Welcome everybody back to the independent investor channel. We're going to conduct a review of the Roth IRA account number one. This is really the flagship account that started it all for me. This is the one that I insist that a lot of people need to be made aware that exists out there. And I think a lot of people would understand that they're part of a managed program. If they just need to look a little bit further below the surface and see what they're actually invested in a self-directed designation over your Roth IRA, make sure that they can't charge you hidden fees, management fees, yearly fees, any of those types of things, which can really hamper your returns over the years to make sure it's self-directed. Take control of your own money. Take control of your own financial future, man. You'll be liberated and you'll be what I consider to be empowered going forward, guys. So stick around. We'll conduct the review. All right, guys. So this would be a quick review of the Roth IRA number one. I do these reviews now about every month. I think that's a good mark to aim for. This is a 20 holding portfolio. There's currently one passive ETF here with the Small Cap Vanguard VBK. That's the growth Small Cap ETF offering there. I am holding a touch of cash on the side here in this portfolio, and we'll introduce that back into the S&P 500 VOO. That's the one I like to hold into this. We currently don't own it, but the rest of it, single stock, a mix of value and some speculation and some higher big cap growth in here. So top in, starting a Bristol Meyer. We swung this into the Roth here and bought it at the wrong time. We took profits in the other account. Nice profits, I might add. And we swung it in here to grab ourselves some healthcare exposure. That's totally fine. Bristol Meyer is one of those companies that I feel like is extremely undervalued here, and we'll own it long. Totally fine. Cisco Systems Nexon, big technology, old tech, and it fills out a nice position in the portfolio in big tech. Nice dividend paying, nice value company, just over 100 shares. Chevron in the oil space. It's the only big oil that I own in this portfolio. Compliment to a couple big oil positions in the other Roth IRA. But Chevron I've owned for a long, long time. This has just been all over the place. I don't try to track oil right now with what's going on. It does grab me a little dab of exposure, just over 32 shares in Chevron. I'm okay with the position size, nice dividend payer. And we'll just continue to own that, be a value investor in the name. Disney in the telecom communication sector is an interesting pick here. Monitoring it, rather sizable position here in the portfolio. I think it's actually a little bit overvalued with what is going on right now. I think a lot of people would put a lot of value in their streaming service. I'm not quite so bullish on it. I'd like to see all cylinders firing for Disney as they reopen the parks and get things back to somewhat normal. But it's one of those companies that's just always been one of my favorites to own and to invest in and be a participant in this fine company. It's well run, well managed, one of the best content providers out there. And it is a multi-diversified business with their cruise ships, their theme parks, their streaming service, and their online service. So it's a good one to fill the space, one of the best in breeds. Facebook as well, same sector, telecom. I kind of put a little technology twist on Facebook, I really do. But the social media giant just came off a fabulous quarter, making money hand over fist, fabulous ad revenue margins just up close to 40%, prices increasing ever so slightly. Every year, quarter over quarter, raising those prices, I might add, companies don't care. They got to do business with Facebook. They are the ad revenue space. And just growing that business incrementally, it's like a big cap growth company. It's growing like a weed. It's incredible. So nice sizeable 25 share position in Facebook. A nice position and highly on right below that in the industrial sector. This is the one of two spec positions that I have in here. The next one is right below it in social capital, which is going to be SoFi after the SPAC merger completes, obviously just been completely obliterated with the SPAC holding specifically. Any SPAC related anything has just been absolutely clobbered, which is fine. These are two companies that I want to own anyway. Highly on obviously is not a SPAC anymore. It's gone through its spec merger process, one of the first to do so. But looking to get its footing here. And SoFi, I believe both of these have the potential for multi X baggers. So that that aspect of this portfolio I have high hopes for. And in the in the short term, obviously looking at it and going through a little bit of short term pain in the names, that's just part of the territory. Okay. And that that happens.  That's just what it takes. JP Morgan biggest financial holding here. In this particular portfolio, it is kind of the cornerstone in here. Microsoft and big tech at a 25 share position in Microsoft. We'll look to monitor that. I may add to it as it comes down. If that's what it's going to do, I think Microsoft long term is just going to be absolutely fabulous, scary to see where this could be in five years. Right below that realty income core, this really anchors my real estate exposure in my total part of portfolio. This is a big position over a hundred shares of realty income pays the monthly dividend really nice position to hold in the Roth. We just we just sit here and watch this sucker pay. It's up close to 12% can't can't complain. Right below that one of my favorite staples plays as Pepsi. Pepsi is a juggernaut just over five grand 36 shares of the company. It's up 5% not too bad, but I like the 3% dividend very strong, very well managed and it's the easy company to own in staples and fills out a nice large position in the portfolio here. Pfizer's been down a little bit. It's fought back a touch. 126 shares have been kind of all over the place with this holding. I don't hold it in quite as high a regard as Merck, but healthcare has just really had a shift in some of the healthcare names and some of them have really caught favor and all chronicle the newest holding here is United Health Group, a Dow component that I've added in here that I'm very, very bullish on based on my evaluation of the company. I rolled it out of the M1 finance. I replaced it with AMGEN and then rolled UNH into this portfolio. It just seemed to be the right move, a great Roth IRA pick, something you can just hold for the next five, 10 years and just be glad doing so. Procter and Gamble as well. Premier staples play, you just got to own it. It's that simple, really nice cornerstone in the portfolio. Visa we entered into one of the biggest positions we've owned to 25 shares in technology. It's the only fintech play we have here aside from the SoFi, but I need to get that through the SPAC merger and then convert those warrants to common shares to put us at a nice even 500 there in social capital when it transitions over and completes its SPAC merger. Then I'll be a SPAC free. I won't own any more SPACs for a while anyway. It's the last one that I own. Then I've already mentioned the Vanguard Small Cap VBK. That's a fave of mine. Needed some small cap growth exposure, so no better place to get it than there in Verizon here. It has always held a nice telecom piece within this nice dividend payer. Then Wells Fargo. This is the first time that it's been in the black here for years. I have owned this for going on three or four years, taken in some really deep water, and it's nice to see that position really fight its way back and get into the black again. We'll continue to monitor Wells as they look to improve their book of business. It's always been really good comparatively speaking. It's the most undervalued. I actually buy all traditional mait metrics, look at it, that it's somewhat fairly valued, if not slightly overvalued, but they need to win back investor confidence and consumer confidence as well with moving out of the era of the scandal and looking forward to getting back to their roots in being one of those premier banking services. Then finally, Walmart in the staples category. Right there at the bottom, just sleepy money. Walmart's an easy company to own a Dow component. We'll just continue to own that to fill out some staples exposure. Hope you guys enjoyed this comprehensive review of the 20 holdings here within the Roth IRA. Number one, with that, we'll kick you back and we'll conclude the video. All right, guys. We've come out of the review of the Roth IRA account. Number one, this is actually my wife's account. Hope you guys enjoyed the transparency of the account. We're building quite nicely. Some of the positions are doing quite well. Some positions need a little bit more time and work on. That's fine. That's investing. One on one. That's just the nature of the game. That's how it goes sometimes. This has been built up over a number of years, so I would encourage you guys to start slow, start with scale that's appropriate for you. Start in a manner that makes sense for you. This is just to provide a testimonial on what's possible in self-directed investing when you look to establish the right account to liberate your dollars from the effects of fees over time. These are the accounts that started it all for me, the self-directed Roth IRA account. There's no more singular review that I do that's more important than these. Guys, if you appreciate the message, then make sure and subscribe to the Independent Investor channel. Leave your comments at the bottom of the video and share the message with anybody out there that you think might appreciate the delivery. Get them started in investing and wealth building for themselves. Take control of your own financial future. Super important to get to the younger folks as early as we can. Start them on this empowered journey to a financial future that is secure and is lucrative into the future. Guys, thank you so much for tuning in to the message and good luck in your investment future.


