 Good evening and welcome to the Williston Development and Review Board for September 14th, 2021. I'm Pete Kelly, Chair of the DRB. Welcome to the applicants and public participants. Please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant toolbar or commenting in the chat. That's for those that are participating virtually via Zoom. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the Town Hall meeting and virtually on Zoom. All members of the Board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are open. All votes taken in the meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to September 28th, 2021. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call of attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Paul, you'll need to unmute yourself. It looks like he's speaking, but the audio is not going. I think I know why. Paul, can you introduce yourself again? Okay. Okay. That was nice. We're getting some, yeah. These two are the screens. There's a way to turn off the microphone and just have the speaker going. I could just plug the HDMI back into yours. Yeah, let's do that. So you guys waiting on me? No, we're waiting on technical difficulties. Okay. And there's some more folks joining in from the Zoom waiting room. Welcome to the DRB meeting. We're just getting going with some technical difficulties. I think we can resume the attendance. Okay. Yeah. So let's continue with Paul. Thanks for everybody's patience. Paul Christensen. President. Thank you. John Hemmelgarten. President. Scott Riley is, are you present? I think you're going to recuse yourself. Yes, sir. I am recusing myself. I am recusing myself due to the applicant as a business partner. Got it. Dave Saladino. President. Dave Turner. President. Dave Turner, you might need to be attending these in person to help with your technical skills. No problem. That was not a use, Scott. That was us out of the town of Wilson. Okay. So at this point, I will turn it over to Emily to give some instructions on Zoom. All right. Assuming you all still trust me on how to use Zoom. For in-person attendees tonight, I'm not seeing anybody with a laptop who's connected to Zoom. But if you do use Zoom in here, keep your microphone off your camera off or speaker off. For the participants who are joining on Zoom, there's a lot of features on your toolbar. Please keep yourself on mute when you're not speaking and your video off or onto your preference. You can use the chat feature on the toolbar with Zoom technical questions if you're having trouble hearing or seeing. If you would like to speak when we open it up for public comment, you can press the raise hand button on the reaction section of the toolbar or let us know in the chat. There is also the option of anyone joining by telephone if you're watching live on CCTV and would like to join in. You can dial in press star nine to raise your hand and star six to mute or unmute. Okay. For optimizing your view, we are going to do some screen share tonight. On the top of the toolbar, you'll see a green bar. Click view options inside by side mode. Drag that slider bar in order to optimize your screen view. And if you're having trouble hearing or seeing with your internet connection, you can turn off your video, close other tabs or programs. You can also press the up arrow next to the microphone to leave your computer audio and join by telephone. Again, if you're having any technical difficulties during the meeting, please message me. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. First up is a public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone in the audience or here present and in the town meeting room to speak on topics that are not on tonight's agenda. So this is an opportunity to address the board on issues that are not on tonight's agenda. If you have something, please raise your hand and zoom. No raise hands and no chats. Okay. We have one one applicant for tonight is DP 21 dash 18, the Snyder group for a pre app for a proposed mixed use development of 243 dwelling units in the taff corner zoning district. First, if the applicants, you're very familiar to us, but if you would state your name and address for the record, please, that would be appreciated. I'm Chris Snyder with Snyder Holmes or Snyder group in addresses 4076 Shelburne road, Shelburne, Vermont. Andy roll with Lamarone, Dickinson 14 more stride Essex. Welcome. Is this yours, Matt? Yes, I'll be reading the staff report. Okay. Staff is up. Okay. I'll just start by saying as a fairly large project, the staff report is somewhat lengthy and covers a lot of ground to the chair or members of the DRV using raise hand on zoom. And if you Emily or Pete, you see that just stop me where I am. I won't be offended if you interrupt and we can go into clarifications or slow down as needed. So this is an application for pre application review of a new project, the Snyder group incorporated requests pre application review of a proposed mixed use development involving 243 dwelling unit equivalents or 278 dwelling units, including carriage homes, town homes, multifamily buildings and singles and a 65 unit senior housing facility at what is currently known in town is the Essex Alliance church property. This is 54.1 acres located on Bodring Lane and north of night lane Chelsea place and Dunmore road. It is entirely contained in the taft corner zoning district. A portion of this property is developed with a single household dwelling and a segment of public multi use path and a segment of alpine drive from route to a to the Vermont state employees credit union. But otherwise the parcel is vacant. So this project is as I said in the taft corners district. It is in our design review district. So it has received a preliminary review from the historic and architectural advisory committee has also received preliminary review from the conservation commission. And both of those groups have provided comments that will be going over tonight as well as interdepartmental review and the normal staff comments related to how this project lines up with current zoning tonight. The staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony close this hearing deliberate on a slate of recommendations tonight and approve those recommendations. This pre application because it is for a residential project if approved by the DRB results in adopted recommendations a determination regarding the requirement for a traffic study or not and an authorization for the applicant to move to the growth management phase of development review which happens once a year toward the end of March. So if this was moved forward by the DRB it would appear next at growth management in March of 2022. This is the first time that the DRB is reviewing the current proposal. Recent history for this parcel includes permitting for the Essex Alliance church now now withdrawn. However there was a portion of multi use path and pedestrian bridge over the Allenbrook leading to the facility constructed but none of the church facility was ever constructed. Staff has otherwise in the report recited the permit review history for both the Essex Alliance church as well as a project prior to the Essex Alliance church that was proposed for a 55 unit residential subdivision and a prior subdivision to that going back to 1995 and another subdivision proposed in 1987 but this is the first time a project of this sort has been reviewed on this property first first outing with the DRB. Project did receive review from the conservation commission on August 18th 2021 and the conservation commission's recommendations have been included in the draft recommendations for the development review board to consider tonight. Most of those recommendations are standard however there's a specific recommendation relating to shifting the road dwellings and urban park to minimize impact wetland buffers and to provide ample space between the buildings and watershed buffer tree line to avoid hazard tree conflicts with the budding homes in other words when new homes are constructed close to naturally existing trees and wetlands sometimes those trees fall zones overlap with the homes and the result is that the trees are removed. So when there's assumption they might be retained during review that ends up not happening because of the proximity of the dwellings. We did receive comments from police fire and public works as well. There are some comments mixed into those memos that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the DRB or the purview of the zoning bylaw but they can be included as recommendations that the applicant worked with those departments to address those concerns. As a way of example we had a comment from the police department regarding the intersection of Alpine Drive and Route 2A so there's a there's a concern about traffic at that location. Route 2A is a state highway. The interaction would be between the applicant and the Vermont agency of transportation to talk about how that impact would work. There are also some comments about marking of street signs speed control devices etc. When things are happening in the street or the public right of way they're controlled by the Williston Public Works specifications under the purview of the Public Works director as well as some perhaps internal conflicts related to street trees and their placement which is also an element of the Public Works specifications. In general when we're looking at a project like this at the pre-application level we're encouraging the applicant to reach out to all of those departments and department heads involved to work out those concerns. So project elements as I mentioned we have two two kinds of land use proposed in this project a residential use as well as senior living which falls under the categorization of health care and social assistance and the comments there are residential uses are encouraged in this district and as it relates to senior housing at the following stage of review called discretionary permit the DRB would need to make findings that on-site services at the senior living facility provided would qualify the use as senior living. Members of the public might not be as familiar with this the DRB is quite familiar with the consideration of a senior living facility and being able to make supportable findings as to its positioning within our bylaw as a senior living or a health care social assistance use as opposed to a straight residential use that has implications for how it's treated in the town's growth management and residential density metrics under the bylaw. In terms of dimensional standards Williston does have building height and setback requirements this development is anticipated to be able to meet those setbacks in this area include 25 foot setbacks from route 2a with a