 He's at the select order tree. No, it's over. Spam, we was talking about. Coulson says it's you calling. OK, it's 7 o'clock. So we're going to bring the meeting to order. Welcome, everybody, to the, are you up and running? Thank you for anticipating me. Welcome to the Town of Williston's Development Review Board for Tuesday, October 23rd. And again, we are opening the meeting up at 7 p.m. The published agenda, there are three items on it. DP 18-21, the Roebert family has been continued to November 13th. So if you are here for that, that will be on the 13th. We do always offer a public forum at the beginning of the meeting. If anybody has anything they'd like to address the board with, that does not pertain to items on the agenda tonight. Anybody want to take the stand? Now's your chance, soapbox? OK. With that in mind, if you are here to comment on a public hearing, if somebody in front of you has already said or talked about the items that you wish to talk about, you can just stand up and agree with them. You don't need to necessarily state the same thing again. We're going to start with DP 19-03, Randy Brownell and Joe LaMarche. If you're here, come on up, have a seat at the table. Welcome. Hi. Would you state your name and your address please? Sure, Joe LaMarche. I'm at 4344 South Brownell Road. Great. Thank you very much and welcome. Melinda, are you it? I'm it. You're it. All right. Staff goes first. Right. This is a request for pre-application review for proposed three-lot residential subdivision of a 51.3-acre parcel. Parcel's located at 225 Rosewood Drive and 4354 South Brownell Road in the ARZD. The property is currently developed with one single family home. And the applicant's proposing to subdivide the single lot into three single family home lots, sized at roughly 2 and 1 half acres each. The applicant's proposing to set aside 38.4 acres as protected open space. The subject parcel resulted from subdivision 0417, approved by the DRB on May 11, 2004. And in terms of that subdivision was to divide the parcel at the town line. And at that time, since the portion of the parcel in Williston had one mobile home and no further development was proposed, the subdivision was not required to obtain allocation through growth management. On June 5, 2017, the applicant submitted, excuse me, an administrative permit or received an administrative permit to remove this existing dwelling, construct an access driveway, and a new two-bedroom single family dwelling located at 4354 South Brownell Road. Under Williston Development bylaw, growth management, a lot that's created prior to 1990s allowed one dwelling by right without having to go through growth management review. And since the applicant removed an existing dwelling and replaced it with a single family dwelling, neither pre-application review nor discretionary permit was required at that time. On November 28, 2017, the applicant presented a proposal to the DRB for seven lots of division. And that this public hearing was continued to December 12, 2017, at which time the DRB recommended the project to move forward to growth management. And at the growth management hearing on March 27, 2018, the DRB did not award any allocation for this project. So the use of the proposed subdivision will be for residential development, single and two family dwelling units are in allowed use in the ARZD. And then the applicant's proposing a subdivision which will result in three dwelling units on 51.3 acres of land, where the maximum allowed density in the zone is one dwelling unit per 80,000 square feet or 1.84 acres. The Williston Development bylaw chapter 19 requires that lands with wetlands, wetland buffers, and slopes in excess of 30% be taken out of the density calculation. And slopes with between 15 and 29.9% be calculated at a reduced density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres. Staffs reviewed the constraints analysis, found it to be accurate and satisfactory. So subtracting the wetlands and wetland buffers and steep slopes, we end up with a total of 15.53 dwelling units that the parcel can support, rounding down to 15 dwelling units as the maximum amount allowed on the parcel. And the applicant's proposed three dwelling units. And the applicant indicated they've done a wetland delineation at the time of the application submittal. The wetlands had yet to be confirmed by the state wetland ecologists. But my understanding is that the state wetlands office has confirmed that the class 2 wetlands that were delineated had been delineated accurately, and that the additional wetlands are class 3 and not class 2. So this density constraints analysis is very long. So as a subdivision of a parcel of land, 10 and 1 half acres or greater, chapter 31 of the Williston Development By-law requires the project to set aside a minimum of 75% of the area of the parent parcel as permanently protected open space. And a new requirement as of this May 2018 is that that open space must be platted as a separate lot. The open space must include steep slopes, wetland areas, and setbacks, and any other resources required to be protected under chapter 27. The applicant's proposed 38.4 acres of open space meets the 75% requirement. And the site plan indicates that all slopes in excess of 30% are within the open space as required by Williston Development By-law, chapter 31. There are approximately 5.25 acres of land shown on a site plan as the location of previously proposed lots 1 through 4, lots that were proposed in last year's application. And that land is neither proposed for development nor included in the open space. So as it stands, the applicant's 38.4 acres of open space meets the minimum requirement of 75%. And the Conservation Commission has not recommended that this additional five acres of land be included in the open space. The fact that it's not included in the open space means the applicant could, in the future, propose development on these 5.25 acres. So you may wish to recommend that this land be added to the protected open space. Within lots 6 and 7, there are class 3 wetlands shown. And so I guess after I wrote this staff report, they hadn't yet been confirmed by the state. So they have been confirmed as class 3 wetlands. And Wilson Development by law chapter 29 states that the DRB may, upon the recommendation of the Conservation Commission, require that those class 3 wetlands, if they have significant functional values, remain in their natural vegetation. You can also require that a functional assessment be done to the class 3 wetlands to determine if they have significant functional values. So the Conservation Commission has not recommended either of these two options. So for access, the existing home and proposed lot 5 is accessed by a recently constructed driveway from South Brunel Road. Lots 6 and 7 are proposed to be accessed from Rosewood Drive. Wilson Development by law chapter 13 allows up to five dwelling units on a shared driveway. So this would meet that requirement for a driveway serving multiple dwellings. The grade shall not exceed 10%. The Williston Department of Public Works has additional standards for private driveways and private streets that must be satisfied. And I will get into a little more detail later on when I talk about department comments. When the DRB considered this proposal by the same applicants for the seven lot subdivision in 2017, some concerns were raised about whether or not the applicants had legal means of access via Rosewood Drive. At that time, staff recommended that the DRB require the applicant produce documentation of legal means of access for review by the town's attorney at the time of discretionary permit application submittal. In fact, I believe the applicant has submitted some documentation was submitted last March at the time of growth management, but the town's attorney has not yet reviewed this documentation. Rosewood Drive crosses over the town line to Shelburne. Any changes to this access road or any other proposed development in Shelburne may require a permit from that jurisdiction. And the applicant is advised to contact the