Hi, everyone. It's my great honor to be here to tell you a little bit about Alibaba Cloud and some of the technologies behind it. So let's get started. First, I want to share with you a set of numbers to give you a sense of Alibaba Cloud. Alibaba Cloud was founded on September 10, 2009, which is exactly 10th anniversary of Alibaba Group's founding. And after two years, we rolled out our first product on July 28, 2011. That's the Elastic Computing Service, which is a virtual machine. Since then, we've seen tremendous growth of Alibaba Cloud. In the last eight quarters, we have seen triple digital growth quarter year over year consecutively. That puts us the number one in terms of cloud companies within China. And in our last quarters quarterly report, we reported 0.87 million paying customers. And the total revenue for fiscal year 2017 was $6.6 billion, almost $1 billion US. So the technology powering Alibaba Cloud is called Apsara, or in Chinese, Feitian. So let me just go through briefly about the journey of Apsara. So development of Apsara started in February 2009. If you recall in my previous slides, you would notice that actually development of Apsara precedes the founding of Alibaba Cloud. The reason being that when we started doing building Apsara, what we wanted to do was to build a unified foundation, technology foundation for all the Alibaba Groups business units. Because at that time, the business was growing very fast in different business groups. And also, the technology-wise, we have commercial software, open sources, in siloed fashions. So we wanted to really unify everything together, have a single foundation for all the Alibaba Groups business groups. So after about one year's development in August 2010, I'm sorry, Apsara became the technology foundation, the cloud infrastructure within Alibaba Group. With that, we support four major applications, including web search, web mail, image storage, and a micro loan payment service, which now is part of Ant Financial. The third milestone I want to talk about is in August 2013. This is what we internally call the 5K project. So on that date, August 15, 2013, the first 5,000 node Apsara cluster went online, went into production. The reason 5,000, this 5K is important is because when we set out to do Apsara, we wanted to build a large scale general computing platform. So what do we buy large scale? In 2009, what we know in the world, the largest cluster is about 5,000 nodes, probably in Google. So that's why we think that to really put a concrete definition of large scale, we said that we have to really make it at least the 5,000 node cluster. We thought we could do it by the end of 2010, but turns out it's much harder than we thought. So it took us three more years. So in 2013, we actually did it. I'm going to talk a little bit more later. In the next milestone, we not only prove that we can build the scale, we also want to prove that the system can outperform other systems. So in 2015, we participated into this sort contest. And our Apsara system broke the world record in the sort of competition by sorting 100 terabytes of data in 377 seconds. Next, so it's really not a milestone because starting from 2011, we hold annual developer conferences. So in 2016, obviously, that's six conferences. And you can see some numbers there that we have 40,000 developers attending the conference and over 7 million people actually watched it online. We did it live broadcast. So what exactly does Apsara do? Apsara, in a nutshell, it manages a planet scale infrastructure. So what does it look like? First of all, our data centers are organized into regions. And between these regions, we have a fast network which is called a transfer network. And also, we have our backbone network that connects our data centers with the telecom carriers. That's how we connect the users from outside network to our data centers. And finally, we have this edge network which is essentially point-out presence sites across the globe so that that accelerates the access of the services being deployed in our data centers. So today, we have four data centers regions across the globe. In the mainland, we have six regions, three in China North, one in China East, and one in China South, and two in China East. And also, we have 11 overseas regions. I'm not going to enumerate them here. And finally, about the edge network, we have over 600 point-out presence nodes and over 20 terabytes of bandwidth capacity. This slide shows the architecture of Apsara. So at the bottom, it's our data centers, our availability zones, and the regions. And on top of that, we have four red squares are the common building blocks of distributed systems. These include a distributed coordination, security management, log collection, and distributed monitoring, diagnostics, et cetera. And on top of that, there are two big pieces. One is what we call Pangu, which is unified storage management. The other is called a Fushi, which is distributed resource management. So we actually have these two pieces to pull off all the resources in our data centers as unified resources pull and unified storage. On the side, we have a component called a Tianji, which does the infrastructure management and the service management. Look at the, this is the only component that's aligned vertically. That's because it's actually connecting the applications running on top of those red, we call it, Apsara core, and also the bottom line infrastructure. So basically what it does is that it does the service deployment, expansion, and also server healing in the sense that when some service instance has problems, it would automatically shut it down, isolate it, and start a new instances. And on top of that, we have accounting, authentication, or authorization, metering the billing. These are the services very common to support a public service. And in those blue squares, these are the public cloud services we provide. They include some basic services like compute, storage, databases, networking. And also we have a collection of services to help developers build applications. That includes the middleware, service orchestration, and the service computing. Then on top of that, we have some advanced services, including data intelligence, such as BI, such as AI, or machine learning, and also some security products. And in the orange pieces are those ones that are dealing with the connectivity, such as the data transfer, database synchronization, content delivery network, and also Express Connect, which is that's the hybrid cloud connecting between the on-premise infrastructure and our public cloud. And finally, you can consider the App Store for Cloud, which we call the Marketplace. We'd like to think of Sarah as a hyperscale cloud operating system. The reason we call it the operating system is because it actually draws a very clear analogy between a Sarah and the PC operating system. So if you look at all those layers, at the bottom layer, it corresponds to a PC hardware. Then on top of that, the red pieces really correspond to the kernel. Then even on top of that, all the modern operating systems are multi-user enabled. So that's why every operating system has to have account management. All those blue squares correspond to system cores, system services, and bundled apps. And the orange pieces correspond to the input and output subsystem of an operating system. And finally, obviously, most of the modern operating system have an App Store. So I want to talk briefly about some of the design highlights of our Sarah. First of all, we talked about that we want to build a general purpose computing platform for our internal applications. That's why we think that the reason we want to do that, we think it's very important to run a mixture of latency-sensitive applications and batch applications. So the first key highlight is that our Sarah really is a uniform computing platform for running latency-sensitive applications and batch applications on one platform. The second one is that I've already talked about in 2013, we achieved a scale of 5K. But we didn't stop there. So currently, our largest of Sarah classes is exceeded 10,000 servers with hundreds of petabytes of raw storage and hundreds of thousands of CPU cores. And thirdly, in the design of Sarah, given that's a large scale, the design, throughout the Sarah design, it has zero single point of failure and achieves 395s of availability. And fourth, all the data stored in Sarah are triple replicated by default and achieve 10 lines of data availability.  And lastly, you must have noticed in my architecture diagram, security is embedded in the deep of the core of Absara. And we implored what we call minimum TCB, trust the computing base to ensure the security of this whole system. So like I said previously, I want to develop a little bit more on Absara 5K. The reason it is important is because not many companies can actually, well, in this world, there are not many commercial or open source offerings that can do 5K. We became one of that. And also why it's so important is because with 5K, it was the first time that the scale of a Absara cluster exceeds that of a Hadoop cluster. And so with that, we actually decided that we should unify all the data processing workload on one platform. So that's what we internally, it's our internal project Apollo, internally we call it a Deng Yue. So now every core, Alibaba core businesses, the data processing workload are being processed on Absara. And also on July 1st, 2014, we made a max computer generally available. So that's the distributed data processing platform built on top of Absara. And that was the first time that any one company that offers such large-scale data processing capability commercially to the world. And the impact of the availability of such kind of service actually exceeds even our imagination. So I want to give you one example. So prior to the release to the release to the public of mass computer, we conducted an experiment, the Tianzhi challenge, which is essentially similar to Netflix challenge. What we did is that we give away a slice of Alibaba's internal data, so anonymized it, remove all the sensitive fields, and let people to do prediction algorithms. Essentially, in this case, what a user would click for a certain ads. As a matter of fact, over 7,000 teams all over the globe attended register for the competition. And even 351 groups were from outside China. That is more than 10x of similar contacts held in some academia conference like KDD. And even more amazingly, we led the top 10 team to participate in our single-stay event in 2014. What we did is that we sliced the traffic, online traffic into 11 pieces. Each one of those 11 pieces of traffic goes to one of those participants. And we reserve one piece going to our in-house algorithm. We set out a million-yuan challenge in the sense that if the click-through rate of any of those participants exceeds our in-house algorithm by 15%, we give away 1,000 yuan. So it turns out that one group actually won. So their algorithm beat our in-house algorithm by 16%. So as you can see that the availability of such kind of data processing platform, letting people to very easily iterate their algorithms, makes all the data scientists from the global to realize their ideas much faster. So I'm not going to go through that slide. This just shows the comprehensive portfolio of our cloud products. So I'm almost running out of time, but I want to just maybe give me one minute of borrow time to talk a little bit about virtualization in Alibaba Cloud. By virtualization, I really mean virtualization in general. So that means because young cloud is always multi-talented, the isolation, the runtime. So I want to talk about virtualization in general in three aspects. One is the resource isolation. The second is what we traditionally know as virtualizing, which I call server virtualization. And third is the container technology. So I diverge a little bit. Talk about Linux at Alibaba. So currently, all our physical servers run a variant of Linux distribution, including Fedora Centos. And also, we released our customized kernel in 2011, which we call the Alikernel. And also, since 2010, we have almost 300 patches being accepted by Linux. And that makes us the number one Chinese cloud company in terms of contribution. Why mixing latent-sensitive workload and a batch worker is so important? This is borrowed from a data center as a computing book from Google. So you can see that typically, the class that run the latent-sensitive workload has much lower CPU utilization than those running batch workload. So the basic idea is why can we mix them together to improve the overall utilization? Well, the key challenge is we want to make sure that even though the user's utilization increased, we don't want to sacrifice the performance of a latent-sensitive workload.  