all blasting must be done within 90 calendar days of the date of the permit issuance versus 90 calendar days of in the field time. Yeah. So, the intent here is not from the date of permit issuance. The intent was from the date of the first blast and the date of the last one. So, that accounts for, you know, if they don't get started on time, they still have a three month window. During the April 6th meeting, Joe had testified that they expect a month of work and then taking into consideration weekends and shutdowns and things. It could be around two months, which is why we said, all right, well, give yourself a 50% margin of error. Three months is palatable. I think the thing that we've learned from other projects is better communication and more clear expectations is the key to a successful ledger rule project. So, we'll frame out the parameters here. Yeah, I guess I have a general question. What does, apart from blasting issues, but there may be other aspects of a construction project where a time limit is set and then things, is there a general like, notwithstanding three months or the date, the applicant under emergency circumstances or unforeseen circumstances may petition the board for an extension? Is there a generic language that's used in the past by the city when things come up that nobody knows about? Delilah, do you want to answer the question? There is some reference that we've made starting last year to the city's nuisance ordinance and section in our LDRs on performance measures, but I've only been here briefly and that's my experience with this car. So, Delilah, when a project kind of, if something comes up that's unexpected, how do we handle it? Like, if they've already gotten their zoning permit and they come back and they say, oh my gosh, this totally unexpected condition came up. We either need more time or we need to broaden the scope or whatever. What do we do? Well, I mean, it depends on what the issue is that they need to broaden the scope and it wasn't originally considered when the project was first reviewed. We make a determination if it has to go back and what level of review it has to go back to. But, yeah, every project's unique. We don't have a standard boilerplate for those circumstances, but our approach is to try to work with the applicant to whatever comes up is not an inconvenience to the media at large, does not hinder the project, if that's the case, but also that it gets the proper review if it wasn't originally part of the project. Thanks. That take care of your question, Dan. Good. Thank you. Any other comments from the board before we move on? Well, so I want to know what we're doing here for this condition, for this staff comment. Are we thinking three months is a reasonable amount of time? If I can weigh in two things. First of all, as long as main drilling and blasting doesn't have a problem with it, I don't have a problem with it. They understand better than I do what their scope is, what their time takes. And I think what Dan was getting at is there needs to be some language in there that deals with an extenuating circumstance. And that has been dealt before. One of the ways we dealt with it in the past project is the approval refers blast plan. And the blast plan in this particular example said there can't be a blast after 4 p.m. And we ran into a condition where a piece of equipment had a hydraulic pump go and there was already a blast in the hole. And so they ended up setting the blast off at 420 or whatever it was, which was outside the windows. But in the blasting plan, there was language that dealt with this condition. It was a safety issue. There was already an ordinance in the ground. And so they needed to do that. And so I can let Joe speak to this. I don't know if there's anything that is in their blast plan that accounts for general scope of the project and anything that might be outside that. And if there is that language, if it's possible, the board can simply refer to that blast plan as the court did in the previous matter. And that becomes viable without having to have the city write something. Joe, do you have any knowledge of anything in your blast plan that covers overall scope or anything like that? Yeah, I'm going to refer to Pat. In particular, he was on site that day that this occurred. So, Pat, you want to chime in to this circumstance that might come up from time to time? The circumstances, well, could there's so many things breakdowns, as we know, any equipment, earth mover or something that cuts, drills or breaks, we're off. I have major breakdowns. And unfortunately, they are, you know, we require a certain distance for every piece of equipment and personnel to be away when we fly.   While we're already have explosives in the ground that delay us, there's many unseeable things that can happen during a loading that, that will Back to the staff comment. Does a three month window seem reasonable to allow for those inevitable breakdowns? Yes, I will, I will say that a three month window is on a doable period, with a 50% period. And go ahead. Board members, what do you think? Can we live with that? And thanks.  I was going to say, I can live with that as long as we obviously talk in more detail about the actual day to day schedule and operations. Because I mean, yeah, I think it gives them the flexibility because, you know, obviously each blast costs money and I don't think that they're going to be making any money if they're blasting every day or three months. So I think it's just giving them the work within and it gives staff, board members and the public sort of like a finite time that they're going to have to be dealing with. So yeah, I'm fine with that window, but obviously I want to talk further about these other items as we get to them. And we'll be doing that. Any other comments from the board? Three months it is. Number four, applicant indicated their working hours would be eight to five as recommended by the technical reviewer. Staff recommends the board ask the applicant to indicate how long setup and cleanup will take and recommends the board limit two blasts per day to a shorter period than 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Does that seem reasonable question, board? I think this gets more to the subject I want to talk about. And in the technical review from night consulting, they did talk about, you know, a more limited time frame for doing like two blasts a day from like one from nine to 11 and then one from one to three. And that allows for, that's a window that they can do the blasts and that gives them some setup time before, some cleanup time after, some setup time before the second blast, and cleanup after, you know, with a working hours of eight to five on site. And then, so that way a public also knows when to be able to expect a blast could potentially occur rather than any time between eight and five. And it limits them to two a day, which I would ask if that's reasonable to main building and blasting, knowing that you have setup and cleanup after each blast. And then also, you know, days of operation, I would advise against any work on blasting on the weekends. You know, and that I probably more restrictive than other projects that in the past, but you know, there's always that one project in every municipality that really goes wrong and affects every project moving forward. We clearly have that, which, you know, is going to, I guess, penalize further projects with the hindsight is 2020. So that would be my recommendation. I'd ask it main drilling and blasting and sort of work within those parameters. And other, you know, whether staff and other board members would be okay with those as a condition as well. Joe, what are your thoughts about that? Yeah, go ahead, Pa. The two blasts a day is typically what we strive for unless we're in an area where we're close to a structure or anything where we have to do small blast, but it would stretch out over, you know, two blasts a day. But knowing that ahead of time, we can certainly make our schedule work. You know, if we got small ones, we can combine them with a larger one. My concern in the hours of operations is not a problem. My concern is when you have a blast window, it goes back to the same thing that we were talking about. If we have a breakdown, or if we have bad holes, you know, we'll pre-drill these blasts the day before. And then when we come in, if we have a storm overnight, you know, we may have to boil holes, ream holes, you know, fix the shot in order to do it. So these windows are sometimes pretty hard to meet through the geology of the rock. There seems storms coming through. There's just so many things that can stop us. Typically, we aim, get there in the morning, we'll get the shot loaded, we will shoot usually between, you know, nine in the morning until 11, 1130, and then we have another blast in the afternoon. Missing up, especially missing a window in the afternoon is, and not being able to shoot after that, you have explosives in the ground and no one can leave the job, you know, the blaster until everything is fired. So that would be spending a night there. But typically, you know, we, as far as warning the neighbors when they expect it, we also have warning whistles that we blow each blast, so they know it's coming. And after the first three whistles, there's a five minute warning. Then we blow two more that's a one minute. And then after the shot is fired, we go in and make sure the area is safe. We'll blow one long whistle, meaning all clear. I think what we want to stay focused on here is what is best practice. And what I'm hearing from main drilling and blasting, I think they've been pretty clear about what their best practice is. And, you know, perhaps we can address this by saying this is the blast window with the exception of a safety issue. And that might be one way to address it. I mean, I worked with these guys for eight weeks on another project. We had one incident that went 20 minutes after four. That was it. It's not their practice. So I guess why they're hedging a bit, because we're talking about safety. I mean, I can tell the framework to stop hammering it whatever I want. When we're dealing with explosives and this sort of work, I think we want to make sure that we're not pigeonholing these guys into a place where, you know, or if there was a safety issue, they they're stuck where they have to stop. So some language around that that can be addressed. The other thing, too, is we have other like DOT rules. We have to go by the guys can only be out on the job for so long because they're hauling hazardous material. So it is in our best interest to as early as we can in the morning and noon and get off site for the guys. You could come Friday, you're running short on hours, you know, and we come into other legality issues. So I'm feeling like that's pretty good explanation and seems reasonable. What do other board members think? No, I agree. I agree. I'm happy with having a little bit bigger of a window. I think and it sounds like, you know, the thing I'm trying to avoid happening is that we just never know when it's going to occur. And there could be, you know, I like to get times when we know it's not going to be happening. You know, if it's like give them a nine to 12 window for the first of the morning blast and a one to four. And then we know there might be the occasional exception. But this way, you know, neighbors don't have to say everything. They're going to be like having lunch outside during the summer. And suddenly going to go, my God, there's a blast going to go on, you know.  And we don't want to circumvent safety and protocols and standards. But we would like to get some sort of controls over the timeframes that these can be occurring so that, you know, the community knows when to when to expect it. Dan, did you have something? Thank you, Mark. Did you have something to add to that, Dan? Yeah, I guess my only thing would be, and I'm no expert on this, obviously, is you can set the windows there. But again, it's an endeavor thing. You could have some, I don't want to be like, oh, they lost their first shot. It's 1205. They can only do one for the entire day. Let's put endeavor language to nine to 12, one to four. Things can go quickly, maybe, and they get them both done early. You know, as long as it's basically twice a day, with endeavoring to set a morning time period and afternoon, but I wouldn't want to penalize or lock them in a box, you know. Okay. Any other comments before we move on? And, you know, I'm sort of, as a neighbor who would be living there, I understand wanting to have a more limited timeframe. But I also understand the reality of the blasting and limiting them too much could lead to other issues that are sort of unfair. I think sort of a window between like nine to four where they do two blasts sounds reasonable and putting it a provision that says, you know, barring an extenuating circumstance or a safety issue, blasting potentially could go past that only under that circumstance would be reasonable. Okay. All right. Marla, does that give us some something to work with? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Moving on. I think that was the last comment. So, board members, do before we open this up for public comment, do we have any other questions for the applicant? I guess, sorry. Can I just go back? I guess we didn't really have any discussion of this sort of one removal question and answer. They had addressed this technical review or comment about five paragraph locations and the velocities. And we've talked about time. I guess I should have put a comment, red comment in here because there was this thousand foot radius on the bottom of page six. I was wondering if the board was inclined to require a thousand foot radius for the 250 foot radius that is more of the state standard. The technical reviewer, I sort of explained, he thought the thousand foot radius was a very site specific recommendation rather than a general comment. Is it practical? Well, isn't it, it's just like probably what an email blast or a text blast, you know, to however the people within the 1000 foot radius decide they want to be called. I mean, I guess you can do a phone tree or whatever an automated call and it all becomes automated at that point. It's not like you're calling every neighbor. But I agree. I think the thousand foot, especially given the sensitivity of this project and the fact that, you know, 250 has no one in it. So no neighbors who are all here concerned are going to be in the notification window. I think going out to a thousand feet is reasonable for this project and location. As long as the requirement does not include pre blast surveys within a thousand feet, that would be excessive. Generally speaking, the state standard for pre blast surveys is 250. We're happy to do a thousand foot radius on a notification. That's not a problem. Okay. That's clear to me.  No, that's clear to me. And Mr. Avery's comment makes sense. Yeah. Okay. Marla, does that give you what you need? Yes. Thank you. Okay. Can I ask Mr. Happy if that's, is it relatively easy to get people signed up or how do you, if somebody says, Hey, I never got a phone call. I have a landline. How does it work? Practically speaking. So good question, Dan. Um, yeah, we'll look, we'll to bend to, uh, make those connections to our residents within the thousand foot radius, um, in the city as well. If we can't get to that point, we will get their phone numbers and they will be on an automated call list that will get triggered one hour before each blast. Absolutely. I have a one hour notice that we will be blasting within the hour. So yeah, we can, we can certainly add or, or delete people on a, on a shot by shot basis. If you guys feel the need to add an additional neighbor that's just outside that thousand foot, that's something you guys can relay or the city can relate to Ben and we can simply add them onto the call list on a daily basis. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions before we move on to public comment? Okay. Um, who would like to be the first member of the public to comment again, focusing on issues that haven't already been raised because the board has read and heard all of the comments that have been filed to date. Mr. Bosange, you have the floor. Oh, thank you, Don. Thank you very much. And thanks to all of you. Uh, and Don, I am going to take your advice and not rehash the issues that you're very well aware of. And, um, there's, but I want you to know that there is still way too much community backlash to blasting right now because of such a new issue. And the, some of the other key issues in particular, of course, traffic as well. And I don't think you guys want to approve something. And I don't think BlackRock wants to move forward without some degree of neighborhood understanding and support. Without that, um, my guess is it would be bad for you and terrible for the reputation of BlackRock. And I remember a year ago when we said from the very beginning that we did not wish to stop this project. I thought of that the other night and, um, we just wanted to make it fit into the landscape and be a little more responsible. We've been trying to get definition of that word responsible. No one wants to face an appeal. But mind you, we are ready to go. And if we do believe that there has been no give and take or no adjustments, we have 85 homeowners here. They've been alerted. The homeowners associations are planned assessments. They're ready to go. We don't want to do that. But there's been no back and forth, no questions of clarification from you guys or the developer. So the neighborhood still doesn't feel heard and still feels that it's been a wall of silence with only written comments. And I know that you have said, Don, you've taken our concerns very seriously. I appreciate that. But without conversation, your comment doesn't sink in and doesn't really feel real or sincere. Further, looking at the most recent application from BlackRock, we still see 32 homes and we still see two traffic intersections on Park Road. And a blasting plan now which raises far more questions than it answers. So we will not be satisfied until you at least answer the four questions that were given to all of you May 5th over a month ago. And those, by the way, are yes, no questions. We don't expect a lot of detail. We just need to know that you understand our questions. But again, continued silence tells us that, you know, you're not on board and you're not listening to us. I think the big overall question that remains for me is why you would not wish to engage with us, the way you've engaged with the developer when you can.  I think if you do that, you would go a long way to restoring the trust. And you can make that happen. So right now, there's very little trust. And quite frankly, it seems that you and the developer are working side by side to push this proposal through. That's how it feels. So please answer the four questions that have been given to you over a month ago and give us your reasoning for not requiring any of the adjustments to the latest application with the one exception of housing designs, which you've worked on, particularly now with blasting. As I can tell you, the three months, that's a new problem with road closures, removal. Talking about neighbors that are 100, 200 yards away, you have our attorney's letter on that. We need to hear you respond to this and respond to his concerns as well. So please, no more silence. Restore the trust and avoid an appeal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bosange. I will once again repeat the fact that our job as a board is to adjudicate the applications, which by its very nature involves a great deal of discussion with the applicant. We do when you say that we don't understand your question, believe me, we understand your questions. We have heard them. We understand them. Our job is to determine if this project conforms to the LDRs. The process does not lend itself to back and forth. I understand your frustration, but please understand we hear you and we have responded in many ways to your concerns. So thank you for your comments. I appreciate them. Anyone else? Is there anyone else who would like to speak? I have a couple of questions. Sure. What is your name, please? James McLean. Mr. McLean, go ahead. This ledger, they're going to blast out. Are they going to truck it off or are they going to crush it and approximately how many cubic yards of ledger do they anticipate? This is not, Mr. McLean, this is not an opportunity for question and answers. I don't have that information. I believe they will be trucking it out. Maybe that's a simple answer. Isn't that right, Mr. Avery? I would defer to Joe Happy on that. I don't know what cubic yardage we're talking about and whether we would look to put that back in his road base or not. It's a question I got we would be able to answer this evening. Okay. So, Mr. McLean, thank you for your comment. Do you have anything to add to that? No. You will have an answer for that, right? Sometime. I'm not sure we will. Marlon, I think I saw something about what you were doing with material in your blasting plan. Is that true? Do I remember that correctly? Mr. Happy, do you have anything to say about that in your blasting plan? So, yes, we're just a subcontractor. Basically, we fracture the rock. So, it could be, you know, you can dig to your subgrades and install your utilities and road from there. That would be up to then what he does with material. We just leave it in place. And it sounds like the applicant isn't able to answer those questions at this point. So, are they going to bring a crusher in? That is the question that I do not have an answer to without an understanding of how much material there would be there, how much material is needed on site. I just simply can't answer that. It's usually a very fine line of when it becomes economically feasible or advisable to do that. So, I don't know, Brian, if you can add anything there, but it's just, I just don't know. Okay. Or with no plan. Mr. Besage, it's actually not your turn to talk right now. Please respect the process. I would ask if there are any other public comments. John, can I weigh in here? I would like to ask Mr. Currier, as the civil engineer, can you respond to that? Because I do, I think that that actually is an important point because there's not an insignificant amount of ledging. We had quite a bit of discussion about the blasting plan and the hours of operation, but then you get to, you know, what are we going to do with it? Is it going to be crushed on site? Is it going to be hauled away? Is it going to be used for fill? And those things are actually pretty important to at least my review of the project because it goes to, you know, if it's getting crushed on site, is it going to be happening during the blasting period of three months, or is it going to be happening after the fact? You know, so I would appreciate a response on that. So the goal is to use as much fill on site as possible. When you blast rock, there's an inherent expansion factor. It depends what type of, you know, rock makeup you have, but, you know, the goal is to use as much of it on site as we possibly can. Having said that, this will be a net cut site and there will be rock trucked out during construction. The exact amount depends on the amount of overburden, but I would make the assumption this will be a net cut site. The exact numbers, you know, especially when you deal with ledge expansion factors, the amount of overburden, you know, can be project by project, but the goal is always to keep as much on the site as we possibly can. I would also add that due to the nature of the site, so in order to meet this three-month window of blasting, we're also going to have to blast through the basements at the same time and you can't leave the site littered with 12-foot deep holes. So what will end up happening is the blasting will occur, but it will remain in the hole. So unlike another site I'm familiar with in South Bromwich, where there was lots of storage on site available, so there were kind of these giant rock piles that got created and it went itself to onsite crushing and going back into the road. Just due to the nature of this, we're not going to have that sort of volume above ground because as the blasting occurs, unless the house is being constructed, we won't extract it and leave a giant hole on the ground just due to safety, what have you. So I think there's going to be less rock moving around onsite and obviously that will roll out at the pace of sales, so it potentially is a combination of all the above. Thank you, Ben. Again, just don't know. Mark, does that satisfy you? Yeah, that's... Thank you. I see someone raising their hand. Would you like to make a public comment? I will. What is your name, please? I am concerned about the water tower. What is your name, please? My name is Alan Elizato. I live on Nicholas Circle, directly across from the project, right underneath the water