town of Shelburne regarding potential permitting requirements for this proposed development. Rosewood Drive is accessed from Route 116, which is a state highway. At initial construction, Rosewood Drive was required to obtain a state highway access permit. This proposed development may require additional permitting from Vermont AOT, and the applicant will need to submit a letter of intent regarding the proposed addition of two new dwelling units to be served by Rosewood Drive. And permits for new single-family homes will have to be accompanied by impact fees, including traffic impact fees. Pre-application is a stage of review where the DRB can ask for a traffic impact study if they desire. Staff notes that this proposed development to additional single-family dwelling units would produce 2.02 new PM peak hour trip ends. And therefore, we did not recommend the DRB requested traffic study for this project. For landscaping and setbacks, Williston Development Bylaw Chapter 31 establishes minimum property line setbacks in ARZD. As follows, front setback must be 50 feet from the town highway right-of-way. The side and rear setbacks must be at least 15 feet. And Chapter 23 states that open space residential developments in the ARZD must provide ample buffers, but doesn't specify minimum buffer widths. The DRB has allowed considerable discretion in determining the minimum width and what type of landscape buffer will be appropriate in a particular context. It's in the staff's opinion, the proposed implementation of house sites on the applicant site plan will allow for an ample landscape buffer of existing vegetation to screen the development from adjoining properties, and is therefore in conformance with Chapter 23. If so, authorize the applicant will proceed with a residential growth management allocation request for two additional dwelling units. Williston's Police Fire and Public Works Department reviewed the project. The police department had no comments. The fire department submitted attached comments regarding driveway specifications for emergency access, and they list several things that they would like to have done with this development. Staff recommends that the applicant meet with the fire department prior to submitting an application for discretionary permit. The Department of Public Works submitted attached comments regarding public work standard specifications and requirements, and the Department of Public Works comments note the public work standards for a private driveway in that a maximum of two rear lots without public road frontage may be served by a private driveway. Additionally, private driveway may replace direct road access for two abutting lots with existing public road frontage. So it appears that the proposed access driveway, Rosewood Drive may not meet these standards for a private driveway and may require that the driveway be upgraded to a private street. Staff recommends the applicant meet with the Director of Public Works to clarify the requirements for the proposed access driveway prior to submitting an application for discretionary permit. This proposal was also reviewed by the Wilston Conservation Commission and their recommendations are as follows, habitat disturbance assessment, be prepared by a qualified wildlife biologist and submitted by the applicant as part of the discretionary permit application. The protected open space must be platted as a separate lot. Any future development or subdivision of areas outside the open space and not included in this proposal, namely the five acre area that was previously proposed for development in 2017, but it's not this time around that any future proposal for development shall be reviewed by the Conservation Commission for impacts to natural resources, including steep slopes. The applicant shall submit a draft trail leasement as part of an application for discretionary permit using existing trails where appropriate and working with the Conservation Commission to determine a desired alignment. The applicants require to have a wetlands delineation to be submitted as part of an application for discretionary permit. And the discretionary permit application shall be accompanied by a professionally prepared runoff and erosion control plan that shows how compliance with the performance standards of Chapter 29 will be attained both during construction of the proposed development and continuing moves to the site. Staff proposes that all town, department and board recommendations be adopted as DRB recommendations moving forward. And staff is recommending the DRB authorize the applicant to proceed to growth management review in March of 2018 and have included some pre-application recommendations for you to consider. Great, I think that would be March of 2019. 20, ooh, sorry, 2019. That's a pretty comprehensive document that the staff has put together. Have you read it? Yeah, I know, I'm like, what else can I say? I don't know, I'm going to ask you, what else would you like to say? I don't know, really, I mean, we just really wanted to develop a couple of pieces of property to kind of offset some of the costs of the whole parcel and the house that we built up there. And that was pretty much it. I mean, the four lots before we're going to be for our children, but we got kind of shot down last year, so that didn't happen. When we always have a bite, do they have a bite at the apple again? No, I know. Well, yeah, if you don't put it into the open space. So do you have any questions about what Melinda just went over? No, I've been talking with Emily today to find out when we should go to see the director of public works in the fire department and all of that. And she said just before March, you know, well, sometime early next year to talk with them. Have you, you have obviously a professional engineer, have you showed, have you- Yeah, TCE helped us last year and we haven't hired them again yet. I think we will have to do something at some point, but they didn't think we needed to get to this. Yeah, to hear it, yes. At some point, you definitely will want to do that. Yeah, we would have to do that. Yeah, so where were that? So if you have any other comments? I know. Okay, open it up to the board. Questions for the board? On the five acre parcel, do you have a preference that you would like to do with that? Would you like to add it to the open space or retain it? No, I do not want to add, not at this time now. I thought that there were dumps that were brought up last time. There were what? There were supposed to be- Hold on, hold on, hold on. So yes, I believe in the fire department- And I see nothing in here talking about whether or not they went out and looked for them or they found anything. So I'm just kind of curious about that. And then the second thing I'm curious is, can the town of Williston tell Shelburne that they have to widen Rosewood on their portion to meet our requirements of having those staging areas for the fire entrance? No. Just out of curiosity, that's the other aspect I got. That's not our jurisdiction. So in other words, potentially, the things that we're asking for in here, potentially- Extend on Williston's jurisdiction. Only on Williston's jurisdiction, not on the, okay, that's all, those are the two things I was curious about. In order to develop it, if the staff does recommend that you go and talk to Williston, if you're going to be- Yeah, yeah. I've talked to Shelburne, it was quite some time ago, but it was in between the last round and this one. And I can't remember the man's name, but I did talk with him. Can I just ask what you said your initial question was? Because I didn't quite hear what you said. When this initially came up back in October, there was an individual who said that there were dumps back there. Oh, dumps. Car, you know, they actually had- Yeah. Car's and all that kind of junk, apparently buried back there. And I thought that there was, at some point, there was supposed to be some investigation before this came back on that. And I don't see it listed in here, so I don't know if there was a resolution or if it never occurred. We did