I'm running out of time. I'm not going to go through the details of all those technologies. Essentially, what we did is that we actually did a resource isolation in all the dimensions, including CPU, including the networking, and including the IO. So let me show some of those results. So this slide shows the effectiveness of CPU isolation. So this vertical line, essentially, is a triggering event when a batch workload is being launched on a class that previously is only running latent-sensitive workloads. As we can see here that before and after graph, the CPU utilization increased from 35% to over 65%. So that's over 30% increase. And also, in terms of degradation-wise, both the latency and the throughput for the latent-sensitive workload is less than 5%. So that definitely shows the effectiveness of our CPU isolation. Next, we look at the networking isolation. So we have three bars here. The green ones shows the latency of those latent-sensitive workloads requests. And the blue bar shows the request latency when we just simply mix the workload without doing any kind of networking isolation. And the yellow ones shows the effect that when we have the network isolation enabled. As we can see, without the network isolation, the average latency requests the processing latency increased by 8-fold. And even worse, the tail latency increased by 20-fold. While with the network isolation enabled, the degradation goes down to 10% to 20%. So that's the effectiveness of network isolation. And now we look at the IO throttling. So what we did is that we allow applications to throttle their IOs based on file's directories. Here we can see that we have set up a single process, some data being unthrottled, some files being throttled. We can clearly see the throttle threshold is 250K IOPS. And we can clearly see that we can bond the IOs for those throttled files. Next, I want to talk a little bit about the server virtualization. So server virtualization is essentially the black butter of cloud computing. As a matter of fact, our first service, last computing service, essentially is the server virtualization. And underneath the hood, we did a transition from Xen-based hypervisor to KVM-based hypervisor in 2014. And we get engaged to the Linux Foundation in 2017 by upgrading our membership to the gold membership. One of the key things that we did with the KVM was to support the hot upgrade. So the key problem is that typically a hypervisor upgrade would impact the service availability. A case in point is in 2014, one of the vulnerability that would lead to, that's vulnerability for Xen, by the way, that would lead to a malicious user to gain access to the physical machine or even impact the case that OS is on the same server. And Linoda, that's a company, had end up have to restart all their server instances to patch the kernel. So what we did is that we did, that's a very tense taking engineer effort. We made all those components related to hypervisor hot upgradeable, including K-mode and the K-mail. I'm not going through the details here. And today, every VM will go through some kind of upgrade event once every one to two months. And during that upgrade event, typically there's only tens of millisecond service interruptions. So user doesn't see a thing. It's just the service gets paused maybe for 20, 30 milliseconds. Finally, I want to talk about the containers. Alibaba Cloud embraces the Cloud container technology very daily. So we formed a strategic partnership with Docker in 2016. And just this month, we actually announced the Docker Hub in China. We also joined the CNCF Foundation as a Gold member in two months ago. And we are the only, as far as I know, only Cloud provider in China that supports both Docker Swarm and Kubernetes. So some of the bits of what we did for the container front. First of all, we did the native integration of Docker Swarm with Cloud infrastructure. So that means that we have comprehensive infrastructure code support for storage, networking, and logging. And we are actually working on to make such kind of integration available for Kubernetes. We also had a lot of scalability enhancements. Currently, a single Docker container cluster could exceed over 30,000 VM nodes. And finally, we believe we are hosting the world's largest container-based application, which is Alibaba's e-commerce platform. So in the single day of 2016, over 300s of Docker containers are being deployed over multiple regions. And the peak throughput is 170,000 requests per second. Finally, I want to conclude my talk to talk about some ideas of our further future directions. First of all is lightweight virtualization for containers. Obviously, given the more and more weight we put on the container technologies, this is critical for us. The second thing is that the hardware becomes much faster, such as NVMe-based storage or 25G network. So the five-system and the networking optimizations for such kind of ultra-fast hardware I think is going to be a very interesting direction to explore. And thirdly, the security enhancements for heterogeneous hardware. We talk about FPGA, GPU, and some other customized ASICs. With that, thank you.


The study suggests that deficit irrigation with or without nitrogen deficit can reduce post-harvest losses due to diseases and pruning weights, without sacrificing yield and fruit quality, and may be a sustainable way to decrease phytosanitary inputs and workload in the orchard while maintaining performance. This article was authored by Ursina Tay, Bruno Huckbord, Aurora Trevet, and others.


What's up everybody, Jason here from jazbyzcasebrakes.com. We are giving away two 2017 flawless spot giveaways In this pack break here number 19-20 panini mosaic sell a pack break number 654 as you can see 655 has already been uploaded 654 sold out earlier yesterday So we are doing that right now and again the way this works guys is 30 total spots number no better in commons We'll ship out of here, but everything else will randomize customer names and teams to strip the hits out of this pack break And then at the end of the break we will randomize all customer names and Numbers one and two at the top of the randomized will win as spot in the 1718 flawless one box break random hip break Which is about a $900 spot so you're paying a fraction of the price at 6299 to potentially win a $900 spot So let's do the break first guys see we can get out of here So let's roll it and we got ourselves a five and a four nine times. Good luck one two three four five six seven eight nine down the cruise nine times One two three four Five six seven eight nine times Got nine times And again, I'm not gonna go through every single team guys. This is just a quick little pack break I'll go through the most noticeable ones like the pelicans and Grizzlies etc. But I'll stick with you got there won't be no trades for this But like, you know bulls Michael right there. You have pelicans here Daniel Graham Cordy of the Grizzlies Miami Heat going to Corey Lakers Corey's Corey's see that is there's two cores for Durell and Corey see Say Corey D has the Grizzlies as well So I think what you got guys Just a quick pack break Then we'll come back after the pack break randomize customer names again and again, of course Customers at one and two top two Get a spot each in The flawless break Al Horford green and a taco and be a debut Hey, Tyler, you're a rookie Very nice All right, and the camel pack Laura Marginan Gordon Hayward and Derris Garland Tacos you didn't some tacos Jordan man. That sounds great. There you go guys Quick little pack break there Alright now Let's see who's gonna get into the birth itself So We're gonna roll the dice boom It is a five and a two for lucky number seven number top two get in number one and number two get a spot each And the flawless random hip break and that is a $900 spot each seven times one two three four five six and Seventh and final time guys two and a five and a two seven times Five and a two. Good luck Talk to get in Brian Kim and Tony Barkie. Wow. There you go. Congratulations after seven times top two get in Another way to win right here number to 655 and it's at 13 left I'll give you guys a lowdown to of how many we actually have to do this stuff But it's I don't think it's too many guys. So I think maybe one more after this So appreciate you guys Jaspies case breaks calm


I'm calling to request a refund on the services that I paid for, but I should have been able to do the free to file, but I was directed to the free addition for TurboTax when I was filing my taxes. Give me a moment. We are going to have to pull up a screen share because the freedom addition is through the IRS. Free file is through us. I can tell you that through us. It is forms that are needed. Through the IRS, it is income-based. So we are not able to grant you a refund, but I can point out your forms to you on what forms might have bumped you into a higher product. So that's not my understanding for free to file if you made it under a certain level of income. That is pretty much me. Okay. But your agreement with the IRS is that under a certain level of income, you're not allowed to file for free. You would have to use that product. Okay. That's what I intended to use, but because, and I'm finding out through pro-public articles now that TurboTax is intentionally making those very difficult to find or use. We are not making them difficult to find. There's coding literally to say that it's not going to show up in search engines. And I guarantee you read that on the pro-public site, didn't you? I really did. Yeah, they're not going to be honest about that stuff because we have no power over Google or anything like that. It is up to the IRS on how they want to advertise that if they want to advertise it at all. I mean, but IRS doesn't have a product. They agree not to be a product in agreement with, like, H&R box, you guys, all these other things. We had to, we made that product for their use. They do it by income. We do not. That doesn't make any sense. They literally does not have any products to file like that. They agree not to do that with you guys. You have to go through the IRS site to actually get to that. That's not at all correct. I am on the IRS site right now. Yes, it is. I am on the IRS site right now. I can show you the exact IRS webpage. All right. What's the URL? So if I go into, like, Google search and I say, hey, I want to file my taxes for free through TurboTax, which is an agreement that you guys have. I went to the IRS.gov. I hit File Your Taxes for Free. Start Free File Now. And then we're not even the top one. We're within the top two. There are multiple free file software offers, but that is through the IRS. I'm looking at the website right now. I'm not seeing it anywhere. The IRS website? Yep. There we go. Yeah. It would be one of the eight blocks. It would be the bottom number eight. You'd click that, hit Start Free File Now, and then it actually bounces around the free file. So sometimes it's one of the top two. This time it's number at least five, maybe seven. Okay. I mean, it's just, like, I've used TurboTax. I've paid for TurboTax in the past. It's not that I have a problem paying for it, but I'm feeling like really in the slug, because I went back and signed into my previous account to say, hey, I'd like to file for free, and it's just nowhere on your guys' website. Because that link directs me right back to TurboTax. Ellen, you see if you qualify. You hit Yes. Start TurboTax Free File Program. That's what you would have to hit, and that would still take you through the IRS Free File Program. If you hit Sign In button at the top, that will get you through TurboTax exclusively. Yeah, because, I mean, I'm clicking the links and it brings me right back to my TurboTax account. I just, I mean, the fact that it's this roundabout seems ridiculous to me. And like, if I go to the TurboTax site, it's like, you know, file for free now. And then, like, why would it, like, there's no warning to say on the TurboTax website, you need to take this other route. Like, there's no links to it. There's nothing like that. Because it is an IRS product we built for them. But you guys are the ones managing it, right? No, the IRS is the one managing it.