requirement that along other roads buildings be brought to the sidewalk. There is an exception for up to 30 percent of a building's frontage that might not need to be brought to a sidewalk if that building includes an entry plaza or courtyard. The DRB may also permit exceptions for accessible parking and where the terrain and necessary grading would make bringing the building up to the sidewalk impractical. Probably not a lot of exceptions for greater terrain on this site as it is quite flat. In terms of outdoor sales and storage that's not an anticipated use because we don't have retail commercial however that sort of use if it were to take places limited to events like farmers markets or occasional sidewalk sales outdoor storage that is associated with residential uses is regulated under a separate chapter in our bylaw. In terms of development pattern there's a land use policy in the Williston comprehensive plan that calls for development of a design conscious pedestrian friendly mixed use town center in the heart of Williston's growth center where this project is located and there are standards within Williston's bylaw chapter for the Taft Corners District under 41.5.1 and .2 that require certain building design elements and orientation to invite pedestrians into those buildings and make the buildings themselves more appealing. These standards will apply at subsequent pre-application and discretionary permit review processes for buildings or phases of the development. In Taft Corners we also have a set of mandatory design criteria this is known as the five of nine collectively. So the bylaw lists a number of elements that need to be included in developments in the Taft Corners District to the point where at least five of them have been selected. The staff report lists six of the required elements that this project is eligible to be able to provide including residential uses with affordable units included structured parking structures that have multiple stories wide sidewalks public art component and urban park. I want to mention something that comes up here in the staff report about specific plan. There's a recommendation drafted that encouraged but does not require a specific plan in the case of this project and the reason we're bringing it up at all is because the town is currently engaged in a major rewriting of the development standards for the Taft Corners area in the entire growth center including this district and to some degree there is a chance that new development standards that are different from the standards of the bylaw today could be in place before this project reaches the discretionary permit stage of review or before subsequent phases of this project reach the discretionary permit stage of review. A project vests i.e. has the benefit of the version of the bylaw that exists at the time that a complete application for discretionary permit review is filed in order for an application for a residential project to be complete that project needs growth management allocation which as I mentioned will not happen until at least March of 2022. So we have some time between now and then during which there is a possibility that the development standards in this district will change. A specific plan is essentially a plan unit development or a right your own zoning process. It's a legislative process that takes place with the planning commission and ultimately the select board and at the end of the day what the applicant would be creating under something like that would be its own sub zoning district with a specific site plan that it then has the benefit of moving forward. So this is not something I think that has come up with the development review board ever or in a very long time. It's an added process. It's intended to still meet the goals of the town plan while clarifying elements of the bylaw that would be applicable to the project and there are a number of elements of the bylaw including perhaps the growth management or phasing schedule of the project that could be clarified through that process while also committing the applicant and the town to a specific plan of development which would then operate independent of future changes in zoning. So long way of saying that's something that we want to address because the change of the development standards may happen across the course of this project or portion of this project. Moving on in the Taft Corners District there is discussion of Adirondack views and so there are views of the Adirondacks in a significant part of the Taft Corners area. Applications for discretionary permits in this district must show how views to the Adirondacks where they exist will be used as a feature of the proposed development. It doesn't mean that these views need to be left unimpeded but the developments must find a way to use that natural asset. Compliant that with this standard could take a variety of forms including but not limited to an urban park or how that park is positioned on the site with views to the west, windows from indoor public spaces and buildings that face to the west or outdoor dining areas or other outdoor elements either on or adjacent to buildings that take advantage of that view. Under the bylaw in the discussion of vested rights non-conforming lots uses and structures as I mentioned we have a major project underway that could change the version of the bylaws before this project becomes vested. All of that said tonight the DRB and applicants should be focused on the bylaw requirements as they exist today but with an understanding that they may be different in the future and I discussed the timing of that vesting and the relationship of that to the possibility of specific plan. There's also the possibility that some of this project happens under the current rules and future phases happen under future rules. Were that to happen anything that has its discretionary permit its administrative permit or has begun construction remain invested in the version of the bylaws under which it was permitted. So under that there's a question for the DRB to consider which is this is pre-application it leads to growth management which would lead to a discretionary permit application. The staff would recommend that the first discretionary permit application for this project include an overall street and path layout plat of subdivision identifying park spaces utility locations and all of those things and that subsequent permitting would be for individual buildings or phases of buildings under a pre-application and then discretionary permit review sequence. This is essentially the process that was followed for the multi multi multi phase and multi amendment Finney crossing project to the south and that plat showing the streets etc might be adjusted throughout that process but we would want the discretionary permit at the outset to have a complete plan for infrastructure and a detailed plan for the residential phase that would be constructed under that first approval. And as I mentioned we have that recommendation for specific plan in the project and really there's a number of things that the bylaw controls that could be refined under that process I mentioned growth management but you could talk about building setbacks in height residential density to promote affordable housing walkability wetland buffer requirements etc and I will note that under that separate specific plan process there's an element of a required substantial public benefit and when the historic and architectural advisory committee reviewed this project they did talk a little bit about that and made some suggestions in their recommendations of should the applicant choose that path what they thought might make a good benefit on the project. I've said it a couple of times but if authorized at pre-application this project will be eligible for growth management in March of 2022 there is a recommendation in motion related to growth management included in the draft recommendations for the DRB. So residential growth management is a competitive process in which the project would be reviewed under a number of metrics which are listed there in the staff report including energy conservation affordable housing housing choice neighborhood space paths and trails open space conservation design transportation and sustainability of transportation as well as sorry that's all of them projects receive a score under that growth management system on a 100 point scale a project needs to score at least 30 points to receive allocation and move forward if a project were to receive 70 points or more under that system and achieve the highest level of energy conservation incentivized by the chapter it would be exempt from the growth management process and would be able to proceed without receiving allocation under growth management moving on to sort of the nuts and bolts of the site in terms of access and connectivity and traffic studies there are three points of access to the site proposed by the applicant the primary entrance on to route to a via alpine drive north of the vermont state employees credit union chelsea place between 74 chelsea place and 244 dunmore lane where there's a platted street access planned for since the development of those projects and baudry lane a private driveway with access to route to a to the north of the site under access management and will listen to bylaw this project is anticipated to be able to comply with the access we have three points of access and then individual driveways and parking lots within the project accessed from consolidated curb cuts uh the historic and architectural advisory committee did recommend shared driveways for the duplexes and carriage homes on the site to reduce the number of curb cuts on to the street that interrupt the sidewalks intersections and driveways within the neighborhood would need to also comply with the standards of williston's access chapter in terms of bicycle and pedestrian access and access for the disabled compliance with these standards is anticipated the applicant is proposing a multi-use path as well as sidewalks along public and private streets within the project discretionary permit applications for this project must show how sidewalks or paths pavement markings and textures signs and similar techniques are used to minimize conflicts between pedestrian cyclists and vehicles furthermore the pre application and discretionary permit review for the senior living facility may include pedestrian drop-offs and access for the disabled unique to that use in terms of providing multiple points of access to the site because we have those three compliances anticipated williston standard is that no more than 40 dwellings may be served by a dead end or cul-de-sac road where access is required it needs to meet the standards for