as you said well I lived right on the corner of Dorset Street in Sadamelle but I can't imagine anybody in Sadamelle 1 or 2 deciding they're going to go to Hinesburg Road or any of their kids who are driving or parents who are delivering their kids from a school event coming from Hinesburg Road after coming out of a school so those numbers the traffic study to me doesn't seem to be at all accurate because it's not reflecting real numbers thank you yes please identify yourself so my name is Ganesh Kyaasa I live on Winesap Lane I mean I've looked at the traffic study and all I'll give my 2 cents based on 3 years or 4 years actually 31st December is when I moved so I have a 2 year old kid when we originally moved 4 years back kids were allowed they were just playing outside back side outside in front of the house and all now what we are seeing is literally I had to go and buy some board saying that drive safely something on Amazon saying drive safely this is your kids something like that and I have to put that in front of my house I think most of you might have seen that because the reason is I was not able to send them outside in my house so that's my experience that's my 2 cents for this decision thank you hi Dorothea Pinar again I just have quick lines questions that I was going to I'm supporting basically the letter that you received from Catherine and Edward Bond Ward we've been kind of working together they're not here tonight so this we didn't get a letter the folks on it's painful on Summerfield isn't that we sympathize obviously with the lines out folks but shunting all the traffic quickly down a straight shot I mean down to Summerfield it makes it even easier for that traffic from Siderville to or even a country from 116 to Dorset once people learn how straight that path is when we bought our property we knew about the connection potential the connection potential was to the north of the solar arrays to a future neighborhood which made sense and we were told it probably wouldn't happen in the future it would be a more distant future plan but that we never were given the impression that that was going to be access to Siderville to we were told where at Siderville would be accessing and that it would be just a minor connection and yes so we're supporting more of an emergency connection or a narrowing of that even if there's a bike path there we suggest maybe some mitigating factors for you know some landscaping along that to give some relief to our two fallen had here live right on the edge of that area so we started a petition to or just to give some comments on Summerfield if we did that just that part of the connection it would shunt everything from one area to the other so the impact would be shunted to South without it going north to make a connection to 116 which is what we thought that connecting path or connecting road would be as far as the we're requesting that the park that's in the northwest corner that's proposed would be eliminated because that really cuts again that corridor while of the corridor yeah having a park there is not something that's conducive to wildlife allowing the land to go back to natural will help that corridor to make it as wide as possible that and also dealing with the wet wetland area of the retention area those are sort of breaks for that corridor so if that park would be eliminated that would be great and allowing things that are open space insofar as that they're not parked just to allow them to be on mode and go back to natural would be the best way to maintain a good buffer for the wetlands and for a better corridor and for bird nesting we have a lot of kill deer and other nesting birds which we're losing a lot of if you've been reading the news in Vermont we're losing a lot of our birds because we're mowing everything their food and everything so we're going to have a well up corridor let's not put impediments to that such as the park if that fits in with your your ratio of park I would suggest eliminating that and that's it that's all I have so what would the impact be eliminating .3 those three so you take it down from .6 to roughly 3.3 would that hurt the ratio would it take me out that northeastern park is that a big killer little bad thing Brian which open space letter is that northeastern so if I do 0.36 plus 1.33 plus 0.14 plus 0.6 equals 2.89 required is 2.69 if I take out the community gardens just for funsies we're still marginally above the absolute minimum so it's something that can be considered yep or something that you already considered no no it's something that can be considered so we'll leave it to the board's discretion we don't have a strong opinion one way or the other anybody care so does that mean it would be in favor of whether it's structured lawn or open space I personally don't care that's not my hangup anybody else I agree with that let's get rid of it so not structured lawn so there's a general sense on the board we just don't need any more lawn yeah so we're good with that Dorothy could I clarify your first comment was your comment that you did not want to see side or mill drive extended but for the connection to the property to the north when that property to the north is developed then it would connection my assumption is it's coming from Detroit you know you have your main road and then you have your neighborhood on the side that was what I thought was the intent when I saw that in the design so you have the road and they have your neighborhoods to the side of that but not they have it as you know dumping to the actually where people live with their you know neighborhood and that's what you would that's what we are doing actually but it's a tradeoff it's a wine sack or summer field right now you're impacting one or the other heavily but if you did it to the north and it was to the side of that neighborhood then that's a good cut through basically giving you another east west there's an important difference in fairness as I listened to the speakers between whether you lay it on wine sack or whether you lay it on what's the other one summer field which is that the developers has argued with great eloquence that everyone knew well that was mildly probably that everyone knew that there was going to be a side mill that was going to be developed well as the lady says everyone expected or had a right to expect that sider mill road or sider mill drive