I actually was going to ask you because we were going to put the photos on the glass, meaning that we didn't have time. So I didn't know more because... I know that you were going to do that. I know that you were going to do that. Okay. So there's nothing to be sorry about. As far as I'm concerned, I don't know how much I'm going to do. Okay. Yeah, I think that's fine. So we're going to send this to somebody else today who has a laptop. We're just going to read it. Yeah, well, they were like sort of in the trash bin. I said that by the time I got back. I was in the library by my senior. But all the board members were there. Yeah, and some of them don't have their computers. Oh, okay. Actually, I saw a new one on the agenda. I don't know about that. Yes, it was just because she... Yeah, we said. Yeah, we said. She said, yeah. She said it was new. She said it was new. Well, we don't have a pesky board. Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I'll need to move. It's not that it's like... She is going to be there. Yeah. Yeah. You can make your station. You know, we know you're here actually. Yeah, I'm right around... I can tell you about what happened. I'm going to make it clear, but it's always the same thing. Maybe you should. No, it's fine. No, it's fine. No, I actually don't think so. No. Here. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. He's here for the first time on the film, that's how much they come in here. He's here for the first time on the film, that's how much they come in here. I was not aware of that because I wasn't aware of it. Should I lean back like this, or should I? Sounds good. Okay, thank you Charlie. Welcome to the South Burlington Development Review Board for Tuesday, let's see. Today is March 19th, I'm going to say. Go with that. Yes it is. Absolutely right. It says it wrong on the agenda. Yeah. Back in time. March 19th. Look at that. But not the one on my computer, interesting. Wow. That was the early PDF packet. Item number one on the agenda, directions on emergency evacuation procedures from the conference room. If there's an emergency, there are several ways to leave this room. First is the way you came in, which is over there. The other is through those two doors right there. And if there is an emergency, we should all meet in the parking lot, the South parking lot, which is right behind me. Which implies that North is that way, which takes me a while to get these basic facts of life. Additions, deletions, changes in the order of agenda items, we are going to move, I propose moving. Number seven, Dorset Meadows up to in front of number five, because we're going to just continue it. So that's what we'll do. We'll move number seven up to before number five. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. Anyone have any comments, questions not related to the agenda? Hearing none. Announcements. We're still looking for two DRB members as of July one. So if anyone knows anybody or if anybody's interested, please step forward. So we are on to what was listed as preliminary application SD 18-19 of Dorset Meadows Associates for a planned unit development. And you can read the rest. We have had, so we last considered this. Sorry. Oh yeah, right. Rick Heusel. Brian is recusing himself. We considered this on what June 19th, January 19th. Several new facts and we were going to have a session tonight for people to express additional opinions because we didn't have enough time last time. It has several things have happened in the meantime. The appeal of the administrative officer decision has been denied. And there has been a related decision in Spear Meadows with regard to transfer development rights. On that basis, we see no reason to discuss that project tonight. We're going to continue it to April 16th, which is the next available date and give a little bit of time for the dust to settle. So I will entertain a motion to continue. I move that we continue preliminary application SD 18-19 of Dorset Meadows Associates LLC to April 16th. We move in second. We continue to April 16th. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain? Hearing none. Okay. So now we're back to. Yeah, Paul. So let's also continue the master plan application. What's the number? What's the number? 18-01. 18-01. What is it? MP 18-01. MP 18-01. Okay. I move that we also continue master plan application MP 18-01 of Dorset Meadows Associates to April 16th. I've been moving second. We continue master plan 18-01 to April 16th. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstain. It is continued to April 16th. Just a one comment. Last time we said come back here for those of you that wanted to comment on the plan. We think it's in the best interest of everyone. Us included. Because there's so many moving parts here. You are not going to be denied an opportunity to speak. But this plan may change. And there will be ample opportunity for you to speak for against or indifferent about this plan going forward the next time it comes before us. I just wanted people that came here based on the promise that they would have time to speak. That will absolutely not be denied. But given the circumstances with the court cases.  Does that make sense? Thank you. Okay. Question. I would just like to say the last three meetings that were here. We were not given time to speak. I appreciate you saying that. But we weren't given time the last three meetings to speak. So I hope going forward you will allow us to speak. Absolutely. Thank you for that comment. I have a comment as well. At the last meeting in January, Mr. Miller spoke on behalf of our group stating that we were okay with developing other parts of South Burlington. But we just didn't want it at this one particular spot. And that is completely untrue. SOS South Burlington to say the few open spaces that we have remaining. So just to clarify, our group is about all of South Burlington. I appreciate that comment. And next time we do have a public comment, I would make sure you bring those. You'll have plenty of time to articulate that again as well as you know that. Okay. All right. On we go. Brian, you can come back up and continue. Conditional use application CU-18-12 of Paul J. Washburn to amend a previously approved additional use permit for the 14-by-17 Good evening. So if you I'm sure you're familiar with the staff that I brought up last time and it seems the board agrees with three of them. The outstanding issue that I was that we had to follow up on was what, you know, what is the grade of the building. So cat amount came out and filed the report that I believe you see up there. A couple of things, but first of all, I think I don't think it's in line with what the report sort of says. So we have a difference of opinion and I'll let you guys decide, but I want to express what my opinion of the report is. If we on this on the report, if we go to the last bullet on the first page, I'm sorry, the cat amount report. It's attached. So the last bullet on the first page indicates that the cover over the sewer at the base of the foundation where it enters the bottom of the structure is 2.61 feet. Now we can go to the next page. The second bullet down discusses what the state recommendations are. And what the state recommendations are that if there is no ground cover, if there's no plowing to be done, they recommend a minimum of 4 feet below the grade. And if there is plowing and such to be done in the winter, they recommend 5 feet. So based on those two recommendations, and Delilah, if you'd pull up the picture that I sent you where I added on to the field notes. I just graphically illustrate this so that it's kind of, so that everybody's on the same page was my intention here. All right, so the background of this, the colored lines that are in the sort of lower right, I added those to the PDF of the field notes provided by CCE. So the blue line at the bottom represents where the sewer enters 2.61 feet below the current, what the current grade was measured when they measured the height of the house a couple of months ago. The green line shows where that grade is in relation to the sewer. What I'm proposing tonight is that the board recommends a change of the preconstruction grade, which we've discussed that you have the ability to do that if there's reasonable justification, to 4 feet, which is the minimum that the state expects. The next recommendation is the 5 foot line. And one of the things I didn't include with what I sent is this drawing and I've got a few copies for the board. The pathway of the sewer goes underneath the driveway that was required. We had to add spaces so the driveway itself is 4 spaces wide. And of course the sewer goes underneath that so it's plowed in the winter. So it would technically meet the requirements of the 5 feet. We're not asking for 5 feet. We used insulation in the ground, which is one of the things you can do to keep the building as low as possible. And we did that, again, to keep everything as low as possible. And we don't need 5 feet of cover, but we're requesting the 4 feet based on, again, state recommendations of what was found during the CCB evaluation. So I don't think I have enough for everybody. So again, this is just the red line that I put on there shows the path of the sewer. So here's one for the record. So anyway, that's the way I interpret the report that was provided by CCE. And that's what I'm hoping the board will consider adopting that the alteration of the pre-construction grade to 4 feet to allow the... And it's not 4 feet above what was there before. It's 4 feet above where the sewer line enters the building. 4 feet above where the sewer line enters the residential structure. Correct, yes. The accessory structure. Yeah, the accessory structure, which is what the state recommended code is per the catamount report at that. So that was actually what our original intent was. I mean, we've kind of gotten there through a circuitous route. But we had always intended on backfilling the foundation up to that point anyway. And at that point, we actually, I think at this point, we're probably going to have to remove the bottom row or two of siding. To accommodate that, but it does come down over the cement that's there a little bit. And so at that point, I believe we meet all the other requirements. We'll be at 15 feet for the building height from the grade and then the other requirements that have already been agreed to. Staff comments. As I understand it, staff was not in favor of changing the existing grade, measuring the height from the grade, which brings the height to 15 feet. And instead, you were in favor of reducing the height of the building by a foot and a half. You remain that. So this doesn't change your opinion. This doesn't change staff's opinion. You know, it's ultimately up to the board. Staff wrote our comments. Based on the report from the catamount consulting. You know, I don't want to, I don't want to get into a situation where, you know, I'm making recommendations. I'm not the engineer on this job. My interpretation of the document was that it's functioning. The sewer is functional. It's been insulated appropriately for the situation. I didn't talk to the engineer who installed the sewer line. I, you know, I think it really needs to be up to the board to make that determination on whether additional cover is needed or not. It didn't feel like the recommendation from catamount was that additional cover was needed. I have a question for staff. I just, would you review for me the idea that we can have somehow have the power to vary the pre-construction grade? On what basis can we, do we even have authority to vary the pre-construction grade? My obvious point being that it is what it is. And if you're varying that grade in anticipation of construction, then you're playing semantic games. So LDR section 312 does allow pre-construction grade to be