a public or private road for the public work specifications we have had some comment letters which i'll talk about a little later that have requested the drb require the chelsea place connection be a pedestrian path with emergency vehicle access only but per the williston bylaw 13.5.4 the drb can only permit an exception to this standard for non-residential development such as an industrial plant a road connection to this parcel was anticipated when chelsea commons was developed in the early 1990s under sub 96-3 and a stub of that street is paved to the east of 74 chelsea place in terms of connectivity between this proposed project and other neighborhoods those three main points of connectivity should be retained and a recommendation to that effect is included in the draft motion we do have a little bit of discussion about the boundary lane access to talk about as that's a little different from our other two tonight discussing traffic study the drb can request a traffic study at the pre-application stage of review staff has drafted a recommendation requesting that and the traffic study should analyze demand with and without a connection to route 2a via baudry lane when the drb is requesting a traffic study the purpose of that study is to determine if the new vehicle trips generated by the project would warrant any intersection improvements on neighboring roadways to manage traffic delays traffic studies do not analyze vehicle speeds or pedestrian say safety we have some comments from the police chief as well as several several comment letters from citizens discussing vehicle speed and roadway design including street lighting in the area we do have dunmore lane chelsea place and zeffa road as public roads adjacent to the project maintained by the department of public works with their design controlled by the public work specifications those are separate departments and ordinances from the zoning under which we're reviewing the project tonight similarly vehicle speed control measures and on street parking are managed by the department of public works per select board policy so you know no parking areas and speed limits are things that ultimately go to the select board on the advice of the public works director so zooming in a little bit on baudry lane this is an existing private unpaved driveway off route 2a with a 50 foot right of way width the department of public works comment memo states that the right of way in baudry lane shall meet our standards public street in this location would require expanding that right of way from 50 feet to 64 feet in order to meet the public work specifications expanding the right of way by those 14 feet would require private negotiations with four budding properties and those properties either obtain access or have frontage along baudry lane so in order to comply with access and connectivity standards of the zoning bylaw staff doesn't recommend reducing access from three points to two we have that 40 dwelling unit limit that I mentioned we also have a discussion in our access chapter that interconnected street and trail systems will be required wherever they are not precluded by physical barriers including property ownership historic land use patterns and difficult terrain the drb may want to ask for a legal opinion in this matter a pre application recommendation is written for the drb to make that request the 50 foot wide private driveway existed prior to the adoption of the current public work specifications so the staff is asking the drb to consider whether that should be treated as a as a type of existing nonconformity and whether a public street could be constructed within that dimension if it could not be constructed as a public street could a driveway be upgraded to a private street or a simple wider paved driveway that would help provide access to the site in terms of parking discretionary permit applications for this project will need to include vehicular parking a da parking and end of trip facility bicycle parking for employees as well as bicycle parking shown for residents and storage outdoor parking etc if the units in the multifamily portion of the project are not equipped with private garages or sheds bicycle parking will need to be shown for those in terms of onsite vehicle and pedestrian circulation road sidewalks and crosswalks will need to comply with the town standards for those things signs and street lights will need to meet compliance with public work specifications in terms of required onsite infrastructure as it relates to neighborhood parks the staff does anticipate the applicant will be able to be able to comply with this requirement the bylaw discusses parks in what it calls the open space plan this is now town plan section 4.5 on neighborhood parks as well as the overarching goals of chapters 9 and 13 of that plan the historic and architectural advisory committee did provide some comment in their memo about park layout the neighborhood muse as proposed and the fire department also requested drivable access on the 10 foot walking path in the park in terms of private utilities such as cable electrical power and natural gas those utilities would be need to be shown on the plans at the discretionary permit stage of review in terms of municipal water and municipal sewer disposal compliance with the standards of the bylaw is anticipated the department of public works did comment that sewer along route 2 a should be investigated so if you look at the map on the staff report there the map is blue because all of this is in the town's sewer service area but we do have some gravity and force main in the area we do not have either type of sewer line in the right of way of route 2 a adjacent to this project going going up toward the north that black line on the map so public works is is asking to consider whether that's something that should happen to help this project to connect in terms of on-site maintenance the discretionary permit application for this project must meet the requirements for the maintenance of landscaping urban parks and open space snow removal and snow storage and the removal of solid waste in terms of bylaw standards related to litter the discretionary permit must include a plan for trash and recycling receptacles throughout the neighborhood serve users of the development and in terms of solid waste solid waste containers i.e. dumpsters and trash cans shall be screened from view buildings specifically for the purpose of storing trash and recycling dumpsters should not be located along a sidewalk or public or private street consolidated waste management for carriage homes duplexes and townhomes is also preferred as opposed to individual totes for each residence in regards to residential density the applicant is proposing 278 total dwellings including 71 bedroom units the one bedroom units in williston count as one half of a dwelling unit equivalent and that's why we have 278 units and 243 dwelling unit equivalents in williston both residential density and units for the purposes of assigning growth management allocation are based on the dwelling unit equivalent metric it is anticipated that the number of units and type of unit including the one bedroom or studio will change as the project moves from concept planning to detailed phase development each discretionary permit application in this project must include a density calculation based on a current constraints analysis of watershed and wetland buffers and a current count of the types of units constructed and proposed in the property at 15 dwelling units per acre currently the applicant is not proposing affordable housing or a transfer of development rights the staff has prepared an analysis of density on the project based on those metrics as they're expressed in today's bylaw somewhere between five and 15 dwelling units per acre would render a total amount of dwelling unit equivalents allowed between 162 and 487 the applicant at 243 equivalents proposed would comply with the density requirements of the bylaw in addition to the five of nine design criteria and other site elements that are discussed under the taft corner zoning district chapter there's also a design review overlay that applies to this property the historic and architectural advisory committee reviews and provides comments for all projects within the design review district in looking at this project the hack looked mostly at the layout and public gathering places as they're proposed in the concept review understanding that there will be further review of building design as those elements come together in discretionary permits the hack did request that the project should provide a variety of architectural styles both modern and traditional especially for the carriage homes and duplexes throughout the neighborhood and some specific elements such as balconies varied facade depth strong cornices on the tops of the apartment and senior living buildings to break up the scale and massing and in general avoid a boxy appearance to those buildings we move over and talk a little bit about landscaping the drb does need to make some recommendations here on how landscape buffers in the chapter related to landscaping in our bylaw will be applied to this proposal staff is recommending overall that the wider buffers that are available are selected with some additional plantings the buffers we're talking about right now are for the exterior boundaries of the parent parcel of the development so the outside edges of the of the existing parcel as opposed to the interior buffers and we're using the mixed use category for the new development because we have the senior housing use as well as the residential use on the property and when you compare that to the adjacent land uses this is what provides you with the table of potential landscape buffers that could be applied to the project that you'll see on the bottom of that page of the staff report within the interior of the project you need to follow your street tree and parking lot landscaping requirements there's some requirements for landscaping to screen utilities etc but for landscape buffers we're talking about the exterior of the project and specifically there's a little bit of discussion in the report here about the buffer between this project and the chelsea place and half moon circle properties where either a type 3 or 4 buffer is available staff was recommending the use of the type 4 buffer because it requires more major trees per 100 foot section and it appears to be most appropriate for uses of a similar intensity residential backing up to residential we've discussed street trees a couple of times suffice to say that they are required both by the public work specifications Williston chapter on street trees as well as our landscaping chapter in terms