tower. I'm wondering if the water tower people have been contacted about this, whether there's some... whether they feel positive about this and I'm concerned about what happens if something happens as a result of the blasts to our neighborhood. Can you comment on that, please? I think your comment is directed at the board, so again, this is not a question and answer session, but I will say that it's a good point and I'm wondering if the applicant, what you want to say in response to that. We are open to extending pre-blast surveys to the residents of Mr. Elizato's neighborhood and to the water tower, so despite the fact that those are outside of the 250-foot range, they are the closest structures to the blast site and we do understand the utility nature of the water tower, so we are more than happy to have that work done. Obviously, as being the closest structures, there will be a seismograph located someplace between the blast site and the water tower because normally, and Joe can correct me if I'm wrong, but normally those seismographs are placed at the nearest structure, which would be one of the homes of Mr. Elizato's neighborhood, so we're happy to do that at our expense and that should alleviate anybody's concerns that there would be damage that was not caught as part of the process. Thank you. Oh, sorry, Don. Go ahead. It's Brian. Brian Currier. I would just also add to what Ben said, is that in South Burlington, the Champlain Water District and the South Burlington Water Department are essentially the same entity and they reviewed our plans. We had to coordinate with them for connecting with the water main on Dorset Street, water pressure in the area. They reviewed this plan, preliminary and final, and we've addressed all their comments. Thank you. That's reassuring. Let's move on. Other public comments? Yes. I see a hand up. I can't hear you. Elizabeth Fitzgerald, we can't hear you. Sometimes it helps to turn your sound off and back on again. Can you turn your sound back off and on again? I'm sorry, we're not able to hear you. Can I just know, Elizabeth, if your comments are short, if you will make an exception, if you want to write them in the chat box, you can also send me an email and then I can send those comments to the board. I'll put my email address in the chat box. Thanks, Marla. Okay. I don't see a name. Randall Kaye. Hi. Thanks for taking my question. My wife and I have lived on Old Cross Road, which is one of the two streets to get to Golf Course Road, the other being Park Road. We've lived on Old Cross Road since before the golf course was built. One of the things that they had to do blasting along the, I think it's the 17th and 18th fairway in order to make the golf course exist as it does today. So by way of background, my question is, and again, I don't need an answer tonight, has, I assume the city has come up with a suitable identification program in case in the course of blasting, there's damage to any of the structures, not just the water tower, but to individual residences. Again, I don't need a specific answer, but you can just say, yes, we've done that and we're looking into it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, hold on a second, please. Marla, is, do you know the quick answer to that or shall we look into it as part of our conversation? I actually don't know what the word indemnification means. Mr. Kaye. I understand the question. I don't know that we have one per se for every construction project, but I think we need to discuss this. Well, I think it would not so much be the city's responsibility in this case, but when the golf course was blasting, they provided notification to residents such as my set, our home on Old Cross Road. And then, you know, there, I think there was some minor damage was a hairline crack, which was not, I think we may have had a structural engineer look at it before and after. But anyway, it's something that it's just, again, nobody's, this is not to hurt somebody or anything like that. It's just that you should plan that something unexpected may happen. And so that the developer might need to have some indemnification bond, surety guarantee. I'm sure there's some lawyers who know the correct wording for this. That just in case like somebody's home is damaged as a result of the, these rocks are all related all around here. So if something happens that people will be taken care of, just like any neighbor would, you know, if you accidentally cut something or, you know, or you take down the tree, you take care of it. Ben, under Act 250, are you required to provide some sort of protection to the local neighbors, if I'm correct? This all falls under main drilling and blastings insurance. So the long and short, Joe may be able to, although he's he's a blaster, he's not an attorney, may be able to at least touch on that. And again, in our experience, even when there have been problems, it is not a problem. I've never received a second phone call from anyone ever when using main drilling and blasting. Joe, do you want to just touch on that?  Just people are asking on how the, you know, if there's unintended damage to a home, you know, what your insurance structure is that takes care of that? Yeah, sure.  So what will happen if a claim comes into you being our customer? We will get our safety department involved with that. We will then send that individual claim form that will be filled out and sent back to the main drilling and blasting. And we will carry out that claim form appropriately for each instance that may occur. Thank you. Thank you. Other comments? Mrs. Lafever, Lafevera. Lafever, right. Tell us what's on your mind and please limit it to new comments because we've already heard from you several times. Okay, thank you. At the staff notes for today, which I always read before the meeting, which helps me to prepare, the staff has recommended that this meeting be closed, which would end all hearings, and then it would go to a vote to the board to deny or approve this entire project. And I would really strongly say that given some of the huge issues that have come up in the last couple of times or even today, which were well known to Ben Avery months, if not years ago, and yet they didn't bring it up. They didn't bring up that there was extensive ledge that would be blasting until April 6th, I think it was. That's not a long time. In the meantime, we haven't been able to hear discussions about it except for the limited amount today. We need a lot more information and education about that. It's very scary. We need more time. And it would be really making people furious, honestly, because it would be it would really be an insult to the intelligence of the neighbors who have been studying and following this and others who, when they hear that first blast, will say, oh, I didn't know this was even happening. So to protect them from their their ways, I'd ask the two not close this today. And not just because of blasting. There are other solved issues. Other questions. I'm just going to list a couple, say not close it and take about continue it. Please, please do that. And there are some things that, for instance, even about the blasting. Earlier on, there was concern about the noise that all of this and it's not just the blasting. It's if they have to grind rocks, break them up in some way, which I've tried to educate myself online and watch some videos. And boy, there's a hell of a lot of noise that that has to happen. And then they have to load trucks to take things away, they've already said. And yet the concern about noise and extended noise, the board wants to allow this, even though they could get by with one month or two months as the operators have said, they extend three months because what if the project is delayed by something? Wouldn't that be something? Why extend the public inconvenience and fear and danger for another month? I didn't hear the word public come up in anything that was said tonight about that. I didn't hear it. I'm just astonished. And this is after knowing what happened last summer at the other end of the street up by Gulf Forest Road, when black rock was blasting for more than a month, did not respond to any public urging to give deadlines, just broke the deadlines. And I've heard board members bring that up and say that was really extreme to have the neighbors subjected to that. And yet where are we now? Where is that discussion there? Okay, just a couple more things. The vibration levels that are permitted for blasting are a set LDR regulation, as you all know. And yet there's been this behind the scenes in print debate among all the parties, except of course us and even the board, about what the standard should be, the standard is set, why people are debating it and saying they can waive it or they can change it or whatever, or they can wait for neighbors to complain. That is actually stated as a criterion for when a vibration level might be lowered. But we have to complain then in order to make that happen. That's just not the way it is listed in the rules. And I guess finally, you say, there is no indication of a seismographic reading to be taken up in the direction going south from that construction site when blasting is going on. There's one right across the street from it, and there's one quite always down that, but it's on the same level as Dorset Street. Please consider looking to the direction of Park Road going south, going up the hill towards Gulf Force Road where many people live and deserve to have something recording the level of vibrations for the future, for the present, and just to have that as a reassurance that you are really paying attention to that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Hearing none, I'll go back to the board. Hello, I'm sorry. I'm not sure how to do this, but I'm just in general question. Well, this is not really a question and answer session. It's a public comment session. Well, it's a comment. One of my comments is about gas. What is your name, please? Sue O'Neill, 120 Park Road. Okay. And my concern is about all the blasting and our gas piping. I worry about that all the time. Our gas piping like is, are we in danger here? I'm not sure if anybody's thought about that. I'll end my conversation right now. Thank you. That sounds like a pretty serious concern. Ben, what can you say about that? I'm sure that's been the blasters know all about that, but... Yeah, I would defer to Joe to comment on how they deal with all utilities. It's not just gas. It's all the utilities that run through. Joe? Yeah. So what we'll do is we'll call in Vermont Dixie and that will notify all the utilities within the area where the blast is taking place. Each utility company will address the distance from the nearest blast, their utility line, and in some instances with the gas company who will have to provide a blast plan, which we have provided to BlackRock, and they will give us the allowance to blast based on our criteria in the proximity of their utility lines. Vermont gas is very strict.  I'm sorry. I'm sorry, could you please let Pat respond? Yeah. Go ahead, Pat. Okay. So we contact Vermont gas a couple of days prior to when we're going to start blasting, and we speak to them every day when near their line, and they come after we blast with their truck, and we call it a sniffer truck, and they just drive along the line, and everything is inspected, and we give them paperwork on our vibrations, what we've got near the gas line. So it's very closely monitored. Thank you. That's helpful to know. So I'm back on again, and yes, to O'Neill from 120 Park Road with all the disruption over here on the golf course, and ST Ireland blasting. I'm very concerned about the older piping in my home.  Honestly, it's scary. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? All right. Do I have to raise my hand to do this in so fast? I don't see you, so I don't see a hand, but if you'd like. Sorry. This is Beth Sigmund. Hi, Beth. I just turned on my camera. There I am. Okay. I just like to make a comment. I'm listening in on this session on wheeler park just by, you know, the wheeler parcel just by accident, because I want to do the next thing. I just want to comment that I think the fact that the board has not been fully informed, and the board has not fully considered all the potential ramifications of blasting at that site, the impact that I don't have on the gas lines, the impact that it might have on the nearby water tower, etc., to be indicative of the fact that this process is very rushed. I mean, I haven't been paying close attention to be honest, but it seems to me that the process has been rushed that BlackRock came forward and said they needed to blast only quite recently. And clearly, all the potential impacts haven't been considered by the DRB. The fact that we're relying on the blasting company to tell us that it's all going to be fine. There aren't going to be any ramifications for the gas lines and the electrical lines and the utilities and the foundations of people's homes that we should just trust that their $10 million of umbrella coverage is going to be sufficient that we could all just relax and not be concerned about it. So, those are my comments. Thank you. Any other members of the public that would like to make comments going once, going twice? Okay. So, board, what is- Yes. Excuse me, I was on- How are you? May I say one more thing? I don't know who you are. Sorry, Karen LaFever. Yes, you may.  Sorry. There? Yes, we got you. This is short. Since the very first page of the application way back when for BlackRock, and I've never heard it discussed at all, they had given a period for this project from 2021 to 2026. Why does it take them that many years to work on a project of that size? That could mean that they stop, they come and go, they do some other project, which they have to do in the middle of it, and we never really know what's happened. And it could extend. They could conceivably be done in the shorter time, but has the board ever considered asking that question and seeing what the rationale is for that many years? Thank you for your comment. Marla, do you have anything to add or ask before we ask the board what they would like to do? I do not. I have a lot of information that has been provided, and if the board wants to revisit any of that, it's been in your packets, and we can always discuss what the board thinks of the information during the deliberations. Can I ask a question of staff? Sure. The project to the south on Spears Dorset that required a lot of blasting. I've heard a lot of the public comment about concerns about the noise, etc. Do you know if there were any claims filed for damages to nearby homes? Do you know if there were any documented gas leaks? Do you know if there were any documented damage to sewer and water infrastructure? I'm not aware of any. Nothing of those sorts were brought to my attention in relation to the permit that was issued. Thank you. Board, we have a choice to make. If you feel, if you believe you need more information to help you participate in the deliberation, we could continue this hearing, or if you believe that we have heard everything we need to hear to make a deliberation, we could close the hearing. Can I make a comment? Sure, Mark. Okay. You know, I just want to make not a blanket statement or a broad stroke, but just to address a few of the comments that have been made by some of the members of the public. You know, in regards to the blasting issue, yes, it was sort of brought up in April, but it's not something we've taken lightly by any stretch of the imagination. In both technical review, we had a third party reviewer review main drilling and blasting plan come back with recommendations, which we as the board have reviewed and implemented, and we will be reviewing further, you know, and implementing what we feel is needed. It's far more than historically the board really has ever kind of reviewed or done. It's more generally falls under, you know, sort of construction management when it comes to these projects. So, you know, it's kind of like a lesson learned. We did hear the issues, we did hear the concerns. And, you know, a lot of the fears are perception versus reality. I'm not glossing over them. I get it, but, you know, these things are done, and main drilling and blasting is a very highly reputable company. And you hear the plan, you hear the management plan for it, and, you know, the way they're going to be dealing with it. And that's something that we, like I said, we rarely as a board address. So it's not something we're not taking, you know, we're taking lightly. We're taking it very seriously. And in regards to a lot of the other comments and concerns that have been brought up, you know, some of them are comments and concerns and some are issues that we as a board will address and take and some of them we will take up very seriously. Some are just comments that we will take under advisement, but I don't feel that we as a board need to address and answer every single thing that's been posed to us. You know, we're reviewing this project as or yeah, and we're taking public comment on the project. I personally feel that I have enough information. I think we will be deliberating about this and reviewing the the the decision and the conditions. And I'm comfortable at this point with the information we have at hand. Thank you, Mark. Other board members? I'll make a comment. Go ahead, Alyssa. That was well said, Mark. Thank you. Dan? Yeah, yeah, the the the review by night consulting engineers, correct? Yeah. That was very helpful. And then the drilling and blastings, you know, feedback on the comments. So that was good. I learned a lot. That's a lot of depth. Again, just if I'm capturing this correctly as a new board member, we've got all this information. We've got the public comments. We've got the third party review. We have the traffic study. We have the public comment, the concerns, the photographs, the input about nearby projects that had blasting. You know, and so and and the third party reviews again paid for by Mr. Avery. If I'm correct, that's how the process we asked the applicant that. So I mean, I feel we have enough. And again, I just, you know, if I'm appropriate that, you know, the board will digest this and we will vote one way or the other. And if there are approvals, there will be likely conditions, you know, which which which I've been talked about, you know, these time frames, things like that and notification to the thousand feet or things like that. And there could be others as as any experienced developer knows, there's there's things, their conditions are added on and all or it's or it's turned down for whatever reason we choose. So thank you, Dan. Other comments from the board. Well, what is your pleasure board? Would someone like to make a motion about proceeding? Yes, then I will make a motion that we close sd 2106 of 550 Park Road final flat application. I will second. Thank you. Is there any discussion about the motion? All in favor? Hi. Hi. Hi, Jim, you're on. Okay. So the motion is carried and the hearing is closed. The final flat is closed and the board will next deliberate. So thank you all for your time and attention. And we will move on to the next item on the agenda. Thanks to the board. I appreciate all of your time and input. Thank you. I second that. Thank you, guys. I'm sorry. Did someone say something? Joe was just saying I said I second that. Thank you guys very much for your time. Okay, the next. My mom chair, I look to thank the public. I know that weighed in. I appreciate their comments and a lot of good detail written comments, a lot of good information for the board to digest. That's the way the process works. It's absolutely. I understand as a policy person, sometimes it's be nice that this was a legislative process, but it's not a legislative process. It is what it is and it will go from there. So and as chair, I agree with Dan that people have been very attentive and spent a lot of time crafting some very articulate comments. And it has been helpful for us. So thank you. All right. Moving on to the fourth agenda item. I'm sorry. Let me read this. Final flat application SD 2115 of Jim golf, LLC to amend a previously approved plan for 11 lot residential subdivision. The amendment consists of modifying the tree preservation area for the purpose of changing the stormwater treatment system and updating the tree and for inventory to reflect existing conditions on the long drive. So I think it would be helpful to have. I know we have a great staff report, but I think it might be helpful for everyone. If we had, I know I certainly would appreciate some contextual historical information about what what happened at long drive. I know we approve this application sometime in the last year, but what's gone on. Delilah, you're probably the person who can help us with this. Would you be willing to kind of update us on what this is all about, please? So I think my camera's on, yes. No, no, we asked Delilah. I'm sorry. That would be the moment that somebody's the cleaner.  So the history of the approval is that the long drive project was issued a permit in spring of 2020. It had been approved in the early 2000s. It had been litigated through to 2018. As part of that litigation, there were some documents developed related to the tree preservation. It's an 11 lot subdivision with 10 lots to be developed for homes, one plot to be preserved for woodiness. And during the litigation part of the settlement was that they would follow a handbook that was developed by an arborist about how to preserve the wooded knoll upon which the development sits, which is let me just get my little drawing tool going here. This area here, and that the lots would be developed to be interior facing into this circle and to be sort of secluded from the outside by the existing trees in the intervening years until they got developed, you know, the trees grew. So there was some work undertaken last year. The project began as, you know, there was ledge removal to go on at that site. There was no blasting associated with this site. It was all done through chiseling and jackhammers, which created its own noise that the residents had to deal with last summer. And so they were proceeding with developing the infrastructure. That's what the work was that was what the permit was issued for. It was issued for the roadway and infrastructure work to begin the lots. There was one permit given for a lot over here that was subsequently withdrawn. And in September of last year, due to compliance issues with the permit, with the approval that was previously given, a stop work order was issued and and we are still working with the applicant on remedying that stop work order. And so we want to go on to describe how where what this application is for. Yeah. So this application is under their initial approval. They had proposed main force main sewers and due to changes in the requirements for storm to how you deal with stormwater, they are now proposing a new stormwater management system, which will move away from the force main sewers and require some swales and which means that the easements that they had originally proposed under the initial approval are changing. And they want to now clear some of the areas that were to remain that were to remain wooded and to and to instead provide surface swales and treatment for the stormwater, the new stormwater treatment. That's the nutshell. Thank you, Delilah. So I would just remind the board that the subject of tonight's hearing, you know, obviously there's a lot of background to this project, the subject of that tonight's here. And then there's all the compliance issues in the stop work order and the city's zoning enforcement arm is working on that. The development review board is the Quadra Digital Body, which is working on the application before you tonight, which is to modify their stormwater swales. There's one other component Delilah didn't mention, which is to update their tree inventory, basically to reflect that the trees change over time and now the trees are bigger and some of them blew over and that sort of thing. So basically true up their tree inventory to represent what exists on the site and to remove some easements for sewer force meeting. Yes, exactly. Thank you, Marla. So again, this is a final plat application. Who it does anyone have any disclosures or need to recuse? Madam Chair, not a not a recusal. I do know Dave Marshall from my capacity when I was helping out on the Shelburne zoning office and they're doing their DRB coordination. I do not feel affect my ability to judge the application fairly. Thank you, Dan. Any other? Any others? Okay. Who is here for the applicant? For the record on Dave Marshall from the Civil Engineering Associates. Dave. Who else? Anyone else? That's it tonight. Okay. Dave, we've sworn you in but this is a new, I'm going to do this again, just to cover us. Do you swear to tell the truth? The whole truth is nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you, Dave. Okay. We