adjusted. That section of the LDRs was written in pertaining to cases where there is net cut or fill on a site required. It doesn't provide a lot of guidance. It just says that in granting an adjustment, in granting a cut or fill permit, which the board sometimes does as a conditional use permit or miscellaneous permit, depending on the case, the board has to then determine what the new pre-construction grade is. But that's in a situation where there's cut and fill, right? Right, and in this case there's fill. Pardon? And in this case there's fill. There's also a building being constructed. And he's already under a conditional use, so he doesn't need to separately apply for a miscellaneous permit. So the authority's there in your view? I think in past meetings you've established the authority. That was my understanding. Right, and it doesn't say the board has the authority to grant this for X, Y, and Z reasons. It happens to be in the section when it pertains to adjustment of grade or pertains to cut and fill, and it talks about adjustment of grade. Right, and again, part of the reason we've gone through these exercises with the engineers was I believe the board was looking for a technical rationale as to why you could make this. You know, something to hang your hat on, if you will. And again, my interpretation of the report as written is that the engineer is saying that there's a certain amount required for the slope. I believe it's 20 inches, right? That would be the amount that it changes. But then above that 20 inches they're saying that the state recommends four feet. The highest place where the sewer is in contact with the ground, as of now, it's only two and a half feet. The state recommendation will be four, which would be the extra 14 inches that we'd be asking for. Makes sense to me. What do you guys think? I don't see any reason not to let them put the fill in. Again, this is not the scale, so it was just to demonstrate. It's not a scale drawing. I don't know what his scale was. I was just putting on lines to show that it's about the current grade. If you look at the house, is it about that first step? But I'm not sure what the line he has above the step is. So again, it's not the scale. So it was just for me to try to get everybody in the same page of what we're proposing. Not necessarily be a final rendition of what it's going to be. It wouldn't be above the porch. No, the five feet would definitely be above the level of the porch though. Just to clarify, the four feet would allow the structure to remain as it stands. Yes. It seems to me we're raising the ground so we can allow you to be that high.  And that's what we're wrestling with right now. I understand what you're saying. Because we're reading the document that says you don't have to put the fill in. Well, but it's what the state recommended guidelines would be. And that was always our intent because at the front of the house, because again, the sewers, if you're at the back house in the rear of the source coming up, you know, towards the surface at it, right? And so again, we were using a combination of fill and insulation to assure that we're below that depth.  You know, I understand that Paul's trying to make this work, which is something to keep in mind. And we don't tell people whether they can bury their houses or not. We should hear from the other parties. Yeah, that would inform our decision making. Good idea. Hi there. Who am I on the board? My name is Jeff Messina. I'm with Bergeron, Paris and Fitzpatrick. And I represent the butters Gary Kucharal and Susan Jones. I'm sorry. My name is Jeff Messina. I'm with Bergeron, Paris and Fitzpatrick. And I represent the butters Gary Kucharal and Susan Jones. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage because I did not receive the report that we're talking about right now. So I can't speak to this report. But generally, my understanding of the circumstance and I have said it before and I will reiterate to the board that it's my client's position that this project is essentially an end run around the regulations in the first place. And Mr. Washburn just said something interesting, at least to me, that what he is doing now was the original intent all along. And if it was the original intent all along, my understanding and I cannot cite any legal authority and I apologize that to the board. But using a pre-construction grade or post-construction grade is generally a factor in the building in and of itself. So if it is intended to be designed a certain way, that part is factored in. So if you're raising the ground one foot, two foot, nine feet, then you have to make the building change accordingly. And it seems to me that what he's attempting to do here is use a different grade that was not built according to the original application to have too tall of a building and sort of, I'm being glib but kick some dirt under it underneath to raise it to the level rather than using the grade or factoring that in to the original construction. And again, that is my client's concern. And I know that we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube but had it been constructed according to the original permit, my client would not have an issue, but he also would have contested it and exercised his rights there too if he knew what the ultimate project was meant to be as originally intended against what the application was actually granted for. He still has that opportunity, doesn't he? After this, indeed he does. So one of the things, he really took what I said out of context. We'd always intended on backfilling the foundation. If we go back to when I was first contacted by staff about the issue, I think it was pretty clear. I misread the LDR. I didn't understand the LDR. The section on height is somewhat confusing and my understanding was the height was based on the post-construction grade. There's only one area of the LDR that says it's pre-construction grade and it's buried in the middle of the definition of height. It's nothing I looked at. I looked at the tables and charts. He's been implying many times that I had some nefarious intent. There was never a nefarious intent. There's never been anything like that. This is the third time he's come to one of these meetings and accused me of that. I'm a little tired of it. I know this is not the forum to express that. But we intended on the building the way it is now, but there were mistakes that were made on my part in planning it. And I understand that the board has the leeway one way or the other. But in our opinion, I think if we had come to the board and asked for the sewer requirement of four feet six months ago, which is obviously what should have happened and didn't, I just feel like that is a question that probably would have been answered in a different way than I think it may be answered. I don't know. Wait a minute. It sounds to me like you're saying, well, what you're really doing is burying the house. I mean, that's a slight hyperbole, but you're taking away a couple of rows of siding so you can get your fill in, right? Right. Well, to meet the four feet, I mean, what's that? That wouldn't normally be the way you'd build a house, right? Probably not. Well, and this is to give the gap that was the issue that was brought up last time. The gap between the siding and the fill. Personally, I don't think you have nefarious reasons. I think it's a beautiful house, but it's foot and a half too high. I'm wondering if you or your client have any resolution to this that you would suggest? I know that my client would like to see it lowered. He wants it to meet the 15 foot criteria. I do apologize to Mr. Washburn and this board. I'm in no way mean to question his actual integrity, and I'm not suggesting he had ultimate nefarious intentions. An end run is not necessarily nefarious. It's a post facto attempt to get something, so I apologize if I was hyperbolic and I did not mean to come across as suggesting he has a lack of integrity. That part was not my intent, but my client would like to see the building lowered. I can't say that I'm comfortable. What we're talking about here, what's giving us pause I think is because we understand that the result is moderately catastrophic for the applicant. I don't know what it takes to lower the building by a foot and a half. I don't know what happens. Well, I'm asking you. Last time we met we were talking about six inches, so all of a sudden now it's... Whatever it is, in other words, to take the roof off and chop it down.  Our plan was to raise the building, cut the foundation out and drop it that way. But we can't do 16 inches. There's not 16 inches available. So now I'm confused. Where do we have to be? How much has to come off? Well, it depends on what is approved, I believe. To get it within the permissible height, Mar. Yeah, so to get it to the grade it is today... Sorry, to allow the grade that exists today to be the pre-construction grade, which effectively allows the sewer to have the cover it has today. They would have to lower the structure by one foot, five, and three-quarter inches. Well, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate because the front of the house has filled all the way up to the top of the cement. Remember, his measurement that you're using is the average of all of those. And in the report, he says, at the front of the building. So actually, it's not the same number. I see what you're saying. I don't know that I can do that math. Yeah, no, I... That's the 14 inches. You don't have to verify it.  We did. We knew we had to get it up against the foundation to cover the sewer at the front. It's my understanding now. I wasn't the estimator, so this is my understanding now. And we put the porch on over it so it's not obvious from the road that it's on a hill. We're attempting to mask the effect that, apparently, and just for an aesthetic reason, we don't particularly care for it looking like it's on a hill either. But we're attempting to mask that as much as possible. So the porch, there's a porch on it that's over this dirt pile that slopes down in the front. Like result-driven decisions, you know? That's the difficulty I'm having. Especially after the fact. Yeah. Yeah. And from my client, if I may, my client's perspective, nefarious or naive. Brian, Jennifer? Yeah, I'm torn. I don't like the precedent, but I also don't like the thought of what it will take to fix it. I understand Jennifer's concerns. I think the first one weighs more heavily on me than the second. The precedent? Yes. The result-oriented after-the-fact nature of it. And then this is what we complain about. That's what I complain about. What you complain about. You've affected me. Okay. So it sounds like we're leaning in the direction of it's got to come down four and a half. So I think what Paul was saying is that we need to revisit that number to confirm that, you know, what the number is. Yeah. But the board's inclination is to require it to be lowered. Yeah. So I don't know that we need new information. Would you agree that based on the information we have, we could redo that calculation? I would think so. Okay. I think I agree with him that I think we have everything we need. Sorry, my brain's not 100% of the game. I've been out of town until a few hours ago. So we have the information we need. We'll redo the number. We're not accepting the information. It seems reasonable to close. Yep. Right. Can we close with that information still pending? Well, because we have the information, we just need to re-cunch the numbers. Right. Are there any other witnesses? Anybody else have anything to say about this? We don't know. Anything else? No. Anyone else have anything to say? Just the question of, based on the new number, that will be the adjustment of grade that the board is allowing? Okay. I just want to make it clear what the result of recalculating the number is. Right. Some number is the number that you're going to have to bring the structure down by. Okay. I move that we close continued conditional use application. CU-1812. Apologize, Washburn. I second. We close this application. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? I abstain. Thank you very much. Take care. Next, item number six, which is actually the seventh. Eliminer in final time application, SD 19-07 of city of Burlington, Burlington International Airport to amend a previously approved plan for an airport complex. The amendment consists of raising an existing car wash facility, constructing a new 7,990 foot, 7,990 square foot auto rental car wash facility, and constructing a 2,253 square foot, six-position fuel capacity at 1,200 airport drive. Who is here for the Africa? Good evening. My name is Nick Longo. I'm the Deputy Director of Aviation for the Burlington International Airport. And I'm John Lingwall with StanTech Consulting. And does anyone have any conflicts of interest? Yeah. Could I just say if anyone came in late, we continued item number seven, about Dorset Meadows to April 16th. If anyone was waiting specifically for that meeting, that has been continued until April 16th. Okay. Thanks, Matt. Yeah. Okay. So you were in for sketch plan, just like a little while ago, right? So this is the first time we've seen this, Plimmerine Plantal Plantation. So, yeah, if you'd describe the project to us. Swearing it? Oh, swearing it. Please raise your right hand. If you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and the penalty perjury. So very quickly, and you're correct, we were here just a few weeks ago. What we're planning to build and construct here is for the use of the Burlington International Airport car rental companies. This is a full service car wash, fueling and vacuuming bay to 100% facilitate the car rental companies at the airport. There's a current existing facility on the field today that only supports two of the three large companies at the airport. So this new facility will, of course, allow all three companies to operate more efficiently at the airport. Okay. So does anyone need more commentary on this? I think, yeah. So we can dive right into staff comments. We'll step us through those. Sure. So I'll start out with just number one there. So there was a discussion there about some, an additional pervious area next to the existing building on the north side of the site. We've talked about it internally at the airport, and we also agree with that. There is no intended use for that area. So we will change the plan to make that a grass area. Great. Thank you very much. Direction of the north area. I'm sure you'll fix that. We'll go through each drawing and make sure they're consistent all the way through. So this is the applicable regulatory entities to make sure that there's no interference with whether it's lighting, radio, communications, whatnot. So what John is going to hand out is an FAA. It's called the 7460. This is the process that occurs through the Federal Aviation Administration. And what happens with that process is the entire project is sent to the Federal Aviation Administration, and it goes through different fields in their offices, whether it's air traffic control, technical operations, which looks at the lighting and height of some of this, and of course air space, which again looks at the height of the buildings and any obstructions for this particular project. This is the same process that any new facility or even temporary crane use would have to go through this process. In fact, we even have to do this process on the airfield side of our project as well. So I might add that as you're looking at that documentation, you'll see basically three different pieces of it reviewed. They looked at the permanent building itself. They looked at the fueling island as a separate structure, and then there's a third review for the crane, the temporary crane that would be used to erect the building. And the determination in all three cases was there was no adverse impact on aircraft operations. This is the determination expires on December 30th, 2017. Is that obviously that's been extended? There are two, it has in one case. The permanent structures, the building, and the canopy of that did not apply to it. If you dig further into that document, you'll see that those are considered permanent approvals for those temporary crane permit did expire, and we've had that renewed. On the last page of that, we'll see a renewal of fueling. I'm sorry. So all the approvals are now current? Yes. We're fortunate enough to be very close to some of the FAA folks as well, not only locally, but of course in the regional level. So we've been briefing them very consistently with this project as we do with all of our projects at the airport. I assume you mean only geographically close, you don't mean? Well, some of them, yeah, yeah. You don't mean they're your buddies, do you? No, sir. They are nice folks, though. Comment number five. Four. Oh, four. Forcing that. That was three. That was three versus one. Okay. More compliance in number four. So this was about the parking, and they submitted a couple page memo talking about, well, one page memo and then a diagram showing where they were going to be replacing the displaced parking spaces. And this is, we discussed this at Sketch, as I recall. But, you know, being a new hearing. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm recalling in my mind discussion about parking. Marla, why does, help me out, why does this particular facility, I mean, all your ability is just drive through cleanup facility, right? That's it. Correct. Correct. So this. How does that trigger any sort of parking consideration? It doesn't. It displaces existing parking. The construction of this project displaces existing parking. Oh, okay. I see what you mean. That displacement is approximately 112, 112 parking spaces. Where are you going to put them? So, looking at the map there, if you look on the left side of the page, right where the building site is, that's where the displaced parking is currently for our crew and some employee parking of the airport itself. So that displacement where the building is will be moving to the left side of that page or the west of the actual site to a parking lot adjacent to that. Further, the 112 spaces to the north of the site are easily accommodated with over 425 total spaces in those multiple parking lots. Bravo, BC. Yeah, you got half a Colchester to the north. We do have very adequate parking spaces. So those 112 spaces are, we're not a concern for us. I understand. And those parking spots are now overflow. What's the purpose of those spots now? Right now, the lot B and lot C are overflow. So that's generally where those displacements are going to be located. Lot D is car rental parking right now. But that car lot D is actually going to be relocated into the new site itself. So that's going to be new available parking spaces for us. And then lot E up in the top left corner there. That's our, I forgot what it's called, but that's our cell phone lot. Excuse me. The employees are going to have to walk a little bit further, but not far. Correct. A little bit further, but not farther. You have enough spots in those E, C and D. Correct. And there is a sidewalk going from those lots all the way to our terminal. Okay. Okay, to move on. Number five. Yeah. So number five was, um, is related to the appearance of the building, I think primarily. And we did, um, submit some renderings of the building, which you have an engineer here talking about architecture, which is really dangerous. So the, what are the comments that, um, was made early on in this project? Um, was that the building that we came back with the re-engineered building that we came back with, um, kind of a scaled down version of the 2016 submittal that you saw. Um, scale down version was very plain looking. We didn't have architectural features shown on that. And there was a request made, um, to take a look at that and to try to, um, have the appearance of the building more similar to the parking garage and the terminal building. So in response to that request, um, the architect, uh, added some brick columns, uh, to the, to the building, which you can see in that upper rendering. And, uh, there's also a band of green color that was added around the perimeter of the building at the top. Um, and those features, uh, do a lot of, they're not exactly the same, obviously, as the parking garage. They do replicate some of the materials in the, in the appearance of what was done there. So that's the, you know, that's what's being offered. Um, is a change there.  And I'm sure you're familiar with the garage, parking garage structure itself, but there is in the packet of a Google foot, um, street view of the parking lot, just, just for reference. So you can see there the, you know, the use of the concrete and brick. The colors are similar. Oh, isn't the new building or similar to what's there? Yeah. I'm fine with that. Anybody other comments? Questions? Very good. Comment number six. Uh, so I might need a little guidance on this one. Um, but, but, uh, in relation for my interpretation of, of the comment anyways, uh, there is additional pedestrian crosswalks from the south side of the building or excuse me, the south side of the site to the terminal building. And then I believe the comment was to access the parking garage. So the question we had when one staff looked at this is how, if the, and I'm, don't rent cars from the airport because I live around here. So I don't need to rent cars from the airport. But if someone's working at the airport car rental, the cars sort of live in the parking garage.  Um, how do you walk from the parking garage as an employee of the QTA to the car wash building, the fuel dispenser building, that sort of thing? Cause it looks like there's a sidewalk accessing it from the north end, but not from near the parking garage end. So if you look, uh, is it easier if I go up there? Um, yeah. I think page two shows where there's parking. Where there's sidewalks more clearly. Yeah. Is that easier or bigger? Actually the, the map that you had on there before might show a little bit better because I think this is the area that you're referring to just on the south side of the project. Yeah. Perfect. So that's the entrance and that's also the exit going into the parking garage for the car rental vehicles themselves. So the actual pedestrian sidewalk is here going to the terminal in case they need to go back into their offices. There is a sidewalk here, which also has a path going directly into the garage. So, so from this location, you can access the parking garage here. But if I work it as a car wash employee, how do I get from my place of employment to the terminal or the parking garage or whatever. From this building. Right. Over to this side. So, so typically you wouldn't do that on foot when you're actually operating this scenario. So all the vehicle traffic is how you're going to actually either pick up a vehicle in the garage or dropping it off after it gets fueled and cleaned. So the only access that we feel is necessary in the car rental companies also agree for the operations of this is the sidewalk here either going here, which we don't encourage because we don't really want that pedestrian traffic within our car, within the actual purple garage itself, especially in the car rental section. And then if you're going to the garage, excuse me, the terminal building, which is more likely your walkway path is directly on the sidewalk there. It's very, it's very unlikely to access on foot that building to this building.  