of conservation areas the subject parcel is within an area mapped as a significant wildlife habitat area it has designations of both core habitat and wildlife travel corridor under those resources we our bylaw requires that projects that impact that kind of designated land have a habitat disturbance assessment prepared by a qualified wildlife biologist and submitted by the applicant as part of the discretionary permit application there are some other types of natural resources that Williston regulates that are not applicable to this property that includes uncommon rare threatened endangered species unique natural communities farmlands of local importance and scenic viewshed we do not have those elements on this parcel in terms of special flood hazard areas or what most people know of as flood zones we do not have any development within special flood hazard areas proposed all of the flood hazard area is also covered by a watershed protection buffer to the allenbrook the conservation commission does recommend that no development occur within the flood zone so we do have some recommendations related to the watershed health implications of the project as I mentioned the allenbrook traverses along the northern and eastern boundaries of the site the conservation commission recommends the existing tree line be used to demarcate the watershed protection buffer of the allenbrook and that informational signage be posted along the tree line additionally dwelling should be located far enough away from the existing line so as not to be a target for potential hazard trees the intent with that recommendation is to prevent the unnecessary cutting of trees when they are too proximate to the homes there are also class two and class three wetlands on the subject parcel these are shown on the site plan if the previous wetland delineation was done prior to 2016 a new delineation should be constructed wetland delineations in vermont are good for five years the site plan shows a park an activity center that appears to encroach into a wetland buffer the conservation commission drafted a recommendation asking to shift this area to the west so it aligns with the upland area on the site in order to reduce impacts to the wetlands also you have some street impacts to wetlands alpine drive crosses the class two wetland and wetland buffer and the street connecting to chelsea place appears to cross a class three wetland and wetland buffer under williston's watershed protection chapter road crossings of wetlands and buffers are permitted within watershed protection buffers but the width and length of such crossings must be minimized the applicant has stated the class three wetlands not provide any significant wetland functions the conservation commission may request documentation of the functional assessment or if not available require an assessment to be conducted williston's bylaw has a few other things that it does regulate outdoor lighting and the discretionary permit application for various phases of this project will need to include outdoor lighting plans showing compliance with that chapter signs and public art are also regulated by the zoning in williston and a master sign plan may be required at discretionary permit if signs larger or more numerous are proposed on individual parcels particularly the senior living facility i think we've also found in larger projects sometimes a residential master sign plan covering any development signs at entrances is is useful in terms of impact fees on this project williston does accept does assess school transportation and recreation impact fees for residential units as well as transportation impact fees for commercial units those fees are assessed when administrative permits are submitted to construct new units in a project so generally not something that the d rb modifies or could modify but just want to mention that we do have impact fees that would apply to this project so all of that stead the staff has prepared a set of draft recommendations and a draft motion that would allow this project to move forward to the growth management stage of review with these recommendations you'll find attached to the staff report memorandums from police fire and public works as well as transmittals on the website related to hack and conservation commission review so i will stop there thank you matt very comprehensive so before i turn it over to the applicant i want to let people know that are participating either here in person or by virtually by zoom that the the sequence of what's going to happen next so i'm going to give the applicant an opportunity to address the board then the d rb members are going to have an opportunity to ask the applicant questions and then at the conclusion of that sequence then we'll open it up for public comment so i just wanted to make sure that those who are interested in making a public comment are going to have that opportunity after the the sequence that i just described so with that i will turn it over to the applicant for you to address the board add anything that you would like before we transition to the d rb questions mask on or mask off or i think mask i think it's your your call yeah your call you're in your little pod right there yeah it's here i spent a lot of time with this guy unfortunately yeah it's your it's your call chris okay uh well i think it's easier to communicate and hear our voices so thank you very much uh for allowing us to come uh and present our uh pre application for the wilson property uh and i do appreciate both the comments uh well all the comments from the hack the conservation commission department public works and the other and fire departments as well and as you can tell um uh there is some history to this property the existing property and as everybody should understand the property was previously approved uh by the town and state for development um and uh the church uh the sxl church has decided not to proceed with the approved plans and snider homes uh is uh currently has an option to proceed to purchase the property that will include several different housing types as outlined in our application uh in our application um there was a um overview of uh a lot of information and uh sort of talks a little bit about you know what the ideas are and the thoughts are behind it and i don't know emily if you can pull up the application uh so that people can see it on the screen the presentation package uh and i'd like to just walk through that if possible um and so people understand what what the goals and ideas are here so this property we have been working uh for many months on uh developing a overall idea and plan for the property understanding the rules and regulations that are currently in place uh for within the task corner zoning district uh so uh you know page number two uh you know we're gonna talk a little bit about connections and how uh one of the things is we have housing connections we have people connections but we also have connections with bike paths and utilization of the uh outdoors and uh connecting to areas within the grow center uh and i happen to be in wilson in the grow center right before this and notice all the people walking their dogs and going to the stores and uh utilizing the benefits of living within the task corner zoning district so i think it's important to talk a little bit about how we're connecting people sort of unexpected well we have some unexpected ideas here in that we have a large uh park in the middle of the uh plan and the other pieces we have different product types and different home types that we're going to be showing in describing and creating over time as we move through this process playful again we don't want it to be uh too rigid we don't want it to be too um uh we want to be pedestrian oriented and we also want it to be a great place to live and so our focus is how do we make it uh different and uh uh than what we've seen over the years and so that's something that we're trying to create here then we have community and there's going to be lots of different types of homes within the neighborhood and we want to also connect to some of the existing community components uh within a task corner zoning district as we get into more of the details of what this um uh neighborhood is about and it's really a place called home and we build homes uh for people and we service the need of the public by uh building homes within uh growth centers and with area within this particular zoning district uh and it's really important because uh home is where we all go home we all go back to at night and there are people a lot of people who want to live here in Williston and they want to live connected they want to live uh within um the areas uh surrounding Williston uh they want to utilize those spaces and but yet we need to create different home types because there are multiple types of tenants or owners um and so you'll notice that we do have a very different look uh because they're not all the same types of homes throughout the neighborhood but they are homes uh go the next page and again this is just a little bit more description about homes and the different types of homes that we're going to be providing and you'll see as we get further into this description the next is the regional map um and so we show this uh really as hey within a 10 minute walk you can really be in a lot of places within the Taft Corner zoning district uh from this particular site if you expanded that to like a 12 minute walk and we probably should have done that uh out to you would actually get to route two um and so it's really not that much further to get all the way to route two uh and so we'll certainly update that to get the 12 minute walk but uh didn't want to show that there is going to be connectivity walkable connectivity and I think that's really uh an important component to our overall design of the neighborhood uh 10 minute context it's just a little bit more detailed um and then uh we can keep going on so environmental constraints you need we do have some environmental constraints uh within the property one we have the Allen brook located to the northern portion of the property uh and then there are also some class two wetlands that are located on the western mid-western portion of the property and we're trying to utilize some of those areas as open spaces and park areas along with utilizing the upland area which is located within the center of the class two wetlands uh next the plan in the program this really outlines and is a good uh description of the different home types and as you can see on here there are uh six different housing types located within this proposed neighborhood we have carriage homes we have duplexes we have town homes which are either twos threes or fours uh and then