speak- Hold on, hold on, one second, Melinda, do you- Can I just try to, can I just address that? Please. So in 2017, when they submitted an application, we did get some comment from the public about potential dumps on the site. We did, you know, did some investigation with the state and asked them if there was any history of dumping on the site. And they said there was no documented history of solid waste or hazardous waste on the site. So, you know, we had investigated that. And the other thing is that, you know, solid waste or hazardous waste is really something that's regulated by the state. It's not really regulated by our by-law. And so that's, yeah. So, what I'm just saying, so in other words, we don't know if the state ever bothered to investigate the question. I don't- So, all they're looking for is documented dumping. I guarantee you that most people, when they're dumping illegally, do not document it. No, I mean by document. I mean, they have investigated some, they have a list of sites that they've investigated. This site was not on their list. Okay. I don't believe they went out and investigated this site. That's on you? No, okay, thank you. There's a gentleman back there who raised his hand. Sir, if you would like to make a comment, please state your name and your address. James Beecher, 1997. Can you state your name? James Beecher. I've lived there for my whole life. And in that previous letter, I stated it very well, what was up there. And at that time, being tucked up in the woods, nobody's gonna see it. But several people still remember that, viewing it from Room 116, cars being buried amongst construction debris. The state that's not gonna be documented, stayed dumb because they never knew about it. So the stuff that you're talking about is that somebody called it in or stated years ago, this wasn't dumb. That was like a 60 to 100 foot embankment. I used to go up there when Homer Du Bois used to own it. With my two sisters, who also remember it very well, like it was today, of the stuff. And they can very well describe what's up there. And not only that, there were oil barrels on January 30th, 2013, that were taken out of there, that were tucked in the woods and the Kodiak construction came up with a tandem and a one ton. And they came out with those trucks full of barrels. And that was taken out of there. So when it came to sell it, there was no remnants of it. And yes, I can identify where all those dumps are. Because I've lived there and I still live next to it. And it was put in records that there were supposed to be a phase two. And in phone conversation with Brad, I asked him if all that stuff followed it. And he stated yes. I realized he's new. Does that follow that? And who is gonna be responsible if something does come? Is it the town of Willison that owns that open land? No, it's not by the individual. Okay. Did you notify the state of this? Paul, hang on one second. So if there is a dump, the legal, legal, whatever, it is outside of the jurisdiction of this board. Why was... Hang on, hold on. It is outside of the jurisdiction of this board. It would be, as Melinda has stated, a state matter department of environmental conservation, DEC. If you have a concern, I suggest that you write them a letter. Tell them what you know. This is not the venue. Okay. In terms of a phase one or phase two, this is also not the venue. That would be the venue. That would be the venue of probably a financing institution that would require that. In order for somebody to come in and build a house, that if there was a public record, or if you had written a letter to DEC and had gone in the file, when their attorneys are doing the title search, they're going to come up with, they're gonna come up with that record. I assume. And the bank is gonna flag it and say, we need to know what's going on up there, or else we're not going to finance the property. That's why the previous person never bought it, because he was, and... Maybe, but that's, again, that's not the, that is, you know, we're here to implement the unified bylaw of the town of Williston. And that has to do with planning and zoning, of which dumping while a concern is not the purview of this board. Other questions on that topic or other topics regarding this hearing? I have, I wanted to let all the board members say the piece, and as I want it, I will put a sign with that, but you can kind of just answer that. I can say I told my kids to stay off those hills because they're all roughing through now. My concern is the conservation that this is getting, 38 acres is getting dedicated to. Not getting dedicated to it. It all, it's simply, all that's simply happening is that in his own, it is, the ownership is retained by the landowner, but the future development, 75% of the overall space is simply being placed into... A conservation. Yes, but still retained on the ownership is retained by the applicants. So the trails and stuff that are put on it for the use of the area? That would be open to the public if and when this permitting went through and the trail agreements were signed and dedicated to the town. Okay, and so... Access. And I'm grateful that you all are just trying to do your job and you're trying to make everybody able to live all inside, and fences make great neighbors and so on and so forth. And I get that and I respect that. And I'm not for not growth. Can I stop you for one second because I didn't do something I'm supposed to do. I happen to know your name, but for the record, did you state your name and your address? My name is Greg Sampson. I live at 120 Rosewood Drive. Thank you very much. Sure. And I miss you guys in December and there's some new faces and some missing faces. You know, Mike, and I have plenty to say, as you know, and so I kept notes and I think about... And now is the time. So what went ahead, red is exactly what I printed off and I made notes on it. And I guess my biggest thing is a simple thing. I think people have the right to develop their right. I have no issues with that. And what I stated last year was that as long as, and this is what the board's job is, is maybe not necessarily to say, oh, there's a dump there. We can't give you your pre-application. That's not the issue. We call the state, we let them know, hey, there's unsafe areas and so on and so forth. We can do that. My understanding is that the board's job is to make sure that any applicant and the residents around them are all complying to the law and by-laws of the town of Wilson. Is that a correct assessment? Yeah. So with that said, I wanna make sure that that's being followed even before the pre-application. So when we first met last year, it was put off until December. I happened to not be able to be here. There was a lot of people here in that meeting. We all stayed very late because it was like the hornet's nest I hit. What I'm noticing is, is that it's not any longer the seven months or the eight months. It's just two now at the end of our road. And so perhaps the, is now the time, I mean I can stop right here and the rest of the, as long as I'm able to say my piece, written up from my notes. I, sir, you brought up the don'ts. And so I just wanna make sure that, you all have your chance to say what you need because I'm writing notes as you say those things because I wanna address those as well. So I just wanted to make sure that I could just say, oh yeah, there are dumb barriers up there and I told my kids to stay away from them. But if that's not what this is for here, then I guess that's not what this is for. So. Correct, the floor is yours. All right. And if someone says something, after you give your piece, you can come up and add to those as well. All right, it sounds great. Sounds great. We don't have our big maps up here and TCE's not here to, to, this is it. I'm just gonna stop her at this point. Yeah, you gotta just worry you're on the road. It's warm. It's warm. It's warm. You know I can speak. So I just printed off what you have. So I don't have anything different than what you have. I printed right off the website. Okay. Well, somebody much more