Where do you walk to? This wouldn't have any scenario with an actual passenger. So the passenger would pick up the keys in the terminal building, walk across the, the jetway to the garage and drive the vehicle out here onto the road. Which is how it is now. Which is how it is now. Right. The only difference with this is one, the building, of course, is relocated and it's a little bit larger of a site. So that public does not ever access this facility. So an employee, there's never a case when an employee is not driving from the garage to the QTA? Not normally. The only time they would be to deposit the keys back to the terminal building is by a pedestrian walkway directly there. But how do you get, I'm going to flip back to the other page because I can see it better.  Or do you not? You really don't. Okay. And we wouldn't encourage that either because this is meant for just the vehicle traffic. Yeah, we definitely did not design this for a pedestrian path because that's not the intent of that at all. We would want that to be vehicle traffic only going through there. So if you leave a car, I assume this is like car stacking that you leave cars there. Correct.  What's your next stop? So usually you're going to stack in the back of the line. And most likely you're going to grab the front car and go through the routine of fueling, washing, and then bringing it back in here to grab an additional vehicle. And at the end of the day, you do the same and then you just leave it in the garage or something. Yeah. So... I'm sorry to play with this. I have rented a car from the grocery store. And then when you go from the little terminal where the baggage claim is, and then you go pick it up in the garage, and when I returned it, I brought it back there. Under this scenario, I would bring it into the... No. No, no, I'd still bring it back to the garage. Correct. Okay. No change. And then an employee would pick it up in the garage, bring it through there in order to wash it and do everything. Correct. And then bring it back to the garage. Correct. Got it. That's correct. All right. So that... I may be misunderstanding with the question and I do apologize if I am, but... The only foot traffic is going to be that individual from the terminal to the garage where the car has been parked or after they've parked it back to the terminal. Yes. That's going to be the significant amount of foot traffic. An employee traffic is always going to be a car from the QTA to the garage, pick up a car in the garage and take it back to QTA. The employee is never going to be walking. I wouldn't say always. There's going to be occasional walking through this crosswalk through this scenario as it is today to get either in a regular operation where it's not going back through the facility. It's health book coming back here or to start the day at the shift, let's call it. So you would have some pedestrian, some staff walking but not a significant amount of time. The significant use is going to be within a vehicle itself. Okay. Other questions, comments on that? Thank you very much for that. Sure. Comment number seven. We talked about this, this is just the design. So I think we're okay on that. I didn't hear any requests for additional consideration of this. Staff comment number eight, interior parking islands. So this is in reference to the 10% interior parking island. And we contemplated this quite extensively and it's very, very difficult and not a traditional use for a facility like this. There would be no way to put an interior parking, excuse me, an interior island or landscaped island within the facility itself. However, that grass stripped the new pervious area that I think we referenced in comment one. We're hoping that that could substitute that interior parking island. You're stacking and packing the cars back there. We're stacking and packing. These cars are significantly close together. It is not a traditional parking lot for sure. So if you go a little farther up in the document, you know, I agree with your statement. Staff agrees on your statement about the interior. And our comment was based on the sort of perimeter parking areas. The one where July was cursor is now and up at the top where it sort of hatched. Nope. So where back where your cursor was on the bottom opposite the road. Yeah. That's aisle. And then on the right hand side of the page, this is where the north arrow thing became a problem town. Down here, this area. That was the area. And, you know, don't have strong feelings about it, but I just want to point out that we weren't talking about necessarily the interior stacking area. It was more the areas that were designed as traditional parking spaces. So remind me again on the left side, that right against the building there? No, on the opposite side of the drive aisle. Yeah. Okay. And one of the reasons we designed every space that we have in there was because this is going to be at capacity, even with the limited, to us, this is a limited amount of parking spaces with these three major companies. So those parking on the right and the left, those two reference points are going to be crucial to the operation of this entirety. I know we're only talking about four spaces total, but again, the purpose, the traditional method of designing a quick turnaround facility like this is to maximize the amount of cars you can get in there. Why are the cars parked there in that configuration? Is it after they've been cleaned and they're waiting to go back to the garage? In some cases, yes, but there really isn't any more room for the traditional queuing spaces like that. So that's additional queuing spots right there. I'm both at the angled parking on the right side and the straight end parking. I might have to sort of park there and then go back into the queue to get into the car wash line. Either the queue or directly into the car wash bay itself. I would just remind the board that this is a bit precedent setting given our conversation last week with the folks who wanted to have a parking area for their car sales facility. You know, and if the board's going to tow the line on landscaping of parking areas for one project, they should do the same for... Is this... I'm sorry if I'm not seeing it correctly. Is this all under the roof or is this outside? Outside. Outside? Outside? Yes. I agree with Stan. Jerry parking outlets are required in this... They'll do it, right? So we're going to do it. So of those, just so I'm understanding correctly, of those... I think it was 30, 34 spaces, four of them would be relinquished to be a landscape interior island. Is that, am I understanding that correctly? Yes, so the requirement is for 10% of the interior of the parking lot to be landscaped. The board could make the interpretation that the parking lot is just the area of those spaces or they could make the determination that it's the whole area of some in between. Well, we made it the whole parking, the whole open area. Wouldn't we be intruding into the driving lane to get to and from the spaces? And in other hearings, again at sketch level, the board's recommendation was that for a motor freight terminal, this is not, but it's a similar sort of moving all the time sort of thing. The board didn't feel like that interior sort of operational area needed to be landscaped, but the exterior traditional parking area did. Again, it's sketch. Well, when you say the exterior operational area, you mean including the lanes, including the movement lane? That situation was different enough that there's no real strong analogy. They had sort of a motor freight terminal and then an employee parking separate. And so the... What I'm trying to get at is if you had to take 10% out of the whole area. Right. Where would you do it? I mean, what was the whole area? You could take 10% of it, is that what you're saying? Yeah, what's the difference in square footage between taking out parking spots and taking out 10% of the whole open area? I mean it's up to the board that they're part of the area that's used as a parking lot. You could say it's the parking spaces plus the drive aisles immediately adjacent to them. I don't know if you can zoom in a little bit on either of those two areas. Just control and use the scroll wheel. So in that area, you could say that adjacent drive aisle plus the 20-foot spaces. It's one option. I mean it's ultimately up to the board. Well, in this case, I am resolved over here. I think we ought to take out, we ought to only consider the area occupied by the spaces because I think they need the area, the rest of the area for movement. Thank you. Marked area. Is this like a marking plan? And those are ballards to protect the building? That's an area where there's not to be any cars parked. What is it? Right now it's just marked pavement, right? That was the pavement markings. Basically, there were 3D people from parking there. Could they get their vegetation there? Put some vegetation in there? Put some vegetation in there? Some sort of... That way you wouldn't have to take out any parking spots. Is it 10% of the parking spots or 10% of the square foot of those parking spots? 10% of the interior. The parking lot should be landscaped. 10% of the interior sounds like square footage. So, enough to cover for parking spaces? Perfect. Yeah, I think we can make that happen. We'll definitely look at that. And I think that's a great site for that green space. Will you come back with a redesigned sketch to show it? Can I make a suggestion or request Larry Laggy at the airport? Can we make a condition of the permit and have staff approve it? So, this is preliminary and final. It's preliminary and final. The board doesn't know what it'll look like. We can't close. So, let's table that decision, I guess, until we hear what else needs to be fixed. Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's move on. So, one thing that isn't in red after staff comment, number eight, is curbing is required, but that we need to have demonstration of compliance with the criterion against any required plan modifications. Just to note that. So, if there's any changes, we'll just have to make sure curbing is okay. And on to number nine, offsite landscaping. All right. So, we did talk about this at sketch as well and I defer to you as well and hear your comments as well. We still would propose that offsite landscaping plan as we've submitted. So, I'm fine with that. I thought it was a great plan. I thought it was very helpful to the neighborhood, to the aesthetic screening and so on. So, I'm good with it. Comments, happy to hear. If I understand it right, nobody gains anything from arbitrary landscaping on the interior of the airport as opposed to beautifying the neighborhood, basically. Right, exactly. I think I'm in accord with that. In fact, this close to our fence line, we would definitely not landscape, especially with tree heights, considering the proximity to the airfield. So, it'd be very difficult to landscape anything closer. I think we should move on. Number's 10 and 11. Screening along a lot lines. So, go ahead. Did I hear someone say something? Okay. It looks to me as though we are, we are looking for screening here. Do I understand this correctly, Marla? There's no exception to this rule where a commercial district, a but's undeveloped residential lots. Right, so 1306C, which is sort of, I guess I didn't excerpt that one, requires landscaping where industrial districts have but residential districts. It does not say that that landscaping has to be within the commercial district. So, their location of the landscaping on the residential side of that residential commercial line is fine, in staff's opinion. Yup. Yup, certainly a mine. Do you have a comment? Provide an estimated value of the on-site landscaping for inclusion-required landscape bond. Guys, you okay with that? Yeah, we've done a, we haven't had these comments for a lengthy period, but we did a preliminary takeoff on that and it's approximately $22,000. Just for reference. We'll refine that number and it may be different when you see it, but it's approximately