we have some uh front loaded town homes those are two threes or fours as well and then we have some apartment buildings and then a senior housing building I think it's really important to know when looking at this plan one of the things that was extremely important to me uh was that we match uh housing types that are a budding existing property owners so uh when you look at um Chelsea Place uh those are town homes those are duplexes triplexes and I think there is one four unit building in there as well our plan was is to build duplexes directly behind them so that it was relatable in terms of the different home types between the two products the same is along the half moon lane we have carriage homes which are backed up to existing carriage homes as well the other piece that I think is uh important to note is that we have located the apartment buildings towards the front of the property which is directly adjacent to existing commercial buildings and commercial uses which we assume are going to remain as commercial and that uh because they are taller uh buildings that those are more relatable directly adjacent to the commercial buildings versus uh in someone's backyard so I think that was a real big focus um for us is matching housing types along the the buffer lines and then also trying to figure out how to create density within the neighborhood that meets the Taff Corner zoning district goals uh so I think those are really uh our focal points and pieces that we took with us uh while we were in the initial planning phase as mentioned there are three proposed connection location alpine drive would be the primary connection alpine drive is already constructed it is already there uh and has um it may need to be slightly adjusted depending upon uh traffic studies um with connections to route to a boat relaying is shown as a potential connection and then a secondary connection to Dunmore Lane uh that was as mentioned by Matt has already been designed and planned for during the Chelsea Place development process uh the overall density of the property is you know first off the the property is located within the designated growth center and so the goal is to uh from the town's planning perspective from our perspective is to increase density within these half corners zoning district and so I think that we've sort of tried to as you can see from Matt and Emily's review there certainly could have been a lot more units uh designed if there are TDRs um or affordable housing units and what we've tried to say is hey based upon what we know uh and what we would like to do we're sort of in the middle of the density uh components but yet also still meeting the town goals uh this property uh also has paths and connectivity uh there is an important connection uh this really connects the uh bike path from butternut uh uh to the north there's a bridge already existing there and right now the bike path just ends and so this would actually make the connection from that bridge all the way over to Finney crossing and so we've designed that in as an important component to uh the neighborhood there's a large park area as uh described um and shown on the plan in the middle western portion of the property and we certainly are working through what that exactly looks like but the um and the different parts and pieces and we understand the conservation commission has a couple of comments that we certainly can work through and address as we get further into the property we also do have some smaller uh pocket parks or uh uh our land planner calls them us me w s i'm not sure exactly what that is but if you look along uh alpine drive in the middle of the uh proposed neighborhood there is uh green spaces where townhomes face each other they're rear loaded townhomes and there is a uh green pathway between those we've also tried to preserve what we're calling the grove which is in the uh north eastern corner uh behind some duplexes and adjacent to a future storm water pond uh we are here tonight as pre-application to really gather information here uh comments uh both uh from the board uh to gather information from the staff and also from the public uh about our proposed neighborhood uh we understand and realize that there are benefits um to um getting feedback in comments uh from uh everyone in that over time we do find that uh those comments are beneficial and helpful in terms of deciding the uh next steps however this is pre-app so we are very early in the process and for us really pre-application means that if we are allowed to move forward we're allowed to move forward to growth management and once we have growth management then at that point we start refining and working on uh more and more details and we realize that things will change between now and when the discretionary permit will be uh submitted but the general outline is what our goal is here uh to get feedback on um at this point so I think I would leave it at that unless Andy is there anything else you'd like to add not at this point okay so before I turn it over to the DRB members for questions there's been uh a staff um first pass at recommendations and emotion there's a number of recommendations uh they total 10 with several uh subcategories is there anything in that body of work that you take exception to or makes you take pause a couple of fairly minor ones but I guess we would look for the DRB's feedback in regards to the HACS comment on the general street layout they were leading towards a more gridded street network versus the more meandering network that's proposed on the sketch plan if the DRB could give us direction on that again as Chris said looking looking way ahead to refining the plan and another very minor one number eight the shared parking study the only mixed use or the only commercial use that we have non-residential is the shared excuse me the senior housing and it's unlikely that with only one non-residential use that there'll be much potential for shared parking understood anything else Chris this before and I didn't highlight anything of drastic note so I would say no okay okay DRB members questions um this is Dave Turner speaking I was wondering if you could give us a general idea of what you think the flow of traffic would be going on to Chelsea Place and Dunn especially if Obrieg is kept as a driveway entrance I think that in terms of use of that connection used by some of the homes that are closest to it however in my unqualified review there are too many turns and entrances and exits for someone to want to use that as a primary that the connections either through Chelsea or on Dunmore require several turns and it would be easier to exit on the route 2a in most cases than traveling through that path one more question for you is on the park will there be have you considered lighting at night minimum lighting around the park or anything for people to have outdoor activities at night probably have not uh being fully lit maybe there's one path or some some section that's minimally lit but that it doesn't become a overlit area and the problem is once you start lighting it you have to light it so often that it ends up being over lit but we can certainly work through that but I think there's probably some areas or maybe some zone within it that maybe we could light appropriately with some sort of connection lighting anything else Dave um one other off one of them is have community pool for the members of the park I can't remember if I read something about that or not so sorry if it has been addressed already have you considered that having a community pool in the area a community pool in the area we have not considered that we are relatively constrained within the park area based upon the upland area um and the wetland buffers in the uh class two wetlands in that area and so the park area we do want to make sure that it's open and so adding too many structures or um components within that may limit that uh open spaces anything else Dave I'm set for now okay other DRP members I had a question for I think more from Matt in trying to unpack the um Yvodri Lane um access piece um just just reading back through the staff notes um the the 50 foot right of way that exists today is that owned does somebody own that right of way or is that town of Williston right of way that 50 foot right of way I'm going to let the applicant cover that at first okay I believe that is that is property that is owned by or that is part of the sx alliance church property um again I'm going off the existing conditions plan that was done for the church their plans indicate that that strip of land that includes the existing Baudry Lane is owned by the church out to route 2a and I would presume that those property owners have some right to use it now I I do not believe that the town owns any existing rights over that strip we looked for that in the history and didn't see it but I don't I don't want to say I'm a hundred percent sure on that David okay and there was some discussion in our meeting with public works that there might have been a irrevocable offer of dedication I was thinking there may have been for alpine but I'm not sure that Bodry ever got to that point I so what Andy what you were saying is there may have been for alpine but not Bodry under the question we had that presumably alpine because it was appears to always have been intended to be a primary access to this property that there may be an irrevocable offer for alpine but it seems unlikely that either the church or the prior project ever got to that point yeah so David I think where you're getting is you're you're sort of asking about some of the facts that might play into what could be constructed and and the the element we raised in the staff report about non-conformity is that right yeah yeah and I guess to the question about you know it can a public street be constructed within a 54 right-of-white you know just to note you know probably 90 percent of the roads in Vermont have 54 rights away you know that's pretty standard across the state and so without a doubt it could definitely happen within 50 feet it's I guess it's more of a question is that a is that a select board decision if we need to modify or you know get a waiver from the public work specifications or do we have that ability so unless they are altered the public work specifications just control you know what how how anything that is a public or private street is to be built where it gets a little murky is is whether the way this was created creates any sort of a toehold we do know from prior experience in Williston and prior legal opinions that when a street is platted in a substandard right-of-way or in a way that might not be approvable today but not constructed applicants may be able to have the benefit of that platted