powerful and smarter than I did. So I still notice here, there was never a, you know, as far as the access to the back goes. And I think it was, Paul, I call you Paul. I wanna keep calling you sir. Don't call me sir, I work for a living. All right, you and me both. So you had mentioned when it got sold, did that give away the fact that they have that right of way? And then there was debate on, well, it was my property. It wasn't my property. It was a right of way. It was an own road. It wasn't. So we've all done our due diligence. I said the TCE, you can go downstairs and you can look at my tax bill, which by the way, I'm still getting charged on the 1.9 acres where that road goes through. But that's- Keep it on topic. Yes sir. All right, let me get back to my notes. I appreciate that. So I will say this to start. I understand the staff has a job to do and I understand the DRB has a job to do. And so if any of my comments hit home or maybe come across like- Let us worry about that. Keep on talking. So I'm gonna start with this. It seems like an end around because it started with, we can put 17, it went to 14, it went to seven. We had a review. The neighbors were all stirred up. Then it went to December. It got pre-approval. Then it went to March. It got shot down. And now here we are. Let's just do two houses at the end of Wilson, Rosewood Drive, because it's not gonna affect anybody on South Brunel. It's not gonna affect anybody on 116. It's nice to see you here, neighbor. But it affects us. And it affects our property. And it affects our wealth. So this end around, I don't think is you guys's to do. I'll get to that open space in just a minute. I'm gonna start right at the beginning. I'm gonna stay right on track. Does that sound good, sir? That's it. I wrote so many notes. I got all my fingers all skipped and skinned. Here we go. So we heard the project history. We heard everything that has gone on and that was up for review, the use of it. The applicant has indicated, page two, by the way, that the wet lanes has delineated. On site plan EV, confirm other state wet lanes program. Any additional class two wet lanes or wet lane buffers represent parcel would reduce the amount of parcel availability for the purpose of calculating density. Melinda, you said, quote, your understanding is that this was all set and approved, end quote. But do we get an actual report that did the state actually go out there? Do you have an actual piece of paper or report? Your understanding is, that's what you said, quote, unquote, is that they did approve this, but do we have a piece of paper that says so? Because shouldn't we have that before the pre-applicant should be allowed to have this piece of property? Do you have a wet lanes delineation? It did in our tone. Yes or no? It was e-mail to us today and I got it on my phone on my way home from Rutland. So yes, I do have it. All right, so there's check one for me saying. So Craig? Yes, sir. Address me. Out the staff. This is pre-application, okay? So pre-application, this is a discussion, okay? So the material being submitted to the board is up for discussion, can be changed, can be added, can be deleted. Excellent. So you will have, we are not making a decision that is going to grant the approval of two lots or three lots at this point in time. There is another hearing at some point down the road at which that might occur. So you are in no danger of having something decided upon right tonight. Thank you. Okay? That comes to me a little bit. Okay, good. I think we had this conversation last time you were here. Yes, and I also realized that December 12th it was yeah, go ahead and go for it. And more has, I'm going to sit down because the heart rate goes down 10 beats per minute. Because I'm not going to cross like mad or angry at anybody. The open space, let's see, second paragraph down. There are approximately 5.25 acres of land shown on the site plan, yada, yada, yada, all the way down to in future purpose, in the future purpose development of these 5.2 acres. See this is the end around that I'm worried about. This is the, let's just go for the two houses. The DRB is more likely to give you the pre-app. You're more likely to in March get your development. You satisfy all these little things and then you come back and you ask for a little bit more. I would request, and maybe this isn't the time of the place, that 5.25 as somebody on the board said, let's throw that right in there, let's not develop it. I'm going to be a lot easier and a lot nicer in the sense of, like I said, I had no problem with people developing their property. It's just, when you sneak, and the pictures are still in here. There's pictures on that that are not even part of this parcel. I don't know why they're still in there. It's the Eau Claire's farm. I mean, why are those in there? Like I said last time, if one part is false, then what else is false? So that's that. So I'm moving right out from that. Access, the existing home on Proposed Lot 5 is accessed by the recently constructed driveway from South Burnell, roadblocks six and seven. Anybody who lives in the area can see the reason why they're not able to put the houses up past them. I know the 10% grade law. Rosa Drive is seven and a half at its steepest point, believe me. I had a shop to make sure. Four houses can't be put up behind them. Three houses can't be put up behind them. One more house can't be put up behind them. So I get it. I understand that. My concern is though, is that you're looking to put more houses in the future. Does that affect the wastewater? Does that affect because the Du Boises were here last time? Regarding where the subject's gonna get put is, I know this is pre-approval, but we could save a lot of time and then a lot of money if we just follow the rules, cross the T's, dot the I's, and I don't have no argument with it. I'm gonna move on from the access. Other than the fact that, fifth paragraph down, the attorney of the town of Williston has had the application has been submitted. The applicant has submitted this documentation, which has not been reviewed by the town's attorney. He must be busy or she must be way busier than I am. March, we're in October, and still hasn't been reviewed. These are the things that just throw flags, sir. They concern me that what isn't getting reviewed? What isn't gonna get passed through and passed by? And then all of a sudden we're looking outside our door or we're trying to drive down our road and things are getting dug and pulled and yanked. Just a point of concern. All right, so I've got a little yes or no column like in high school or like in grammar school when you sent a little note, do you like me, do you love me? Yes or no? So I put three little checks yeses or noes here. I hopefully was gonna get a smile from a couple of you, that's my commercial quick. So Rosemond Drive crosses over the town of Lyon into Shelburne. Any changes to this access road or any other proposed development in Shelburne may require permit from jurisdiction, from that jurisdiction. The applicant is advised to contact the town of Shelburne regarding potential permitting requirements for the purpose of development. Well, I understand we just heard video and recorded. I think I remember having a conversation but I can't remember. That's not contacting that there's no trail, there's no notes, there's no email. We as the neighbors have the right to know and you all are making sure that that is happening, is my understanding. The second thing is that Rosemond Drive has access from Route 116, East State Highway. I've seen what DPW has said, I've seen what the fire department said. Who, does anyone of you work in the fire department or used to? That's off topic. Okay, well seven years ago that mobile home that was, it is a topic that was rebuilt for their home existing now, that was burning down. And the fire trucks and the ambulances couldn't even get up the road because it was so icy and sandy and the neighbor down below me didn't give a hoot and had a sander on the back of his truck and while his apartment is burning down out back. So