would be extended including a the people on wine sap to their benefit and b the people on summerville with no assurance no assurance that anything to the to the east and north would be built so if you're going to stick it to to be blunt one street or the other I'd stick it to summerville well you couldn't have no you couldn't have reasonably relied on that because that was entirely speculative what was settled what you had a right to what you should have expected is that sider mill 2 would be developed and that sider mill road would be extended with no assurance that anything to the north and the east would be would be built now the biggest question I have coming out of this debate and again it's my poor memory the suggestion that making the actual connector between 2 and 1 into just an emergency access I think or I see Marla shaking her head already probably neighborhood connectivity problem and yet how do you balance that out against the arguments for exactly that or is it a matter of balance are we required to provide the connectivity or do we have discretion about providing the connectivity I think it's one of the goals of the comprehensive plan to connect neighborhoods fine there's a goal the comprehensive plan and where is it a requirement of the LDR it's also desirable from an emergency response standpoint from a what emergency response well that's what I'm saying in other words but the argument that people are making the thing that the people who have a traffic problem shall we say and the people who have a wildlife car in a problem both agree on is both their problems would be best mitigated in that area if what is now the connecting segment we're limited to emergency access that would violate one of the provisions of the LDRs which limit the number of homes to 50 units on a dead end street so that Heinsberg road connection is a dead end street you could only have 49 units access from Heinsberg road only you mean the long entrance in from Heinsberg road could then become a dead end street could only be 49 units access from Heinsberg road then you have to have a connection someplace else if you're going to have more that's the reason for the connection I guess you answered the question sorry identify yourself when I asked the question and you told me keep that question until later and I almost forgot it can you identify yourself but let me start open my door open my door I am the person who lives next to that connecting street and we are anticipating and I'm hoping that maybe you can tell me that I'm wrong that that street along with that path whatever it is the bike or the walking path sidewalk it seems like it's really going to be encroaching right outside front or my side window there in my little den in the front of the house which initially we knew that there was going to be something there and we asked because and specifically we actually got that house a year and a half ago thinking this is wonderful all this space and ok so it will be an access road which we were told you know will be something what we have been hearing since we moved here which is very I mean we love the area believe me we could work for you know the chamber of commerce everybody hears this coming from New York but it's very disheartening when you get this after the fact and equally even talking to our developer we got into cider mill and we said you know gee we like that house maybe we should have gotten a little more information at that point because then we certainly didn't have to choose that house you know to be built we could have purchased another lot but I don't see what you're I'm sorry so my question is I'm sorry yes I got off track so my question was could that be a bike path be put on the other side of the ditch the water the water ditch I'm sorry I don't remember the property term for it the retaining bond right where it says site land like yes just north of the road the proposed road yeah proposed road could that be put on the other side of the road like north like up it's a 50 foot wide right away there I believe so everything has everything has to go within that 50 feet so you could put the path on the other side of the road but you'd have to move the road closer to the property line there's only so much space so the question is would you rather have your house or would you rather have the road oh no see I thought that they could be separated but that was my question so I guess they can't so we have to be within the 50 feet so we thought it was better to have the path on the house side than the road so how much space do you have there to the north of the road currently if somebody else's property north of there here yeah this isn't their property oh and are there houses over there no there's solar panels solar panels another property so can you build the road next to the lot line you got the 10 feet apparently I understand selfish the problem is there's a stormwater feature just to the north of the road that needs to stay oh yeah there's a drain there the so-called ditch which we're modifying is just to the north side that's why there's not another unit to the north okay I mean there's space there for reasoning I hope you've answered your question can I make a suggestion that maybe you just I'm sorry a gentleman and he could be right next you got the picture that shows it real close again right right up in here there's another next page there's another next page there you go do you want me to run around I know driving all over the place keep telling me a couple suggestions your idea is to get all of us as far away from you as you can right I would propose that the bike path is better than having traffic close to your house as these people have suggested but the bike path is it going to still be 10 feet here because we have used 8 feet in a lot of places and if it's already going to be adjacent to the street here why not move it in close that's a couple more feet those kinds of things while I'm here and slide down this way a little bit if somebody is running this thing there's a suggestion that was bringing the bike path let's see that was bringing the bike path down into here up in here right kind of following that sewer line I won't take up your time with why that is a great idea I could list them there's 100 of them basically following the sewer line what about that let me make two other quick points relative to the 30 versus 