street and build that street with what they have so that's come up in a couple of subdivisions in Williston in the last few years oftentimes we're dealing with a 60 foot right-of-way instead of 64 or we're dealing with a right-of-way that's close to the center line of a named stream that creates a setback issue so this one's a little different in that it's a little bit smaller you know you're right about the physical size of a road much of what the town specifies can be constructed in fewer than 64 feet but all of the public work specifications for streets specify a 64 foot right-of-way with a with a street constructed in more or less in the center of that right-of-way and barring anything like a wetland nearby or stream or something there's no way to get a waiver or or to modify those on a case-by-case basis I I don't see that there's there's a sort of a nod to flexibility as it relates to projects that provide affordable housing but it's not really very well constructed within the specification we encountered that once the the gospel generally on on public work specs is it's up to the select board to alter them as an amendment to them and as a matter of policy as opposed to going in and waiving them for individual projects okay thanks matt yep i'm gonna force a segue here then using this is a jumping off point matt is this something that could be included in a specific plan and get that smaller right-of-way approved as part of a specific plan plan um a specific plan is about clarifying the requirements of the zoning bylaw the public work specifications exist outside of the bylaw so probably not um it it or or if a specific plan included uh a street that was to be constructed on a narrow right-of-way that would still probably have to be agreed upon through some process whether it was amendment to the specifications addition of another street spec to the specifications some kind of select board act um beyond what is done to modify the zoning bylaw david did you have anything else before i jump in nope i saw you john okay so um chris and andy um thank you for this um clearly you put a lot of thought into this and i appreciate that um so that we actually have something to comment on um um a couple thoughts um the first the first one i wanted to mention was interestingly enough and exactly what you went to begin with which was the uh the the comment from the hack about the meandering paths through the site versus a grid of streets um and i i think i got a sense of that from chris's response a moment ago but um you know i guess i would i would ask you first you're thinking on precisely why you don't have the grid the rigid grid um and why you have the pathways uh shown on the plans that you do uh i i i will certainly comment on that i definitely spent quite a bit of time considering uh the different avenues that we could pursue on the property uh in terms of the street layout uh and i would go i i think there's a couple of real strong points here uh one you know this is a place uh where people are going to live and uh we want to create a neighborhood and we want to create a place in which uh one uh i have to say that in the grid street scenario i find that people drive faster in with within neighborhoods when you have that so number one there's some just uh by having bends in adjustments within roads and with having some on-street parking uh that is going to slow traffic down within the neighborhood uh so that's one important piece the other piece is i uh like adjustments personally within roadways uh and that means that it uh we have homes and buildings that are facing uh the road slightly differently and i'll use the apartment building number uh i'll call it number two it's the second apartment building as you drive in alpine drive you're gonna see it it's on an angle and it's not square to the road and that was done on purpose uh and it's not a um an idea uh that was driven by the roadway was an idea of like let's look at this building in a different context than a straight uh view of it and so by creating uh some adjustments like that along with the roadways it does allow for us and forces us to show off different elevations and be a bit more creative so that we can create some uh differentiation between homes um within the neighborhood uh the other pieces uh i think we have some components that are grid like uh but you know we do feel that people like going to their home in an area where there are some jogs and bends within the roads um and that over time with the neighborhoods that i've been involved with over the last 25 years we have uh consistently provided uh some different design on the layout and that that really has uh been beneficial uh for our ability to sell homes um and also for the people who live there uh because it is different uh than what you see in many other proposed neighborhoods so i'm probably the driver of the bends uh in in a lot of ways and then there's also the wetland constraints um force us to have some differentiation and some we're trying to stay outside of buffers but also utilize the land as efficiently as possible thank you for that um so as we enter into then more of a conversation type thing that we do here at pre-out i with with all respect to the half and i know they do a great job and they've been looking at this a lot and they have some very good comments in there i i would also i i would tend to agree with you at this point um and you know the second item i like as a designer i i i appreciate the variety of the edges along there that that the non-gridded layout gives but it's i think that the biggest concern that i'm going to have on this whole site plan is this traffic flow piece um you know the traffic study i think it's going to be important um uh the clearly it's one of the most important um issues from uh in the comment letters that we've been seeing uh i think it's something that we need to address and we may need to make sure that uh we're not creating uh insurmountable problems here um with people trying to cut through and i agree with you that uh not creating a big straight avenue that connects one entrance point to another it will actually slow slow traffic down to the point of perhaps even making um it not a shortcut um so um i i know that the at some point the people using these streets to cut through are really residents um i don't see anybody cutting through this neighborhood at least not right off and again i've only been looking at this for a day or so so um but i don't see it right off as a as a as a shortcut for people who don't live in these neighborhoods um to go through um but uh we we need to make it convenient for people to connect and move through um hopefully people who live in the neighborhoods are going to be respectful of everyone's children uh cars property uh and uh you know what what the the people in this neighborhood will be potentially cutting through other adjacent neighborhoods but uh that works both ways and you'll have people from those neighborhoods cutting through this one as well so i think you need to manage that and we can't we can't say it's not going to happen but we need to make it so that it's safe um and it addresses people's concerns um i i feel i feel that this is going to be probably the number one issue as we look at this site plan um the one interesting thing i don't know is it the little circle that you drew with the 10 minute walks and the five minute walks it's interesting that you drew an exact circle there because that that assumes that you can walk in those straight lines i prefer something that shows if you were to walk along your paths well how far do you get in five minutes or 10 minutes um the interesting thing is for example that the 10 minute circle and the arrow to it i think got you on the other side of the allen brook um but i nobody's going to walk there because there's no connection across that rock to any of those neighborhoods on the other side of the brook and i would love for you to consider some kind of a connection across there to those neighborhoods for a pedestrian or bike path connection from those neighborhoods across the allen brook so that everyone doesn't have to walk all the way down into you know through indian ridge to get there um anyway that's just a comment there i think that if we really want to think about a a a system of pedestrian connections in town this is an opportunity that we have so um i have just a couple more comments one i notice on your five of nine that you're talking about uh wide sidewalks um i think by the time you get to to dp you might want to look at that language carefully to make sure that the the wide sidewalks are actually doing what that asks for because it seems to talk more about uh commercial uses uh you know places to eat on you know from restaurants and things like that um and not so much for residential applications so um just just make sure that you've got your vexing order on that one if you're relying on that um and lastly i would ask you um your thoughts i'm sure you've had conversations with staff about specific plan it's something obviously the drb is probably going to be discussing here as we move into deliberations and whatnot i would just ask you to tell me what you think about that process i certainly can uh we definitely have had some discussions about specific plan uh definitely had thoughts about specific plan we do think that in this particular neighborhood uh proposal that there is a potential for a specific plan application and what we would like to do is uh proceed with the current application in the current form going through growth management to start that process and at the same time we are or will be getting organized to submit a specific plan um application uh that can run run concurrently as the current program moves forward as well so uh there are um constraints within the growth management system uh that uh i have looked at this is probably uh maybe less than a little less than a year ago about how long the growth management process would be potentially for this proposed neighborhood and it puts us out uh past 2032 uh and so we're talking about a long time frame through the growth management process i understand that process uh but so because i understand it and i understand how to work through it uh we feel like we want to preserve our rights um and go through that process now um along with having a specific plan application uh submitting a specific plan application which i have not done and it happens uh rarely and uh at least that's my understanding and that it also includes a whole different groups of people and review processes that i have not been involved in before and so uh that to me seems like could run at the same time as our normal uh deliberations and process through the drb so