that does concern me that we do need to have the access. So I've been taking care of that road, I've been plowing that road, I've been grading that road, I've been breaking my back on that road. So you can understand the concern that all of a sudden, now we don't need to stay highway permit. Well, it's gonna have to have road improvements. If you're proposing to put allowable, according to the bylaws, two more dwellings, what the single and or... So Craig, I'm gonna stop you right there because the state highway permit is not issued by this board. Sorry, I'll move right off of that. That's three times I've asked you to stay on topic. You are wandering all over the place. Okay, all right. I'm just going by your notes. I think the staff and the BNR notes. It states that there is a state highway permit that will be issued by the Department of Transportation. That's not the board. Okay, okay. So, but it does state. It also does state in there that should this be one of the recommendations, is that the road be maintained. Okay, so that's the town. I've been maintaining it because the town can't get out. That would be the applicant maintaining it, not you. And so the town is aware that the town is making that a requirement should this move forward. I like that word right there. Should. All right, so traffic. Last we were here last year, Wilson Central School and Champlain Valley Union High School will not pick up and drop off at our road. If you know that area, do voice corners at Shark Corner and there's a spur road that connects at the South Burnout. That is where I have to pick up and drop off my kids. My seventh grader goes to WCS. If I'm not there, she's dropped off down there. I've made arrangements to do voice my neighbors to have her picked up. The buses will not, the town will not, the school district will not pick up and drop off because they say it's too dangerous. When we're coming southbound on 116 and we put on our left blinker and we come over that hill, if there is one car pulling out of Rosewood Drive, one car you can't pull in and I'm seeing again that you're not requesting a traffic study that there's a 2.02 peak, our trip ends, accident after accident is in on that road and I don't want more houses being put in that are gonna create problems for them and problems for us. I'm requesting that a traffic study please be done. Please, for the safety of our kids, but if the houses get approved to go through for the safety of the people who are gonna live there, that's all I'm asking. And I think these things should be done before it's sure go for it. It's a parent's request. It's the staff who made these recommendations. They don't live on Rosewood Drive. They don't know how bad it is there. And we want to add more houses to that area with no study made. So two dwelling units means two single dwelling units or two family dwelling units. These two single dwelling units. Two single dwelling units. Okay, that was quick. And reviewed by other boards in town departments, here's where I'm gonna just get right into kind of my wrap up. No smiles from anybody on that. All right. So driveway shall be a solid base 14 feet in width. I know a rule is no less than 12 feet, no more than 16. So 14 is perfect. It's right in the middle. Driveway shall have slopes that are greater than 10%. It doesn't. Maintaining Peck Clear 12 months of the year. We're not here to debate the qualities of the road that is controlled by the E.V.W. Okay, so with that said though, the boards is to say yes or no to the pre-applicant. And I'm telling you right now that all these recommendations that it's a thorough letter are not being met, are not being done. And that's a piece of paper in closing out of all the notes that were here. I'll get off of that this was, this done. I think I can, on my checkboxes, I think I could say no it wasn't, no it wasn't, no it wasn't, no it wasn't. This is a pre-application process. So let's give them the pre-application. Then we'll go on to March and see if the growth will allow it because now they're just asking for two and so it's really not a huge development but we're gonna put 5.25 to the side for future development because it's easier to bite off how do you eat an elephant one bite at a time? So I can see what that's where this is gonna head. So let me just simply say this in my notes. I would request the board post-com, the pre-approval, until the applicant has provided such documentation that they will have no averse effect on my wealth. I find this interesting is that for the last 14 plus years I have obtained tax on what was understood as my property. Now when I brought that up at the last meeting and then the attorney still hasn't, I guess gotten to the documentation of the letter, this was my property, this wasn't my property. Remember the little finger we were talking about on the map? It's on some, it's not on others by the way. It's still not on some of the website because this is your front page on your website. It doesn't show that that's the property. I had surveyed and you know what I found out from that survey? Is that if it is not my property, that wealth is awfully close to my wealth, my property is awfully close to that road. And according to the Vermont Water Supply Rule, chapter 21, any roadway parking lot, outer edge of a shoulder, should roads with drive become roads with street, needs to be 25 feet from any corner of any water supply. Since it's a drive, it's a private road, a driveway, less than three residences and right now it is less than three, not three or less, less than three, it is required distance 15 feet. The corner of that road as it sits right now is 18 feet. So I am in compliance with the state of Vermont, Water Supply Rules, chapter 21. We're talking about upgrades, we're talking about pitches, we're talking about roads, we're talking about right of ways. It does not and will not meet an additional house. Now this is all information that you all weren't told. TCE wasn't gonna give you this information. This is what I meant by that first picture last year. If any part of this is false, how much more of it is false? And it has caused me to do my homework, to hire attorneys and to hire civil engineers to find out that I'm not against people developing their land. I'm against the development encroaching upon my rights, my responsibilities, my care and concern over my family and now according to what you all have minus what you don't have, which I just came upon this today. So I guess if somebody gets an email just today, I just was given this today. It's, I wanna see if you all a lot of time and I'm a whole lot of money. A whole lot more is gonna go into this and it's just gonna be a waste. It's just gonna be a waste. And so I don't wanna keep coming back here. I'm not trying to squelch the project. I'm trying to say there's a lot of falsehoods in this. There's a lot of don'ts as Mr. Paul brought up that have not been addressed. And here we sit a year later and I'm concerned. I'm really concerned. The state water rules require setbacks from drivers to water sources to ensure no contamination occurs. I don't see how any road improvements could be made to roads without contaminating our water source. I request that you hold off on allowing them to go to the growth management or even the pre-application until not only the wetlands delineation paperwork has been provided because this was pre-app before. It was requested. They did get the yes go ahead and then we now are looking at a different way to slice this pie. And I don't wanna come back here in December or next or even November or even next October with the pie being sliced another way. Why can't we get the yes check marks in the right column before this continues to go forward and forward and forward? That's, I'm requesting the traffic study. I'm requesting that you look into these facts of it's too close to my wealth. And I'm looking at the wetlands. It's absolutely amazing. How can you give a pre-app to go into the growth test and study and then give them the development application if all these things that were requested last year