that. Which is about half. Yup, it was 45. And the board would be okay with that as a conditional approval? I am, yes. Yup. And then address the comments of the arborist? Yeah, that's fine. Go through those in detail if you want to hear or just that we want to see them on the plans, but you're coming back with revised plans next time, right? They'd like to go directly, they'd like to have us approve. They'd like to close. They'd like to close. Close. We can do a condition. Yeah. I can, if it's helpful, we'd be happy to take those off for you just so you can understand what we are going to do. Actually, I was more concerned with the other point about the island for the parking. And we'll just see that. We'll get back to that one. Yup. So, come back to this. So the comment, I guess, to summarize, if you're coming back anyway. That was my comment. Incorporate these things into the next, prior to the next hearing. If not, the board's comfortable with these being a conditional approval. Yes. I'm confused. No. Haven't we decided they're coming back for the island? No. We haven't yet decided that. We put a pin in that one. We're going to come back to it. What we're saying with this is that if we decide to take that pin out and make them come back, this has to be in it. And if not, if we put that pin back in and decide to go ahead, this has to be a conditional approval. That makes sense. Right. We'll do that. Common number 13. Or a water separator design. Yeah. Basically, we'll certainly provide that. We have a draft of it already put together, and you'll see that. If you make that a condition, we'll submit it. My number 14. You'll certainly do that. True protection. Yep. There's notes on the plans to address that. Yep. Comment number 15. Fire access be adequately addressed. Yes. I met with Chief Francis about this yesterday and we went over the plan in detail and he provided some very specific guidance on what he needed to see there. So just generally the design of the entrance, the south entrance, the geometry of that won't change, but what we're doing is changing the pavement treatment so that there's no curbing there that will preclude the emergency vehicles from entering there. So we'll do it in a manner similar to what was done at CBS and down at One Dorset Street here where there's a relatively wide opening, but they've used like a cobblestone treatment and a very, very low mountable curve there. We're going to do the same thing. Your current plans that you have on file show the curbing. Can you point out where you'd be removing the curbing? Essentially, what they do is they use a design vehicle that has a wheelbase of 40 feet and we will be taking the curve out so that the emergency vehicle can make a turn off of the airport circle and enter this area here. So what it would amount to would be probably removing curbing on the nose of this island. So you still have to figure out how much, like how deep that would have to be removed. You still have to spend some time figuring out how deep the curbing would have to be removed, how far from the apex of that. Yeah, we haven't done a geometry on that yet, but we'll run the design vehicle through there and that will determine how far back we will move it. We're removing the curve, but I think a better way to say it is we're changing the treatment through that area because there will be a mountable curve and a textured pavement in there. So it will be... So you're going to pull the nose back but you'll have different materials to distinguish it. Is still an area that shouldn't be mounted unless you've absolutely... Yeah, that's right. It's reused by emergency vehicles and it'll still appear as an island from a visual standpoint so that traffic is separated there. And the motorized gate and the OptiCom system? Yes, we'll provide those. Is that your understanding of the fire chief's concern? Information, sir. Yeah, it has to be. Does the chief come back inside? Yeah, that solves it. I haven't talked to him. So that sounds like... I don't think we can close with that, right? We need more detail. I think we need that detail. One more time. What do we still have to finish the last? In which case there are three things to be covered. One is the parking island, the arborist request and the curb removal. And we still haven't got to the bikes and the lockers. Okay. Number 16, last comment. Which is the bicycle rack and the clothes locker? So on that new Pervious section that we discussed earlier, that's where we would put this new bicycle rack. Okay. And then the interior, the long-term bicycle storage for the new building? So... I guess I need more clarification on what a long-term bicycle... this is long-term storage of a bicycle. So the idea... I mean, you can read it in the LDRs yourself, but the idea is for someone who rode their bike to work who wants it stored out of the elements. And it's required for all new buildings. Staff's recommendation, since this building doesn't really fit the form of keeping your bicycle in it, maybe the board would allow them to put it in another existing building. They're required long-term bicycle storage space in maybe that existing building that they're proposing to retain, that's going to be used as an office building for the QTA terminal, QTA area, or within the terminal or something, because staff agrees that this standard doesn't fit this use very well, but it is a requirement. It's a great idea to provide that flexibility. I think it's great. They have extra storage for bicycles at the airport for someone who lives near the airport and could avoid parking fees. And overall at the airport, we do have biking racks inside the parking garage, just outside the parking garage. We do have interior parking storage in our baggage claim area as well. So we'd be happy to look at that further as well. That's a little bit tricky because we didn't really want to recommend that you be on the hook for meeting the bike parking standards for the airport as a whole, because then you have to go, even if it's no more work than you've already done, even if it's no more bike storage than you already have, you still have to go out and do the work and count and demonstrate and everything else. So when you start pulling in like the terminal and the parking garage and stuff, it seems like, well, if we're going to go there, we should look at what the requirements are for the whole system. And we didn't really want to go there. So we just said, do the two for the QTA. But they don't have to be in the QTA. It can be an adjacent area, is that what you're saying? Right. It's just one. Right. And that's up to the board to make the determination and where to draw that line. If we're going to consider the whole airport property as appropriate for locating that, should we be considering whether the whole airport property meets or should it be located in a location that's proximate to the QTA or something? I don't know. Or should we be considering whether this is the kind of building that triggers the requirement? It's not an option. And just for clarification, this site and the lease associated with the site with the car rental facility or car rental companies does not allow employee parking on this site. We would probably add the biking to them. To us, the new grass area right there would work. But no other vehicles of employee parking is going to be on this site. I think we're okay with the outside bike parking. It's the inside bike parking. Long term storage. Let me ask you a question. Are you keeping your old cleanup facility? I forget what they're called. Your old cleanup facility? The proposals? Yeah. No, that will be demolished as part of this project. Are you increasing the number of employees responsible somehow for getting this stuff done? We're going from two companies to three companies. Okay. All right. So there's more employees? Again, it's not an optional requirement. But no more employees overall. Those three companies still operate at the airport. So there is an option. And we've seen it on other projects that the bike or some of the space that's going to be what is to be pervious area. There are shelters that you can put up. I mean, if you don't want to look at putting a couple extra long term spaces inside the terminal that's close to this or in the existing structure that's going to be left, there are also little shelters that you can put over a bike rack where the bike kind of hangs by one of the wheels by the frame in this direction. So that's also an option. If you want to take a look at that and do you have some designs? Do you have some products that fit that design? Actually... Putting it in the garage and stuff. We're only talking minimum of one. So that was Gene Richards, director of aviation. One thing he's mentioned was if we do want to go the route of the entire airport we would be happy to bring the entire airport up to speed on the parking of long and short term biking bike storage at the airport.  I guess it sounds to me like they've got some options on the table. They're continuing anyway. I'm happy to talk to John and Nick right now in the next hearing. We'll figure out where the long term one goes whether you do one or you look at the whole airport. No, you want to do a preliminary and final but I think some minor issues that we clean up and we can... So that's great. I think that's it for staff comments. Any other questions? Comments from the board? How much questions from the public? Hearing none. You sure you guys... What's a good... What's a good date? How's April 16th? Those are too crowded now. Oh, I don't know. Well, Jean, you want this one or you want the hotel on April 16th? We'll be quick on the April 16th so the motel... So we've just continued Dorset Meadows to the 16th. We have an appeal to consider on that night and then I think we have room for one more project. I have the application for the airport hotel. It's not complete so technically we should allow this one to go but I figure since they're here they could make the case if they wanted to. I would like both. We will be very prepared to do all your comments. If there's a way to include both it would be great for us. The construction season is short and we would appreciate any consideration. They're both big projects and they mean a lot to us to get into the ground this year but I also understand you're very busy and there's a lot of other commitments but if there's a way to fit us in we would appreciate it. I don't think this one will take very long. Should we go to the third? We can move to the... We can't do the second. The second is pretty full already. That's true. This shouldn't take more than 20 minutes if they do what they said they were going to do. We're going to do what we said we were going to do. All right, April 16th. I move that we continue preliminary final plot application SD 1907 in the city of Burlington and Burlington International Airport for April 16th. Second. Moving second. We continue this to April 16th. All in favor say aye. Abstain. You're next. Thank you for your time. Thank you. That's right. Next on the agenda we have minutes from February 20th, 2018. I looked at this and I thought, wait a minute. You're in a month ago. All right. I remember everything that happened and it's 100% correct. I move we accept the meeting. Hang on. Under number 7 on page 6 the first line says Ms. Smith left the meeting. I took a bio break. Did you return before that was done? My note said you left and I didn't say whether you came back because I couldn't remember. I remember the conversation, the doors were there and all that. Thank you. We'll take that out. Frank moves as amended by Jennifer. As amended by Jennifer. Bio break. Bio break. Bio break. All in favor of approving the minutes? Thank you. As amended. Thank you. That's the end of the meeting 825. Bio break is broader than a bathroom break. Remember we're televised.