my answer is yes i'm interested in pursuing the specific plan because there may be benefits in terms of the growth management process uh there will be some challenges associated with this specific plan application uh but i think that there are there is enough opportunity to pursue that at the same time i'd also like to continue to pursue this existing process right well as you as you know having listened to matt here earlier in the meeting that the the impetus seems to be the uh the form-based zoning process that's in place and um i know more than one of the drb members took part in that several months ago there was some really exciting potential there with that uh that new code um and what we have here is we've we've got an opportunity or actually responsibility to review this plan that you're putting forwards um but this is this is the last large open space that could comply with the the form-based code and it's something that as a drb member i'm going to take very seriously and i really want to make sure that we're not kind of crippling that for this part of the of town um here just because it's not in place yet so um we're all going to be kind of walking a you know a little bit of a plank here in terms of trying to thread our way through um and really because we're all trying to make willis to a better place here and you know this is a tremendous opportunity for all of us and i think it's important that we all get it right here so um anyway i appreciate that the the thought that's gone into this so far and the consultant uh kind of going in page 10 of your stuff yeah that's a class two wetland that's the set that's the setback right in the buffer that's the buffer the red is the buffer yeah the red's the buffer no they'll be quite a bit of an open space but not a like a soccer field that's correct because the wet uh for whatever reason uh and so the northern section could be private that could be private the blue line would remain private it could become public um but i'm trying to think that that will become the main access for people on the northern part of bowdry if they don't have access to 2a yes off of the lane yes yes they would they would stay within the neighborhood and then turn right onto alpine drive to go out to 2a you got it so that i'm just saying is that private drive would suddenly become a fair thoroughfare for that complex that's that's if you lose bowdry lane yep as an act yes and then my other item is just to make sure we have an understanding this development will not have on street overnight parking correct so in other words on bowdry lane alpine drive and that people will not be parked on that street at night correct i think there could be parking i'm not i'm not sure of the towns winter parking ordinance but i think on street parking we're not proposing that on street parking would be prohibited during this the summer months but i'm assuming that the town's winter maintenance policy is that there would be no overnight parking from whenever that begins end of november beginning of december through april 15th they're about so it's a fair to say that it would be similar to how it works at finney crossing right now correct along zephyr road yeah yes if there's on street parking right those wouldn't be so it's over overnight is allowed during the non restricted winter months that's correct does that answer your question paul well then i'm that i'm really leaning towards what the police chief said where we're going to need probably limit parking to one side of the other because you can end up having situation where you don't even have the width for a fire engine to get down the road if there's parking on both sides at night or even during the daytime at the parking on both sides it's only 28 foot that's not a lot of space but i'll move on to the next item okay do you have a do you have a next item paul or are you passing the we're i'm going to pass on because the next item is is i'm i'm i'm leaning more towards uh the the lighter density than the higher density since there's no affordable housing in this complex pass my wrist my time on to the next person okay so uh we've heard from paul we've heard from john we've heard from dave saladino we've heard from dave turner before i open it up for public comment i'd like to give the d rb members an opportunity to address the applicant with anything that has arisen why you listen to fellow d rb members ask questions yeah i just like to i just like to remind d rb members that uh the public works standards is out of the d rb purview so we really can't weigh in on this and um although i respect and appreciate the input and the thoughts it's not something that we weigh in on i just wanted to add that um on a public street whether parking is allowed or prohibited is a matter that's typically decided by the select board um in williston public streets are understood um to allow parking along them where a vehicle can be parked outside of the travel portion of the roadway unless they're posted otherwise um what we see in our more modern streets in in the growth center and you know zeffa road and finney crossing is a good example is the street is designed in some places to accommodate street parking in other places it's not designed to accommodate street parking and generally having a street that sort of dictates where parking is appropriate and not by its form is really helpful in ensuring um that that what happens is still accessible to emergency vehicles things like that right um but yeah you know going off your comment the street design comes from the public works specs the parking policy comes from the select board thank you okay so at this point we're going to segue into the public comment phase of of uh of tonight's hearing um what i would like to do is i would like to do this in a sequence um there are several people that are present here uh in the town meeting hall i'd like to start with them and uh if if any of you present have comments that you would like to to address um you you you would address the drb which in this case is me because i'm because i'm the only member of the drb present here uh i'd like you to go uh to this area here which is um for the uh for the public comments and if you would state your name and address for the record please that would be appreciated uh sir welcome my name is carol laws and i live on 244 dan more lane finney crossing thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk with you i did send a short email to emily this afternoon i don't know whether it's been distributed it has been but i'd like to read it for everybody's benefit um my name is carol laws my wife joanne and i live at 244 dunmore lane at finney crossing and our butters to the proposed development our home is at the northeast corner of the intersection where the unnamed public street meets dunmore lane slash jelsey place we have two main concerns number one traffic in reviewing the proposed layout of the housing units it seems obvious that the majority of the traffic will exit to dunmore lane it is as it is the shortest and quickest way out of the development dunmore lane has several good reasons for being the most favored exit of the three exits a easiest access to the interstate with half three versus six as many traffic signals as the other two exits easiest access to the box stores such as walmart home depot best buy staples and so on easiest access to many restaurant shops and service stations and there will be no need to pass through tap corners we would assume that there would be traffic lights at the baudry lane and alpine drive exits but if not essentially all the traffic would certainly try to use dunmore lane we hope a detailed traffic study will be required and i understand it's going to be and we appreciate that and i've made some guesses as to what i think the traffic might be and they may be correct or they may be grossly incorrect i'm not a traffic engineer in the absence of that at this time we would estimate that currently 50 vehicles per day travel dunmore lane if we assume one round trip per day from each proposed unit that equals 342 times 2 equals 686 vehicles if one half use the dunmore exit that is 343 vehicles if we assume three quarters uses the if we if we assume three quarters of them use it it is 514 vehicles so let's say 300 to 500 additional vehicles will pass by our home each day that in our in our opinion will turn dunmore lane from a safe pleasant residential street into an unsafe heavily traveled public street there are 20 carriage homes on dunmore lane that quote unquote back their vehicles onto dunmore lane i should digress a bit here and say that there are this is an older neighborhood the average age for people in in the carriage homes is probably 70 and it probably goes from 55 to 90 and there are no children that live in carriage homes so it's an older neighborhood with drivers who may not be as quick or agile or see or here as well as some younger people so i think that's a potential that's something that should be considered um the the additional traffic uh okay i said the additional there are 20 carriage homes on the dunmore lane that back their vehicles onto dunmore lane this additional traffic will potentially create some serious traffic hazards for one reason or another many carriage home residents park their vehicles on the street again creating potential traffic hazards the second item we have concerns about is the multi-use path our property and two other carriage homes on half moon lane back up to the proposed um multi-use path the back portion of our homes have master bedrooms and therefore it is very important that there be proper effective and attractive screening to provide privacy it is also important that the screening not be too high as we all enjoy the sunsets summary and general comments number one traffic as laid out this is a serious problem for all finny crossing residents especially dunmore lane we just don't believe that dunmore lane can safely handle this very significant increased volume of traffic we would hope the drb would revert back to the church concept of using dunmore lane only as the emergency exit and i have heard the discussions here that there's some pre-existing conditions about that exit i didn't know at the time and other and under no circumstances do we recommend construction vehicles be allowed on that access the multi-use path privacy is a concern but it's but it can be handled by proper screening and then here are some kind of general comments that some of you touched on some of you haven't carriage home locations we appreciate that the developer did not provide multi-story units on the east side of the project thus blocking our sunset views parks and park area we think the grove the townhouse muse and m up trails are