are going to start walking through the comments and the first staff comment is a suggestion, is kind of an orientation to where the trees are that will need to be removed or have been removed or I guess will need to be removed. And a suggestion that board members take a walk by and check it out, which I've done. I don't know if other people have had an opportunity to do it. Although I must say it was hard for me to tell exactly what trees were there but there's a lot of trees there. And I didn't want to interfere with anyone's golf game. So where do we go with this comment? Don, my purpose in this comment was more to do exactly what you did, to have the board go out and look and see that this is a sort of generally wooded area. And think about the fact that the applicant is proposing to remove 17 trees and think about the scale of 17 trees in the context of this wooded area. So no action required other than just wanting to make sure we had a good vision going into this conversation. So my question is if they need a stormwater pond and they need to excavate the land to do that, what other choice would they have but to remove the trees that are in the way of that happening? And maybe I would. Oh, I'm sorry. Dave Marshall here, just interrupting rudely. I wanted to first say that Marlon and Paul did a nice job with this staff report. A lot of information was required to pass as well as what this application requests of the board. So again, another careful reading of the staff report I think will be helpful with regard to, again, where this project started back in 2001 and where we are today, Delilah did a nice job again summarizing the fact that it started through the process. Ultimately it was denied by the city of preliminary plaque and hence started its litigation parade for the next 16 years. So ultimately we ended up before the board back in 2018 with ultimately the final plaid application that ultimately was approved by the board. And with that, we then started working through the remaining permits that are necessary. So first goal was to satisfy the city's requirements and then out of all that acquire the necessary state and active 50 pool. So we did that and one thing that actually happened in those 16 years, there was a significant change in the way the state manages stormwater run to the point where when the project started, the stormwater rules were all eight pages long. Now the introduction is that long. It is now 250 plus pages of very detailed, very good policy in regards to how to stand and stormwater runoff. But in the meantime what this particular project needed to do after making the attorneys very busy for a long period of time was to actually bring it up to date. So in the perfect world, all of those things would have been before the city in regards to getting all of those things reconciled, but first things first after trying to go through all of the litigation, goal number one of the client was to get the city approved. So once that was in place, then all the other components of the state and active 50 permit were put into play. And what we found is that the stormwater rules required improved mitigation as far as stormwater runoff compared to the original concepts back in 2001. And out of all that, it required that we place some stormwater management swales in a way that would collect stormwater runoff and convey them in the proper direction. So when we worked with the stormwater people, we identified the fact that we wanted to basically place these swales between the trees to the best of our ability. And for the most part, we've been able to do that in the field. However, being both some topographic challenges, bedrock, outcrops, we just found that there were a couple of locations that would benefit by the removal of the tree in order to basically create this particular stormwater infrastructure in a manner consistent with the state design standards. So with that, we found basically the Sarer's worked really hard in the field, worked with the Arborist on again identifying the most appropriate path and also where we did need to impact trees that we identified those trees that had least value. So one thing that I think is very important when we actually take a look at the Arborist report part of this application is that he included photographs and neither in the winter. So you can actually see something you can't see much once the leaves come out. But nonetheless, what the Arborist report does is shows a picture of every tree or group of trees. And you can see that in each photo that this area as Don indicates is there's a lot of trees. So, you know, the statements that the Arborist ultimately makes in regards to his professional opinion that actually the tree removal will actually give the opportunity for this particular area perhaps to actually be improved in regards to tree health is another discussion point later on in the staff. But nonetheless, certainly any one of the board members is free to go out on the site and take a look, see its character of the area. But again, if you want to get a leg up on generally what you'd be seeing and this is again a photo taken in the winter is again take a look at the Arborist report and you can get a flavor and the fact that this is, you know, unlike some projects that have 20 trees and somebody says I'm taking down 17, this is a project site that has perhaps 300 trees and we were proposing to take down 17 to basically facilitate the stormwater management system on this particular site. So that's at least the big picture in regards to how stormwater is basically evolved into this particular discussion process. The other thing that Marla points out is that the original tree survey for this particular property was done in 2003 and it represented a mapping of all the trees within the developed proposed development area and it was a very serious undertaking with regard to understanding what's out there and again how to work within the preferred specimen trees and again also identifying what has what's not so healthy. So in the meantime, I mean the 17 years that has occurred since that original tree survey, we all recognized even once construction started after the the initial issuance of the building permit that things have changed out there whether the blowdowns from mother nature, whether it be just trees dying or actually new trees regenerating in the area, we found that the 2003 information was truly data. So the applicants take it upon themselves to basically have this area remapped and basically update the tree protection plan so that when somebody goes out in the field, you're not scratching your head going, is that really or is it so? Anyways, it's now a much better tool. It actually has additional guidances in regards to basically how this particular area is managed and staff is recommended that those particular things be adopted by the board as a as conditions of operation on this property moving forward. And obviously we propose that too just because it is part of the application package. So we would like to think that again we're creating a better tool for both staff and the applicant and any owners on this particular property to be able to understand exactly what is the expectation in this particular area. But at the same time with hat in hand, we recognize that the stormwater was a little was a lagger in this particular thing. But again, we've worked really hard to basically minimize number of trees that are necessary to be removed and facilitate the proper management of stormwater runoff from this particular site. So that's that's my narrative in a nutshell. And I'm very happy to take a look at the other comments within the staff report. Oh, here we go. Perfect. Yes, no, I was just going to say that the next few pages, this happens to be one particular page where we've cited the proposed bio retention area. And in this particular case, this was a previously cleared area, it was one that was utilized by the golf course to try to improve sunlight into the 13th green complex area. So it had been an area that historically had had trees removed. And we just took this opportunity rather than letting the scrum to continue to grow up like this. And occasionally having to be cut back that we'd actually cite some of the stormwater management facilities in this area. So that's what that particular photograph is intended to be to describe. But if we could kind of thumb through some of the next pages, it will help everybody understand the character of the area. And out of all that, we can spend as much or as little time as you want. So what's on screen here? Oh, that's good. Can I interject? I'm sorry. So we do have other agenda items. And I think this may be a case of it might be good to let the board drive their questions, because we may find that the board is not concerned. And if the board is concerned, then we will hop back into the portion of Dave's narrative as appropriate. But I wouldn't want to waste the board's time on things that they may not be concerned about. So Marla knows me all too well. I like to talk too much. So at this point, I would defer to the chair in regards to moving forward with the application. Thank you, Dave. Thank you. Okay. I can't stand on my head. We need to reorient the screen so I can read it. There we go. Okay. So we're on comment number two. Thank you, Delilah. And again, comment number two was, you know, sort of setting up the context. The applicant wrote a report. You all have read it. It says, you know, what they believe impacts of the project will be. And I kind of feel that Dave just addressed number three. Do board members have any questions, any additional questions about why they believe this criterion will be met by the proposed amendment? No, I'm okay with it as proposed. Okay. And Dave, am I correct that the inventory updating the inventory has already happened? That is correct. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Just one more thing just on item three. I think if somebody had asked me the question, I would say to go to page two, I'm not going to ask you to do that now, but it's part of your deliberations. If you go into the middle part of page two of the arborist report, it will help you understand the reasons why the tree removal will not create an undue adverse impact with regard to this particular area.  Nonetheless, undo is the critical component in regards to understanding again how what the nature of the changes will be. Okay. Thank you. So board members, do you have any questions for Dave at this point in time regarding that? Okay. I think we can move on to number four. Please. Thank you. If the board accepts the proposed tree removal, staff recommends board consider requiring replacement tree plantings of similar species around the exterior of the lot to replace the lost screening. Can I ask for a specific page to be shown? It might be helpful. Sure. This is in addition to the current inventory, Marla. Right. So the page. We should show. Sorry. What happened here? Oh, I'm sorry. Page 20 of the packet. So they're removing these trees that are shown as red dots. And the comment is, should there be any trees to enhance the screening of the interior areas where there will be homes to make up for the trees that are removed. And so on site visit, Mark, I know lives near there. I have done a site visit in the past. This wasn't intended to be a particularly opinionated question. More genuine. Where is the board's temperature on this? Mark, what were your thoughts? My thoughts on this is, you know, these 10 new lots are kind of a given. It was kind of pushed on us. And we as the board sort of reviewed, you know, and followed all the advice and all the guidance of the court order. And sort of, you know, there was a couple things that came up in the earlier reviews, especially when it came to the adjacent parcel to the existing houses on Golf Course Road, you know, and trying to address how to alleviate those neighbors' concerns as new houses went in right in their backyards. But when it comes to the sort of, I guess, the screening from the Golf Course to these new homes, it's the entire Golf Course is the backs of these houses exposed to the fairways. So I'm not, again, this is a personal thing because, yes, I live in the area. I live in, you know, Oak Creek Village. So I walk it all the time. And it was an anomaly, you know, and it's still going to be somewhat of an anomaly, but you can have houses in there. So I think anything we can do to add some screening will be fine and will be good. And it'll be beneficial. But the reality is, is we're putting in 10 homes in the middle of this treed peninsula, you know, we're not going to end up being 10 homes hidden in this enclave of trees.  