are not being done? So just as a point of clarification, this is a whole new hearing. And it may not seem like it because I know you were here a year ago a couple of different times. They, the applicant went through the whole process last year and did not gain any lots through growth management. They went back to the beginning. So while I understand that you do feel like this is just an extension of the prior hearing from the bureaucracy standpoint, it's not. So here we are. We are actually just opening the door. And, and you may not like that euphemism. But we are at the beginning of the process. It is starting all over. Everything is new. Nothing is carried forward. And it is, you have the right, you have the right to present your material. The applicant has the right to present theirs. I suggest that if you believe that you have found areas of concern within the law, you referenced your water system. I suggest that you deliver it to the staff as your evidence or your submittal. And I would like to remind you that this is the beginning of the process. And no decisions are being made. Okay. So with that said, and I hear what you're saying, it's the same, the number, it's the talk about the wetlands and the attorney. So some of it is an overlap. It's actually not. Bureaucratically, it's not, okay? I understand the topic is the same. Okay. So my request before free, okay? My biggest thing on two things. First, my kids and the people who live on our road, adding more traffic. Please do a study before you pre-approve this out. Pre-ad. The second thing is, it's my will. It's not gonna, I'll submit the paperwork. I'll have my attorney, I guess call the town's attorney and I guarantee you it'll be read sooner than five months later. I'm gonna waste a whole lot of time. I'm just trying to save some time and save some money. And if you're gonna give them, the application to go forward with this, I really hope you've taken into consideration that before you do. We have that study done. The studies are done after pre-app. Okay? Again, the decision doesn't get made, you know, until the second or third hearing. Pre-app is a point where we discuss it, we decide whether the applicant has the right to move forward. And that decision will be issued later on. Later on what? Tonight? No, you can call the staff in the morning. So can I get the, what lands can I have the attorney and the civil engineer send you the? Any documents that have been filed with the staff you are entitled to. They will happily give you any public documents that have been filed. No, I'm talking about the findings that I just came across that my will. If you have evidence that you would like to submit, you may do so to staff. And who do I email that to? Emily, I think I have your email. I think you spoke to anyone else. And can I get that submitted, please, before you make your decision? We're gonna waste time if you say go for it, because then this is all gonna come out later. And it's just gonna waste their money. So that's a request, we'll take your request into consideration. That's all I have to say. Is that it? That is it. Okay, other questions from the floor? Sir. Good evening everybody, my name is Kevin Mizzuz and I live at 1121 on that road. I'm a resident of the A-R-Z-D. And I just wanted, it's been brought up already, but I did want to comment on the open space and I encourage the board to recommend that the land, the five and two five acres be added to the open space. Comments from the audience? We have any questions from the board for the applicant? Any other comments from the audience? Okay, sir. Thank you for your patience in listening to what we're here for. Okay, one last time. Everybody set their piece? Ma'am, anything else you would like to, anything else you would like to add? Questions to the board? I just want to reiterate that I don't want the five acres added to the open space. Okay, the board, the board, the board. It's not necessary, so. Okay. Excuse me, Kevin Mazzuzzi again. Yeah. With that comment, my concern, and I think it's been shared already tonight, is that what happens in the future, including that space I think is really important to the development, especially in this area where we're really trying to move forward as a community in protecting open space and having less development of that, those four family sites or potential homes there would really detrimentally affect that area and how the area looks moving forward. So you've touched on, I'm going to get into an area I should probably stay away from, but I'm not going to, you've touched on two areas. You've touched on property rights and you've touched on development. Our unified bylaw requires in the ARZD that a parcel being developed dedicate 75% of the open space to open space. Not 76%, not 78%, 75%. So they've done that. That's the law. You can't sit there and say, it's got to be more than the law. That goes against what we all do, how we all live our lives. Now, the board can take that into account, but this chair thinks that's a pretty unfair statement. It's almost a taking of land. And again, I'm probably way off the reservation here. If the applicant decided to come back in and ask to permit that land, then she would have to go all the way back and start over on that land. You've heard Craig's points, valid or not, the points keeps on his research and there are great issues, there are well issues, there are all kinds of issues that would need to be covered in order to develop it. So just by the mere fact that she is not, that the applicant has not, that is requesting to retain control over her own land does not automatically mean that they get to permit it or they get to build houses on it. So let's try and keep that in perspective. Absolutely, and my comment really stems from the staff's report where that was written and that they were making a recommendation to the board. Well, I think they brought it to the, I don't necessarily ensure they made a recommendation. I believe what they did, they were bringing the issue to the attention of the board. I think that's. And with that door being open, and that's the reason why I showed up this evening to share my opinion. Sure, and look, everybody has an opinion and everybody cares about their own property. I'm sure the applicant cares as much about her property as you do about yours. But there is a process here, and we do try really hard to make sure that it's fair and that everybody gets a chance to speak their peace and that we as a quasi-judicial board don't do anything that steps outside of the lines of where our jurisdiction lies. We try to be very fair in what we do. It's not even a fair issue. We try to uphold the law. That's really the job that we do. And if you don't like what we're doing, you have the right to appeal to the environmental court. And that happens every now and then too. Thankfully, not very often. Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry. So the discussion that Vi pulls up on the acre and they do develop whatever's the new litter, so they still have to fit this to 75% open land from that note. She would have to go if you want to... Because it's less than 10 and a half acres. That requirement would not be applied to... And great. So you heard that? Yeah, thank you. This is why I don't close hearings too quickly. Because questions stem from other questions and people think about, come up with an idea. I try very hard to make sure that everyone gets a chance. Everybody gets a chance and we do keep the hearing open other than slamming the door on it too quickly. Any other questions, comments? Except Mr. Samson. That's not everything I'm gonna say. I'm your type. I don't know. I'm glad to know that. Any other questions? Any other comments, questions from the board? Going once? Ma'am? All set? Yeah. Okay. Thank you all for coming. We're going to close DP 19-03, Brownells slash Lamarque three-lot subdivision at eight o'clock. Have a good evening everybody. Next up. Next up is DP 13-19.4, GIT Realty LLC, requesting a discretionary permit. I'm following you. I'm good. I'm good, I'm good. Sir, if you would