60% traffic which way it goes no traffic studies or anything what's happened with employment at IBM in the last 15 years and what's happened at dealer.com as way employment is shifting just something to concern another point you talked a lot about about rocks boulders versus fences for demarcation and various things I live very close to Stonehenge I go through that all the time they have a lot of split rail fences they are replacing them all the time it's a but they are only used in specific places adjacent to bike paths and they don't have anything else throughout that whole area so I ask the question why are you even thinking about anything else I do I was basically going to suggest the same thing bring the path right up to the rock eliminate that make it a feet you can mitigate the situation and then perhaps even just I just being good neighbors planting along there so that they don't have it all over there just some simple planting might be nice and the road is 18 feet through the wetlands you could keep it 18 feet all the way to Summerfield that would also discourage traffic we talked about it earlier yeah 10-12 feet wouldn't the bike and pedestrian committee need to be informed if we it's okay to reduce the length of the bike path there from 10 to 8 feet and to bump out the way against the road do we need to it's still a bike path we're just there or not is there any reason to request permission from the bike and pedestrian committee no it's just in charge but a serious answer is that it wouldn't be terrible to make sure they don't have any alarm bells going off it's already that way alongside or mill the bike path connection well it's not 10 feet from the road it's right next to the road well if you're going to take it back let me know what you're going to do I'll be at the meeting to support it and we already discussed decreasing that area from 18 that's at your discretion if you did that you might not need to reduce the width of the path I think you're going to pick up what was the argument was it 24 there or 22 there wait was there public safety public road not argument but 20 exactly so 18 is a very narrow road but to accommodate the wetland right so it's sort of minimized and balanced against protecting the wetlands picture two parking spaces is what 18 feet is so it feels very narrow so the LDRs allow 18 feet where it has an alternative benefit in situations where there is no significant impact of making it a bit wider the LDRs recommend 20 feet minimum I think less is more so less path less road my only fear now that I'm thinking about this is if people are barreling down summer field if there's some sort of curb or something between just for that little piece at the corner if there's a curb or something between the road and the path if somebody's barreling around the corner I'm getting around to it if somebody's going left they might come over into the path that's a good point turning radius with 18 feet in two cars we could put some removal ballards or something to protect the path that would be great that would be great I can tell you right now the DPW is not going to mean favor of removal ballards but a curb would be fine can we have a bigger discussion on the extension of Cider Mill Road because honestly that's my big sticking point on this project we talk about not wanting to impact the people on summer field at the end where I'm not trying to punish them but you're talking about eight units here but you're talking about four here for a road that should have been built initially and will eventually be built when the project to the north gets developed which most likely will so eventually this will get built and there's factors we can do to mitigate traffic going through there that we can put in place now neck downs other features but I just think that going to the amount of traffic for a winding way through isn't going to reduce the amount of east west traffic flow it's not, you're still going to get the same amount of traffic you're not going to suddenly have people saying well I don't have to do this because this is built on a lot more traffic is going to go I just think that the amount of traffic that you're going to increase through here for this neighborhood interconnectivity is a negative impact I think that the people that were here to begin with probably did when they said that side of mill 2 was going to get built envisioned this road was going to be part of the connection of that phase and we had to have, we asked to whether we can open this up for this level we were told we can and I think it should be done at this point and I agree all the strong feelings, Matt, John, Jennifer six and one half I mean I guess I'm inclined to agree as well but I do see the other side of the coin Matt was conflicted earlier I'm still conflicted too I'm not six and one I'm 70-30 that it should be done now it's going to get built eventually I can see why I can see reasoning particularly the wildlife quarter leaving it alone but the wildlife quarter it's going to get built so you're talking about a collector street that's designed for traffic flow as opposed to dumping it into a small meandering I'm not disagreeing I'm 70% agreeing with you Matt are you 50-50? No, I'm 55-45 you didn't live on Winesap and weren't on the board was that? we'll need to go to city council first for what? because right now the city council has not accepted that right away the lawyer opinion said that you could require us to build it if it was city owned land so the city would have to accept the right away all the way through and at that point time then you could require us or ask us to build it and obviously the elephant in the room is the current 109-year approval wait a minute yes that's too hard it's currently private property and we don't own it, it's owned by somebody else oh you don't own that piece? no sir, I do not own that piece the city has an irrevocable offer of dedication to take over that right away which we well then we should execute and obviously if we go back the 109-year plan certainly is a good plan for us if we go back to it there's a lot of improvements that are being attached to this, the left turn lane on Dorset Street is being sold on us which is expensive this piece of road is expensive the bike path all the way through the project that 10 feet, that doesn't exist in the 109-year unit it's really open space so