But I'm going to be fine with whatever's proposed as long as it is a, you know, replace in kind, replace additional ones, you know, follow the regulations. If you have to take down a specimen tree, you replace the same calipers because this is definitely a location, an example where you can put in plenty of trees and they will eventually grow up. It's not like we're looking for places to put landscaping like we have in some of the other projects. So I think, you know, proposing replacement trees for the ones that have to come down, but I'm fine with the having to put it in for, you know, to get in the water, the retention basins and the stormwater swells. Can I ask a question? At least from looking at the illustrations in the Arborist report, this is this, this like very, at least like a selective cutting along this route, and then also some of the verbiage in the report saying this will improve the productivity of this micro forest block by letting in more light, et cetera. And so it's more, this is not, this is not like screening a utility box or screening a commercial building from an adjacent residential neighborhood. It's heavily forested already. It's in the active process of growing. It's a little ecosystem. They're seedling, I'm sure that are two feet, three feet tall there already that it just, this is, this is not a chunk of trees being taken out. It's, so the photos clearly illustrate that, but I just, I feel it's just, I don't know, it just, it just seems overkill to add the, replace the trees there, unless it's a requirement in the bylaw that I'm not aware of. But, oh, that's my thought, but I'll defer to the staff to educate me on this. Alissa and Jim, do you have opinions? From an environmental standpoint, if they're taking trees out, I would like to see at least some of them replaced, you know, not necessarily in kind, but with something that could at least grow up. We're not losing 17 trees. Go ahead, Jim. I was just gonna say my thoughts are aligned with, with Mark on that. Okay. They should be replaced, all of them. Yeah. Okay. Quick question from Marla. Did, did our city arborist have any comment on this? He did. He reviewed it and he thought it was a pretty good plan. He said the comment number five when we get there, he was strongly supportive of comment number five, but I didn't include his verbatim because it was all very like, this is all good. Did he recommend trees be planted as replacement? He did not. No. He was fine with the plan as proposed. Keep in mind, his perspective is as an arborist, not as a planner. And it very like strongly arborist, not planner. I mean, I think, I think any trees that you plant are going to be beneficial. I don't think they have to go in because it's, you know, I don't think you're looking for these new trees to be the screening for this development. I think it's just anything that you didn't get to take out trees. If there's some trees that you can put in that will, you know, be beneficial for the long term, fine, but I don't, I don't feel it's sort of like requirement to screen this development from the fairway, you know. Well, would there be an opportunity here for us to split the difference and ask for half of them to be replaced? I don't think that's a bad recommendation. I would also ask maybe for, if the board doesn't, it sounds like the board, majority of the board is inclined to ask person replacement trees for the understanding that, yes, you are going to need to clear these trees for stormwater. Would it be appropriate to ask their, their arborist, the applicant's arborist, to make some recommendations about places where the screening would be enhanced by additional trees in this general vicinity, or maybe not in this general vicinity, if it's going to help create the appearance of this wooded knoll. Because that's what the court decision really is about, is the overall appearance.  So, Marla, would that tail continuing the hearing and having them come back with a plan again? It would. Okay. That being said, we're continuing anyway. So, and I can go into that later. Okay. I just have a quick question only because I saw this happen in Shelburne, of closing the actual hearing, but allowing a certain amount of time for the receipt of additional testimony or reports. Does the business board ever done that in the past? Do you close the public comment portion, but you can send written comments or further staff or further written reports from consultants? Do you guys do that or no? So, the board cannot take testimony outside of a public hearing. It may, Shelburne isn't on the record town, so it might be slightly different, but the board cannot take any testimony once they have closed the hearing. Okay. Sorry, just bear with me. Can this board vote to close a hearing effective on a date in the future? So, in other words, doesn't have to be June 1st at 9.05 p.m. or two weeks from now, 9.50 p.m. or whatever. Can it say this hearing is effectively closed three days from now or two days from now? Is that allowed? There has to be an opportunity for the new information to be reviewed in public. So, though you could say we are going to close, it doesn't really save you anything because you still have to do it in public. Okay. That's to be done in a meeting. Okay. All right. Alyssa, did you try to say something or, Jim, I thought I heard someone else. I was just saying that I liked Marla's suggestion. Yeah, I agree. Okay. And are we good with half the number of trees or let's give them some guidance? I'd say half the number of trees and have their arborists make a recommendation for where to plant consistent with the court order. Yeah, that's good. Okay. Delilah, could you bring us back please to the staff report? I don't know if there are any other comments. Dave, is that clear enough marching orders for you? Yes. Thank you, Marla. Flip the pages again. Can I get a little fish on that half the required number? Just real quick. Specifically, if we take down a 20-inch tree, you're supposed to replace 20 inches of caliper trees. So 10, 2-inch trees or 7, 3-inch trees or something like that. Are we saying half the required number of caliper in terms of replacements? Not if they take 17 trees down, they're replacing with 8 trees. We're saying half of them. So the caliper thing is actually only applicable in the LDR for trees under 5 inches. For trees over 5 inches, this is the board's discretion. Okay. I would say then I would say I would say half the required caliper so that you know add up the caliper that you're getting rid of and half of that as a requirement for replacement. So Dave Marshall here. I guess our concern is I don't know how we're going to do that only because in the areas where the trees are being removed, there's also a very mature canopy. So any new plantings are going to be very challenged to establish themselves and actually grow successfully. On the outside, I think we're going to find a couple of places that we can be planting trees but at the same time recognizing that the golf course has its own operations and needs in regards to trying to avoid tree slash grass conflicts. It's going to be the other component. So I think we owe you a plan that achieves. I like the statement with regard to the corridor. It basically said figure out how you can maintain the massive trees that respects the historical crowning out of this ledge outcrop. And at the same time with the originally applicant's goal of the tree planting plan was to provide screening of those areas that are weak that we put together a program. So Marla mentioned perhaps that the trees don't go back exactly near the swale but perhaps in other areas that could be supported by additional trees. So I'd like you to just be thinking outside of the box a little bit here with regard to you had mentioned earlier, Mark. It's like, yeah, there are some projects where we have a hard time finding where to put the plantings. And actually, this is going to be one of those too. So it's our job to come back with a program for you that makes sense. And the only reason I made mention of page two of the arborist report, which again was reviewed by the city's arborist also was that their recommendation was at least within the canopy itself, it didn't make any sense to be planting trees. So I think the opportunity is going to perhaps going to be on the perimeter where we can get sunlight on these trees. And with that, again achieve the second part of the goal, which is again screening of the activities inside subdivision from those homeowners or in this particular case as the yellow line on the screen shows walking path in this particular area. Okay, no problem with that. Okay. Any other comments we need to look at? The staff comment number five was outstanding. Okay, there it is. That further recommends the board require the narrative to be applied to all future construction within the development area approved under SP 1827 in addition to the stormwater swales and bio retention area on sheet P three. I have no problem with that other people. I know, okay. Okay. All right. And I think that might be it. Yep. So we are concluding this, but we're not closing the hearing. So I just want to make sure there's an opportunity for a public comment as well. Yes. Thank you. Marla, you hinted at another reason we weren't closing the hearing. Can you elaborate? Yes. So being imperfect humans, there was an error in the public noticing the original public notice said the wrong date for the hearing. But some of the public notices had the correct date and some of them had the wrong date. And so in the interest of making sure everyone who had the right date actually had an opportunity to review the project, we review the project tonight, and then we will continue to June 15th so that anyone who wasn't able to make it tonight, they got the wrong date will be able to weigh in at that time as well. Okay. And that's the date at which we will also take a look at the additional proposed trees. And Dave, I apologize for doing this to you. We're going to have to work together closely to get that trend around quickly. Yes, that's fair. We understand the time requirements in order to allow staff and the public to have the opportunity to review the proposed plan. So we'll work through Friday. We'll try to get something Monday or Tuesday of next week. Okay. Shall we move on to public comment? Are there any members of the public who would like to make comments about this project? I see Beth again. Hi there. Thank you for letting me comment. I just wanted to say a few things about this application because the board, I know some members of the board are new and I'm sure most of you, I'm assuming anyway, are not really familiar with the recent issues regarding this particular project. So firstly, I want to mention that the public was not notified. As Marla mentioned, and yes, everyone makes mistakes, and that's completely understandable of course, but the public was not notified of this meeting within the required 15 day period. I received the letter on 527, which is just four or five days ago, but the hearing was going to be tonight. There are over 150 pages included in this application. My attorney has not had the time to review that information, nor was he able to be present at the meeting tonight. So that's the first issue. I don't know what the legal ramifications are of hearing an application that was not properly noticed to abutting property owners. And I'm also in an interested party with regards to this project because I had some involvement in the events that occurred last year around this particular project. The other thing I would like to mention just in case the board is not fully aware, Dave Marshall commented on this, but this was the subject of a protracted lawsuit. There was an environmental court order that was handed down. That order is very, very specific with regards to the requirements for a tree, for compensatory planting of trees. It was very specific about under what conditions trees could be removed. It was very specific what should happen if trees were damaged in the construction process, which they were last year during the construction process that went on last year. Multiple trees were damaged, destroyed, taken down that should not have been taken down. As far as I know, none of that damage has yet been