state your name and your address for the record please. Scott Miller. Business address is 64 Harvest Lane, sweet 10 currently. Wilson, Vermont. Got it. Welcome. Okay, who's up? Emily. Emily, can before you get started, can I ask? Based on, this hearing was continued from a prior date. Correct. The board did request a number of items. Yes. Have they been provided to you? Yes, and I will go over that in this report. Very good, thank you. So what's included is, it should be date stamped October 12th is the revised site plan that the applicant submitted. You'll see on the bottom right above Summit Engineering it labels the date that the engineer made the updates. So, yes. Thank you. This is a request for a discretionary permit review of a proposal to establish an outdoor display area at 4705 Williston Road in the Industrial Zoning District West. This property is currently developed with an existing structure, parking, and related site improvements. This hearing was opened on September 25th and continued to October 23rd. The board requested additional information on the site plan. The applicant submitted a revised site plan and staff has updated the staff report accordingly. What follows is a brief project history. Pre-application review is not required due to the scale of the proposed project. The findings of fact, I'll be a little bit brief on some of them that we covered last time. The proposed use is allowed to locate harvest equipment at this property. There's a list of certain development activity that's not proposed, such as new structures, site work, et cetera. No changes to access are proposed. And then the main topic of the evening, outdoor sales and storage. The applicant is proposing outdoor sales and outdoor storage. These are allowed uses, but only within areas designated for that purpose on an improved plan. The applicant must amend DP 13-19 because the number, location, and configuration of proposed display areas are different than previously approved. The applicant is proposing outdoor storage and compliance with WDB 36.7.2. The outdoor storage areas are located on the north side of the warehouse and the east side of the building overall. The September 25th staff report misidentified this location as display area number three when it is actually a storage area. The area will be contained and screened by a six foot tall chain link fence with green privacy slats. C-Photo II included with the applicant's narrative letter. This fence is depicted on the site plan with a different symbol than the one used for the rope and baller fence as requested by the DRB. A loading ramp is also identified in Photo III and is in compliance. The applicant is proposing four outdoor display areas. These areas are numbered in the staff report for the table and then on the site plan the display areas are also identified. The first area is at the southwestern corner of the building, a grassy unpaved area located in the front yard and outside the 35 foot front yard setback. The applicant is proposing a rope and baller fence to delineate the setback. This area complies as proposed. The next area is to the east to the left of the building and south of the row of cedars. This gravel area is separate from the paved parking lot and separate from the access to the main entrance. It's outside the required setbacks and landscape buffers. This area complies as proposed. The third area is located along the eastern property line. It's a grassy area with small patches of gravel from when it used to be the tombstone display area in the past. The site plan depicts three boulders to delineate the nine foot side yard setback and 35 foot front yard setback. Boulders were chosen instead of fencing to allow access to the snow storage area. At the last hearing, the board asked for a fence along that front yard setback and discussions with the applicant and made sense to do boulders because it'll clearly mark those setback areas for the display equipment but be more functional for winter snow storage. And the last area is at the rear of the property line along the landscape buffer and next to the proposed dumpster enclosure. This area is also identified for snow storage. This is where Burke's barbecue food truck is currently located and this area complies as proposed. Staff notes that allowing snow storage display in that spot doesn't void the previous approval for a mobile food vendor on the property. Next in the finding facts is setbacks. The subject parcel is adjacent to two public ways. The front yard setback in this district is 35 feet from the boundaries adjacent to public rays. No display areas are proposed in the front yard setback. The site plan depicts fencing and boulders to delineate the setbacks and contain the storage areas. The updated site plan identifies the dedicated easement to the town for road construction. The town tax map appears to incorporate the dedicated easement into the industrial Ave right of way. See photo on the page one of this report which is the town's tax parcel map more of an artist caricature of property lines than an actual, so the staff understands the property lines to be as depicted as on the applicant site plan. Next, landscaping and street trees. Because the subject parcel is adjacent to two public ways and two industrial properties, the site plan identifies existing and proposed landscaping. The applicant is proposing to plant four shrugs along the corner of the display area near the Williston Road Industrial Ave intersection. At the public hearing on September 25th, the DRB discussed the landscaping and street tree requirements. The board requested landscaping along the display area fencing in lieu of street trees. Street trees can be considered a type four landscape buffer provided in bylaw chapter 26. Planting trees outside the right of way along Williston Road and industrial Ave would conflict with the existing parking areas as well as future AOT intersection improvements. As discussed on September 25th, street trees would interfere with intersection visibility and maybe removed by the state when the intersection construction begins. Bylaw states that street tree standards shall apply to all development for which a discretionary permit is required. The board must decide if the proposed shrubs satisfy the front yard landscaping requirements as described in the bylaw quoted below. Next is parking. The applicant is not proposing changes to parking. The project does not generate a requirement for additional parking. Portions of the parking areas are existing non-conforming as the original site plan was approved under an old set of regulations. Two parking areas are located in the 35 foot front yard setback. Seven spaces along industrial Ave and 13 spaces along Williston Road. The revised site plan shows a rope and ballard fence along the parking area and outside the road to right of way in response to the AOT comments. That fence is the same symbol for both rope and ballard fence and it's right up on the edge of pavement line so it can be a little bit hard to depict to see. Staff reached out to the Vermont Agency of Transportation for comment because the parking is located in the front yard setback and very close to the right of way. AOT has planned upgrades for the industrial Ave, Williston Road intersection scheduled for 2020. David Black, District 5 Administrator commented, we need controlled access in the area until the project installs the curb. The parking needs to be outside the state right of way. If the existing curb is currently in the state right of way or not functioning some type of temporary curb, delineators or vegetation needs to be installed to control the parking and they have satisfactorily met that comment by showing the fence. What follows is a table of the parking analysis. At the last hearing, bicycle parking was discussed. Bicycle parking complies as proposed. The applicant has identified an outdoor bicycle rack near the main entrance that's identified on the site plan and long-term bicycle storage within the building is described in the project narrative letter. The property is also compliant