it's getting to be a math issue for us you add enough stuff and we'll go back to the 109-year plan and we still have the right 109-year plan to come back in the future and do this one piece that's in the residential so that's a real item for us maybe not for your consideration definitely for us no but it's also for our consideration when you hang that knife above our head I understand I have a question just a second the gentleman here had a comment before just a question on the sewer pumping station now that we're adding more units it's grabbing bed to that pumping station is that going to be adequate size the size for Sightemel 1 and Sightemel 2 but it was for Sightemel 2 with 109 units it has enough capacity and we've proven that so he's an engineer public works will make sure that with 109-year plan which was approved in 2015 does that take into consideration that wine sap was only half developed at the time of the approval or do the people who have now come into wine sap lane have a chance to weigh in on something that was approved and didn't negatively impact down until they moved in that's approved it's done they could go ahead and do that tomorrow yeah so it really is going to come down to they've agreed to many improvements many modifications of the plan and so at some point requiring them to do one more thing is going to simply make and say let's go back to the 109 including the vision village residential area to the north so it's going to be 109 plus a village residential segment that was there's going to be a street there one silver lining though 109 units is definitely smaller than 142 they still have the right to build on a section that you're not thinking about there could be 159 but then they would have to come back before us so we could make them do it I guess I don't understand why such an opposition from the builder other than cost of the pavement to do that if you deleted the whole bike path which basically doesn't go to anywhere right now and build that one section you're equivalently coming down to the same cost factor correct that's an awful big bike path that's 10 feet long it's a short piece of road again very pessimistic that we can get a permit to build that section build a piece of road do you mean yeah it crosses a class 2 wetland we need a wetland permit from the state of Vermont and we need to show why to the state we need to build that road well it's time to come here that's a pretty good why a pretty good supportive letter for your urgent plea to the state which I know you'll make passionately about why you want the road the end of wine side I'm putting another two ways to outside over at Summerville so the traffic is not going to be going down the road this is a bigger issue the wetland is a bigger issue you're going to be crossing a wetland to get to the new phase 2 this has been very helpful other comments from the public sounds like we're continuing sounds like it's February 6 because there is no January 16 correct just to make sure that the applicant is okay with this if we continue to oh my gosh it's like three pages up on my nose if we continue to February 5 we need all revised materials by January 26 good you're sitting in front of your client so you're going to say yes of course okay and is it February 6th right February 6th move that we continue preliminary application SD 1729 of JJJ South Browinton LLC to February 6th second move in second we continue to February 6th on February C.I. thank you very much yeah nice job guys yeah well done yeah this is a good job minutes for December 19 everyone's had a chance to read them sorry good catch very good catch it's a good comment upstairs I want to go make the comment if Marlowe was the draft person were you the draft person on the who was it on Sue never mind just fussy fussy stuff say that I'm crafty it could be fussy it could be fussy that's okay alright I'm going to be fussy roll it back a little a minute wait should we be Mark Mark were you in on that meeting okay thank you what's that meeting the point was you said that I said on it was on the it was on the thing that you approved over my objection which was letting a reopen the reopening the opening case okay let's go to that one reconsideration of Finney's effect beginning on the bottom of page 3 beginning of page 4 right at top of page 5 Marlowe 12 times problematic not clear cutting doesn't want to be constrained that wasn't it it's the next paragraph after that they would have to be spread around already built regular units and actually the point was they would have to be concentrated in the area where they're not already built regular units right they would have to be concentrated they would have to be concentrated that was my objection right or designate rentals as affordables already built units and that's why we've been asking for a plan laying out where they're going to go and being told that they don't have to do that until they hit 270 and we just functionally agree with it and I think that if they want to get the bonus density for affordability they have to be factored in from day one not once they hit the bonus density because that means that they could stop building a 270 or 269 and then you're like you don't have an approved plan because then you have a partially built out plan exactly and you and I make a minority of two yeah well that's alright so Frank would it be alright if I change the minutes to say Mr. Cookman question what would happen if they got to unit 270 hadn't built affordable units where would they go they would have to be constrained rather than to one area they would have to be confined to only the unbuilt area and you could say Mr. Baron obstentia agreed I said so right there so so uh yeah Mr. Frank yeah so Frank he wasn't just two okay so you agree with what I meant and not what was written right any other questions to the minutes no other changes to the minutes because then they can say okay I'll understand a motion to approve the minutes I move that we approve the minutes from December 19th second moved and seconded that we approve these minutes all in favor say aye aye thank you very much and of the meeting at 10 30 who oh any other business yes any other business yeah before the meeting closes right no other business thank you take care if you're concerned with procedure not because you had something there'll be meetings in front of my neighbors