mitigated. And now the applicant is coming back and asking that more trees be taken down. So this is a chipping away. I understand the arborist had a very, obviously he's an expert and had very legitimate reasons for these particular trees being removed. But I just want to let the board know that this particular project is subject to very, very specific confines that were laid out by this e-court decision. And to just decide that, okay, well, we can replace half the trees that were taken down, that's something that could be easily appealed. And that could drag this project out even further. And also I want to mention that the application also sort of shoe horns in this vertige about widening the easements down the center spine of the property. None of that has been discussed. I'm not even clear on what that would mean for protected trees. So there are very specific trees on this property that the e-court said had to be protected. Just deciding unilaterally that those trees can come down for widening of easements, putting in the drainage swell, et cetera, I think needs to be carefully considered. And frankly, my attorney needs to review these materials. And I also want to comment that a couple of people have said they're only asking to remove 17 trees. I heard that said a couple times. And that it needs to be considered in the context of the fact that this is a large wooded area. The decision of the e-court was that this should remain a large wooded area and that the trees should be preserved, not removed and replaced. And certainly not removed and never replaced, which is what we've been talking about here tonight. So I think that this is a lot more complex than it seems at first glance. And to just decide that we're going to just quickly get this over with tonight and rubber stamp it in the next meeting so that we have given the appearance of giving us adequate time, I think is potentially going to make matters worse and this being dragged out even further. So that's what I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, Beth. Any other public comments? Hi, this is Lisa Angwin. Hello. I live on Golf Course Road. And honestly, Beth said everything that I would like to say. But I would also, you know, Dave Marshall, I think you said it is a tree protection plan. And what we're talking about is not, it's not protecting the trees. And it's supposed to be a preservation area. Preservation, when you look it up in Webster Dictionary, it's the act of the process resulting in preserving something such as keeping something valued alive and tagged or free from damage or decay. We're not doing that. And if you look, I mean, again, Beth said it, I don't need to rehash it, except it's really imperiating just to see all the trees, all the damage that was done, forget all the jackhammering that we have had to deal with as a budding neighbors for this all last summer. But they have an obligation to keep the trees, like to keep those houses within a tree line. The trees are dying. They're falling over. You can see right in there. And that is not the expectation that was set forth. And I think, again, Beth said it, but some of the bylaws and looking at this project that they definitely have, again, from what I know about it, that there's, there's specific things. I know Marla, I had come to see you probably about six years ago before we were building and you were like, this is a very specific project where just specific trees have to be taken out and arborists will be checking that over the years. And honestly, we're just not seeing that. So just wanted to go on record with that preserving means preserve. It doesn't mean to replace change or alter. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comments? None? I'm hearing none. Can I, can I comment? Sure, Mark. I know the public but work.  I think that those are some very important points that the neighbors have brought up. And I would just stress to Dave Marshall, you know, and I think Marla had said it and Dan as well, that any tree replacement any trees that do need to come out or any trees that are being proposed should need to be, shall be in, in whatever compliance with the corridor. You know, I said, I'm an agreement that, you know, to whatever trees need to come out for the retention pond and the swale. But I again, I would also agree that anything that's being done needs to be in, in concert with the tree preservation order of the court or else you're, yeah, you're opening yourself up to an appeal and a loss and it's just going to drag it out. So make sure you dotted your eyes and crossed your T's when you come back to us with your proposed planting plan. That's fair. Dave Marshall here again, just another point with regard to the stormwater infrastructure. If we had been smart enough to include that with all the other infrastructure that's necessary to support the project and everybody would have seen that in 2018, it wouldn't have changed the scope of what's being proposed to be removed. But nonetheless, it would have been originally part of the package. So we don't need to come across as being, you know, trying to, nickel and dime you with regard to this particular tree management program. But nonetheless, it is one that if we had to wear with all the crystal ball and everything else that we had brought everything forward, it would have been the same program that you're seeing tonight. Thank you. Okay, so sounds like we are continuing this. Would someone like to move that we continue? When, when are we continuing this too? Was it June 15th or? Yeah, that's how it's been warned. It was warned as being heard on June 1st and continued to June 15th. So at this point, we can't change that. Okay. Then I'll make a motion that we continue 159 Long Drive Final Plot Application SD 2115 to address the issues as discussed this evening and to make a legally-worn meeting. We have a second. I'll second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. So we'll see you in a couple of weeks, Dave. All right. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay. Moving on to the next item agenda. Dan, if you have the agenda in front of you, I'm going to ask you to introduce this please because I need to step out for just a minute and I'll be back. I would have to find, yes, the airport. Okay. Or July, I'll bring it up on the screen and I'll be back shortly. Okay. So this is site plan application SB 21-018. The owner applicant is the city of Burlington, the Burlington International Airport. The, the project is to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of constructing an approximately 33,440 gross square foot two-story addition to the south end of the existing airport terminal 1200 airport drive. Who do we have here from the applicant? Larry Lackey, director of engineering and environmental compliance for the airport. And I have a team of four other people that could introduce themselves. Okay. Go ahead. I'm Stu Moncriff with Jacob's engineering group. Carolyn Orban with landscape, sorry, Wagner-Hotts and landscape architecture. Sorry, Chris. All right. And Chris Yanda with Engelberth Construction. And Jackie DeGest from EIV Technical Services. Okay. Marla, do you have this, have this, have they been sworn before on this application or? May have not. And don't forget to ask for disclosures as well. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Are there any board members who wish to make disclosures about the application? I will make a small one. I know Larry in the professional capacity of working with the MS4, stormwater permatees. In fact, I think it will affect my ability. To, uh, deliberate on this proposal. Are there any members of the public who wish to raise any concerns or conflict of interest or accusals? And I'm back, Mark. I mean, Dan. Okay. You can do the heavy duty swearing in then because I don't have the language in front of me. Okay. Uh, representatives of the applicant, would you please raise your right hand and do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under penalty of perjury? Yes, I do. Yes, I do. Thank you. Okay. Um, let me enlarge this so I can. So, um, let me suggest that the applicant, if you'd like, make a few very brief comments. The hour is late. Um, is there any introduction you'd like to give before we start going through the staff comments? We can give a quick update. We did present this, uh, at a previous hearing. Uh, nothing has changed. We made application just shortly after that. Um, and we're ready to go to comments, but we're willing to do like we did a team, uh, overview if you'd like. Um, I'm not sure we need one. And board members, does anyone feel a need to have an overview or are we good? I think we're good. Okay. All right. Let's look at the first, um, comment. Can I say one thing? Just so you know, um, we received comments from Marla, uh, staff comments on, uh, late last Wednesday. By late Friday, we submitted full written response to all these comments also. So though they are available, obviously they couldn't be sent out, but we have, we're ready to respond to them, but we've already responded with exhibits and stuff that are available to. Okay. All right. So as we go through these, Marla, if you think they're covered, please let us know. We haven't had the opportunity to read that. Um, the first comment, uh, about the lot coverage, staff recommends the board ask the applicant to clarify whether the provided values include approved, but not yet construction projects, in particular the airport hotel. Do we have that information? Marla had to step away for just a moment, and I know that they sent something earlier today. I haven't looked through their responses. Larry, did you, was this covered in your responses? Yeah. It was covered on our Friday response. Today was just a couple of additional exhibits that Marla asked for late Friday, late Friday. So, um, Jackie and Stu can respond to those calculations and comments. Yeah. And, um, yeah. In the table, it shows the existing and the proposed law coverage both as 34.4. Um, that's really due to the overall size of the airport at 942 acres. So when, when you look at just one decimal place, uh, we are reducing the impervious area and that's what a lot coverage by 6480 square feet. Um, but to one decimal place, it doesn't change the number. But the exact numbers are, uh, existing coverage, 34.445 percent, uh, and proposed is 34.429. So we do have a 0.016 percent reduction, uh, in law coverage as part of this project by returning some to, uh, uh, landscape area. Okay. Thank you. Um, and just, and just as a follow-up, the last part of that comment, um, all of the calculations do include, uh, all the permits, uh, projects that have been approved at the airport, including the hotel. Okay. Thank you. Let's move on to the next comment, please. The staff considers it appears as criterion. Maybe Matt staff recommends the board request the applicant provide renderings to clarify the scale of proposed elements, including the proposed exterior fins and sunshades. Have you done that? Yes, we did do that in a full response on late Friday. Um, and Chris Yandell can respond to this. So Delilah, do you have the, the, uh, slides from Friday? Okay. And we should have those just give her a second to pull them up. Sure. Sure. Well, this was the one with the trees. I'm getting there. Hold on. Yep. We observed that you're rendering of the trees. Well, you'll see it. They just look like they need to be watered. The media assistant are actually, they look like they need to be watered. They're thirsty. Delilah, if you could start on page seven of that PDF. Oh, it's probably not the same order you sent it to me. Uh, okay. Actually that, that rendering, that rent page, uh, one next, next down, I'm looking over on the left hand side of the screen. It's the, that rendering right there that you've got your arrow on. Correct. So, uh, that question had a lot to do with, um, you know, elements of the addition. And I first want to start by talking a little bit about the entry of the building. When you drive from airport, uh, drive onto airport circle, you start to enter the, the property on a left hand bearing curve. And in this photo, you can see in the lower left hand corner, the red dot represents kind of your viewpoint as you're driving in on the left side of this screen. You'll start to see the existing building, which has its higher elements. It's the main terminal, the, the, so to speak, the grand lobby of the building. So as we were, um, reviewing the architecture for the addition, um, we