with ADA requirements. Parking lot landscaping, additional landscaping is not required. A traffic study is not required for the scale of this project. Designated snow storage areas are shown and in compliance. Trash and recycling containers are identified as dumpster enclosure and enclosures comply with our solid waste standards. This project is not subject to design review because the applicant is not proposed a new structure or major addition. Properties that are but route two in this zoning district are subject to design review. No wetlands and waterways are present and the existing non-conformities are the parking areas. We reached out to public works, police and fire for comment. Police did not respond. The fire department commented and the applicant has met with the fire department to meet their labeling and access requirements. The public works commented about Burke's barbecue and we now note that that food truck will be removed in October and the Department of Public Works has no comments on the revised site plan provided tonight. Staff recommends approval of this discretionary permit with the recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval as drafted. Thank you. Thank you Emily. Sir, what would you like to add? Pretty well stated there. We're just looking to move down the street and make sure we're permitted properly and in compliance. Okay, questions from the board? I just have a question around area four, the 1600 square feet. Yes. The tail there, that whole border area? Yeah, so it's a grassy area and it's marked by the edge of pavement for the paved access drive and then the landscape buffer behind it. So it's just that area, it's not like if you go over to where the drywall does that corner either? Does it include that corner too? Correct. Yeah, that area is, it's not part of that area. That 1600 feet is pretty much just where it says no storage to display to the left of the dumpster enclosure. Emily, can you just clarify one thing for me back on page two, number four, outdoor sales and storage, that the line that states the applicant must amend DP 13-19 because the number of locations and configuration of the proposed display areas are different than previously approved. Yes, that's correct. So the assumption, what I'm getting is that this did still did not come in correct? This did come in correct. So that's talking about its history. It used to be upon this rock in the past. Upon this rock had different outdoor storage. If you look in the satellite imagery, you can kind of see the rows where the tombstones were. And then it was Sears hometown store. So each of those different businesses had a little bit different of a setup. And this is just a new permit. So harvest equipment has their own layout approved. So you're comfortable with the numbering and numerical process that's listed on here? Yes, this makes sense to us. This makes it so we can walk out on the site, know where the fences are, know where the boulders are, where things are supposed to be very clearly. This is probably looking through the history on it, the best outdoor storage site plan done on the property so far. I think Sears hometown was hand drawn. This is the one that had the color, nice red lines drawn. Other questions or comments from the board? Pete? I just wanna say that this, the changes to the plan are easy to follow and appreciated. Good, I'm ready to go. Any of you like to ask Scott? No, we're doing hearing. Great, good. Okay, great. Thank you for coming. We're gonna close DB 13-19.4, harvest equipment at 8.20, 8.70. Thank you. Thank you, have a good evening. You're gonna contact the concrete company, park one of your lawn mowers up there for people they can go test mow up. Yeah, I like it, thank you. Okay, you're back on, here we go. All right, welcome back to the town of Williston Development Review Board. Tuesday, October 23, we're out of deliberation at 8.30. Do I have a motion to approve DP 19-03 Brown-L Lamarche three lot subdivisions? As authorized by WDB 663, I, Paul Christensen, moved at the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendation of the town staff and the advisory boards recommended to comment on this application by the development. Williston Development By-Law, and having heard and truly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of October 23rd, 2018, accept the recommendations proposed by staff for the review of DP 13-03 and authorize the applicant to proceed to residential growth management allocation. Great, thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Dave seconds it, any further discussion? No further discussion, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Four ayes, no nays, motion carries. P-18-21, the Roebark Roebare family has been continued to November 13th. Do I have a motion to approve DP 13-19.4, G-I-T Realty LLC? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, moved the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaws and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 25th, 2018, and October 23rd, 2018, and the findings, in fact, and conclusions of law proposed by the staff for the review of DP 13-19.4 and approve this discretionary permit subject to conditions above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval for these plans from staff, and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you. Second? I'll second it. Pete seconds it. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Four ayes, no nays, motion carries. Let's see here, do I have a motion to approve the minutes of September 25th, 2018? I'll move to approve the minutes of September 25th, 2018 as written. John Hemmelgarn actually emailed, there's a sentence fragment to get removed. There is a sentence fragment. A sentence fragment? Do we know where the sentence fragment is? John Hemmelgarn's email, yes. Approved as modified. The chair notes that John Hemmelgarn has submitted an email with an amendment to the minutes of September 25th, stating that there is a sentence fragment. We don't know where it is. I think it's in just the public hearing stuff. I don't think it'll change the vote. So fair to represent that it's just clean up. So you have more grammatical. Just a second, grammatical clean up. Okay. So I still approve his second. So I will make a motion to approve the minutes dated September 25th, 2018 as amended by John Hemmelgarn's email to Emily. So second, let's go. We could, do you have that access? I have that technology. Let's do that, because I'm not sure that we want to amend something based on somebody's email. Let's do it in an official way. Okay. It's lucky. Let's see where we are and verify it. Let's see how quickly Emily can come up with it. How many emails she gets a day? I've gotten too many today. I've seen. A busy day. Yes, it was. I just did that. Just had to do that. How can you lose somebody whose last name is Hemmelgarn? It's loading. Okay. Now it's saying messages and loading. Messages. So we have two choices. If you do believe that it is a sentence fragment I'm going to ignore it and approve the minutes as written or if the board thinks we will delay approving the minutes which may affect some of the applicants. Oh, here. Okay. It loaded. It states Peter Kelly asked if there was anything application. Where is that? And where is this? Page 19. Thank you. 19 and 24, yeah. Okay. Peter Kelly asked if there was anything application. So what? I'm going to add to the application. I think that's something you usually say. Okay, so here's what we're going to do. We are going to note on page 19 of 24 that there is a sentence fragment. There is a sentence fragment on the page. And simply leave it at that. All right. Would you like to have a motion to approve the minutes as written with the sentence fragment on page 19 and 24? So moved. All right, a second? Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Four ayes, no nays. Motion carries with the sentence fragment attached. Do I have a motion to adjourn the meeting and go watch the Red Sox? So moved. So moved. We will adjourn the hearing at 8.27. Thanks, everybody. That was sort of fun.