were carefully and intentionally designing to compliment the architecture of that existing terminal and the, and the grand lobby by mimicking major rhythms, forms and visual details, which you'll see in that small clip on the left side. There is, there is a glass. There are vertical pilasters or fins. And there's also a sun screen element. As you look at this view here, you'll see that the existing landscaping does hide the addition behind it. And if you do go to, uh, the previous screen, there you go. Okay. So this view now is taken from one of the, um, the service drives that is not used by the public at all. Uh, in my frame of reference in years past as I visited the airport, I always find that the police cruiser is sitting on this service road. So you're one step closer to the building. We wanted to show this and use this rendering so that you could see these elements. Um, know that we did not want to take away from the significance of the main terminal. We chose rather to compliment the main terminal with the addition of this addition as a flanking building and matching themes that are already established at both the north and south side. The existing airport building themes that we've included are those imposing vertical pilasters and you can start to see them in a rhythm. The continuous ribbon windows, um, which provides plenty of glazing and, uh, daylight into the second floor of the space. And we've also continued the punched windows, which on the first floor in those windows behind there is the TSA space. And from a security standpoint, they requested that we limit the amount of, um, of windows. Uh, it just provides, uh, a level of security, whether it be vehicular or personnel, uh, you know, from, from impeding that building and getting into that zone. Uh, we've also, uh, included the vertical pilasters that will break up the facade. Um, we've also carried some themes and elements from the existing building into this addition and they start with a granite base that starts in the main terminal area and is carried through to this new concourse expansion. And then you'll also start to see the gray metal siding materials, uh, that are similar to the gray panels on the existing, the south end of the existing, uh, airport. Uh, and then there's also a slightly darker gray on the right side of the, with the new vertical fins and creates a cornering element. Uh, and it's a complimentary contrast to the lighter panels and sets the stage for the background for the new terminal side. So we did study the main terminal very closely and we carried the themes into this flanking building. But as a, um, as a pedestrian or as a user of the airport, um, it is going to be quite well hidden by the landscaping of the islands that already exist today and that we're going to compliment further, uh, with even more landscaping. I hope that answers your question. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Board, any questions? Okay. Shall we move on? The next staff comment. So Lila, could I ask you to put it on the screen please? Thank you. Three, staff recommends the board require the applicant to provide specific information about how the dumpster will be screened prior to closing the hearing. And we did that. So Carolyn Orban from Wagner Hodgson can take that. Yep. Um, so the dumpster has a, um, chain link, uh, fence enclosure. Um, and we added a detail. You can see it on the, on plan L 100, which, uh, I think it's, it's further down from what we were just looking at in the renderings. Uh, I'm not sure which numbered page 18. There's no page one of the page 17 on the packet, I believe. Oh, no, I think the confusion is that, um, well, what she has up is right. Yep, that's correct. So, um, so it's a, it's a chain link fence enclosure with four screen final slats. Um, as you can see on this detail, um, in addition, there, um, are going to be groupings of, uh, proposed plants. Um, arrowwood viburnum is the tallest one at the back of the group, um, at 10 to 12 feet in height. And then that's followed by a red choked berry at six to eight feet. And in front of that is a, um, low winter berry, which gets about three feet tall and holds its red berries throughout the winter. Um, we also wanted to, to note that the dumpster is, the dumpster enclosure is an existing enclosure that's already there. And what we're doing is we're enlarging it towards the air field side to the east. And, um, so the, the plantings are just an added illness, I guess I could say. And we're moving an existing dumpster that is in the northern, um, planted, exists right now in the northern planted, um, island. And we wanted it out of the front of the building. So that's what's going in there. Um, this is something that's there and a significant improvement over what we currently have. And I don't even think you notice it now when you come in. Uh huh. Yeah. Okay. I think that's, that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Have we finished the comments? No. Okay. Thank you, Delilah. Staff recommends the Board review the provided landscaping plan and determine whether to allow the grasses and hardscape as credits toward the minimum required landscaping. The relevant provision of the LDR is as follows. Um, so I'll take this one again. Or did you want to read that part? No. Go ahead, Carolyn. Okay. Um, so we would like to have the ornamental grasses be considered as a complimentary planting feature, um, that has been well received on previous projects that we've presented. Um, the ornamental grasses are going to add texture and color and architectural stature as well as winter interest. Um, in addition, the ornamental grasses are part of a major feature used in the approved master plan. Um, a common theme in the master plan is the idea of this birch grove that that's presented with low native grasses growing beneath it. And that's something we're trying to replicate here. Um, and it's also part of the concept that we're using at the new airport gateway project that we'll be presenting next two weeks from now. In terms of the column lights, um, we would consider those as site furnishings, not hardscape. The lighting is meant to be a sculptural feature in which the columns, some of which are lit and some which are not in varying heights, um, are part of a contemporary expression of the same birch grove that we're talking about. Um, the series of white column lights will vary in height, as I said, and there will be bands of these low ornamental grasses, um, alternating beneath them. And that is pretty much other than, um, an abundance of other plantings that we're doing. Um, I think that pretty much explains that. Thank you, Carolyn. Or just interrupt to remind the applicant that, you know, if the board doesn't have an issue with something, um, we don't limit, we don't need to hear too too much about it. Okay. Okay. Or do you have any issue or questions about this before we move on? No. No, we're kidding. No, I'm okay with that. Okay. If we could go back to the staff report, please. Or to Lila, just keep scrolling down, please. Thank you. Staff recommends the board require the applicant to address the comments of landscape scape arborist prior to closing the hearing. Staff notes that her words have been presented as a self-unifying, unifying element of the landscaping design and recommends the board direct the applicant to find a creative way to address the comment rather than removing the trees entirely. Again, we did a thorough response to this, but Carolyn, if you would mind. Yep. Um, yeah, as per the recommendation, I'm sorry, did you want to say something? Well, I just wondered if you've already responded, board, do you need to know more about this at this point? Well, I guess I would ask if staff is comfortable with their response, because I don't know what their response was. Marla, I don't know what their response was either. I think that they maybe provided a plan showing some information, but because I mean, I'm happy to go through it, it's not it's not that much information. Um, so, um, per the recommendation, this is of the city arborist. Um, we agree that the honey looks would be better suited to the area in question. And that's, um, so there's a strip of lawn, um, that has four honey locus planted in it currently. And then there's in the existing island, there's a very thin piece of the island that has concrete in it now. And we've proposed pulling that out and putting, um, honey, not honey locus, excuse me, the river birch in there. And the recommendation of the arborist is that he didn't think they'd do that well in little, that little amount of soil and that honey locus would be better suited. And we totally agree. And so we've changed that out on our plan. Um, say we're all, oh, he also asked us to provide a planting detail sheet. So we added that into the plans as well. Um, and then he also said that crown, uh, he mentioned that crown pruning is no longer something that needs to be done on trees. It's an outdated, um, practice. So I removed that from the specifications on the plan, uh, the, that verbiage from the plan and, um, see, oh, we also wanted to clarify something about the, like he'd mentioned, you know, not adding soil, you know, that it's going to be difficult for these existing trees in these islands. Um, if we add soil or remove soil and, um, all the trees that are in these islands are, while we're showing protection around them, there's not really going to be any work done in those areas. So there, um, I think we're all set other than putting up the, the, uh, orders around them to protect them. Okay. Thank you. Back to the staff report, please, Delilah. Last comment, staff recommends, uh, the applicant provide an updated accounting of the required and provided number of bicycle parking spaces, both short and long-term, and calculate whether additional spaces are required as part of this application. If additional spaces are required, the applicant should provide a plan showing where the additional spaces will be provided. And I assume you've done this. Yes, we have. That was part of the package that went in Friday night. Um, there's a drawing updated from what we did. I don't know if you all remember, but when we did the, um, QTA project, we were required to do bicycles or parking for that. But at the time, we went further than that and incorporated the entire square footage of the terminal and everything else. But we were adding, we provided the plan to add these additional parking in that plan that we submitted Friday night. Thank you. Fort, do you have any questions about this for the applicant? I'm just curious. Are there bike lockers there if somebody was going away for a week? Yes, we have, we've met the, we've met the previous requirement. We have one bike, bike locker and we have spaces for additional ones as they are deemed necessary. Good. Okay. Um, all right. Thank you. Um, and now we will ask if there are any members of the public who would like to comment. No comments, no public comments. Okay. Fort, sounds like we should entertain a motion to close this, uh, site plan application. Do I have a motion to do so? I'll make a motion that we close site plan application at speed 21018 or 1200 airport drive. Thank you, Mark. Second by Dan. Any discussion? All in favor of closing, um, the application or the hearing say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Chair votes aye. Opposed? No. Okay. It is closed. Thank you very much for, for staying so late. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And board, we have, uh, the minutes of the May 4th and May 18th. I think I only saw one set of minutes. Did I miss one? Were they both in the packet, Marla? I'm just checking. I only saw the May 4th, I think. Okay. I did too. Okay. Yes. Um, I just didn't have time to get them both in there, but the May 18th I posted on the, the draft May 18th I posted on the website and you can determine whether you will set them up the next meeting. Okay. And then also the May 26th. All right. All in favor of approving, well, are there any comments about the May 4th minutes? And we don't have to have a motion or second, right? We just vote. I never can remember what we do about minutes. You do make a motion. Oh, okay. Mark has moved that we accept the minutes of May 4th. If I may put words in your mouth. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. All in favor? Okay. Okay. We are done and it's not even 10 o'clock. Thank you all. We will see you in two weeks. Thank you. This conference is no longer being recorded.