a good idea the park area actually the park area activity center is a nice idea but we see little use as it's too far from the center of the whole complex and please don't take this the wrong way the fire pit will be a maintenance disaster i don't have one but i've seen people who have and wonder about it general comments a pool slash clubhouse they should be considered similar to the finny crossing as they are very important to help develop a sense of community tennis pickleball and basketball court should be considered especially pickleball because as many even know that's a very popular sport right now which many people enjoy our gut feeling is there are too many units in this size area we don't see open areas like finny crossing and then i have a question about where are the storm drains i didn't see him on the small scale plans that we had and then i make a comment that all public streets should have street lights and closed by saying thank you for giving us the opportunity to make our comments and hope that they're helpful and useful thank you quick comment on level of design detail at this stage in the process it's limited i understand it's limited by design i understand so um there'll be when this when this plan reaches the discretionary phase there'll be all those details with storm drain inlets identified street lights etc right right i'm i understand and i appreciate that i just wanted to give you some upfront comments on it thank you and by the way i was on the wilson planning commission for 10 years so i know the effort that your folks put in before your time thank you anyone else good evening my name is my name is carl fowler i live at 178 meadow run road i'm the former president meadow run association but i am speaking tonight exclusively as a resident not on behalf of our association our current president is also here i admire much of the thoughts that's going into this plan in particular i support the decision to do roads that are curved and the preservation of large amounts of open space inside the development i think that is remarkable my concern is the sheer volume of units and the traffic that they will inevitably generate and the impact that the spillover will have on a route to a whether it's one exit at alpine or two with alpine and baudry the road is already a veritable parking lot each afternoon around two o'clock again around four o'clock in the mornings in the eight to nine period in the last month alone i've had to wait five minutes on more than one occasion just to get a left turn out of my neighborhood and additional cars going onto to a present a real design problem on to a it's not really the fault of this development but to a has a long blind spot going north on it from taff corners in the direction of s junction as you pass alpine and you begin to descend down towards baudry and down towards alpine brook you quite literally cannot see the bridge of the brook and in some cases you cannot see the exact location of the traffic jam that's already forming in front of you that's bad enough but decisions to permit this much more traffic to go on to a spills over into our neighborhood and other neighborhoods as well the town has recently authorized the development of portions of the farm that lies between mountain view and meadow run and that will be accomplished by the extension of whitewater drive over to met to mountain view that does create an easily recognizable alternate route to the infamous industrial way to a mountain view intersection but in so doing will increase the volume of traffic passing through our neighborhood and do it quite dramatically if you pour additionally the traffic from a 270 plus unit development onto to a without to a itself at least being re-engineered dramatically you can get a cascading series of issues that will affect multiple neighborhoods beyond the one we're discussing and I'm also sympathetic with the problems going over into finny crossing I wondered if there might be any way that the outlets from this development could include a fourth exit or could include a reduction in the sheer number of units I also note the absence of any low income housing in the development that I think is an unfortunate design issue but my primary concern is that I simply do not see how this intense development on the acreage footage that it's being proposed for can be accomplished without creating what will be a series of problems elsewhere in our community and I hope that this can be rethought considerably before it proceeds further reduced in its size and footprint made more spacious in the interior made a bit easier there are between forest run and metal run about 80 living units not that many building do we want to try switching over to the owl okay are you certain there are still problems okay one participant saying that it does seem better please continue so people who are participating on zoom if it sounds like we're breaking up please drop a message in the chat that would you know to pause things okay great please proceed sorry for that interruption okay um this development units uh development vehicles will use ingress and egress points 365 days a year and the church's major use of roads access would be principally on days when there would have been church services or activities which would not be 365 days a year with this proposed development and two earlier approved and allocated developments in 2021 off mountain view road the mishawd and the catamount golf course is estimated that once all three developments are completed that there will be an additional 600 additional cars traveling to and from route 2a in williston can this highway absorb all this additional traffic say nothing about construction vehicles during the construction phase of all three projects or the service vehicles that will have to service these new communities presently there is an engine engineering study and some engineering work in process to expand the width of route 2a from bittersweet development to just past meadow run road short of the alderbrook bridge where once again route 2a will neck down to a two-lane road from alderbrook bridge to the light at tafts corner this is the area of the proposed snider group development on the eac property the snider development group is correct in their statement that the parcel is well connected to the existing transportation network the question is is the existing transportation network ready for the traffic influx that will be thrust upon it should this development be approved we think not what about water sewer water and sewer allocations is there enough pumping state station capacity and sewage treatment capacity and sx to accommodate this a proposed development we don't know that and that i believe that was addressed in the overview that that that will have to be taken into account what about air pollution from backed up traffic on the undersized route 2a highway there are times where in the present the traffic has backed up from five corners and beyond uh in sx junction to the to the interstate how will this proposed development further impact this already difficult traffic situation it won't be good before this project and any other mega projects are approved we encourage the drb and the town of wilson planners need to engage in a conversation with the state chitenden county regional planning about how to restart the cirque highway from the wanouski river to root 89 as proposed in the 1960s in shelve by former governor shumon in 2011 there was a hundred million dollars spent on land acquisition for the cirque are we in 2021 using that investment to the best advantage what could be done to serve us better in 2021 for the next 50 to 100 years your next decisions will tell us whether the investment was good or bad for the wilson and chitenden county community we asked that this project be put on hold and that a moratorium be placed on any further consideration or approval of any mega developments without addressing the implications of the developments on existing infrastructure problems let's get the infrastructure strict correct so that there's responsible and safe development in wilson these decisions will be with us for the next 50 to 100 years thank you for listening and chris you played hockey with my son so i've known chris a long time i've known his parents for a long time this is very difficult to stay to stand here i'm not opposed personally now i'm going to speak from person to see it but to development i'm really not you've been at this for 20 years have you proposed or pushed to have the cirque highway revisit so that a highway they should have been built 40 years ago could better serve this community today so i'm gonna i'm gonna intervene here that's fine and say that that's a little outside of the scope of this application so i understand you're off the hook thank you i understand i understand that but i have to ask anyway chris we understand all right then we certainly understand the perspective i want thank you you've got you people have done a great job thank you it may be too much time will tell whether it's right on we all know that um i look at your plan i have to say that i just checked something called hunt stand and there's a narrow right away on the property boundary that goes out about bordering it looks narrower than the other one that goes out by vs ecu which kind of tells me on a map a projected map that is narrow and uh good luck on that one thank you all right okay thank you thank you thank you okay so uh now we're i'm going to turn it over to emily who controls who speaks next from the audience at large that is participating virtually so emily take it over please all right if you're participating on zoom press the raise hand button on the reaction section of your toolbar or comments in the chat to let me know if you would like to speak when it's your turn i'll call your name um and unmute and you can unmute yourself um so press the raise hand button on the toolbar all right looks like steve avery has raised his hand steve um go ahead and speak you can turn your video on as well if you prefer and please state your name and address for the record um so my my comments are our comments concerned so really around traffic like a lot of other hopes the alpine drive service is the primary is the only access to our ranch and we're concerned about the long-term traffic issues especially along at the intersection of alpine drive and group 2a as well as the you know construction traffic those are our primary concerns we're excited about okay thank you very much thank you steve um if anyone else would like to speak please comment in the chat or press the raise hand button on the toolbar uh ian cambell you are up next separate road and i've watched your development quite closely and i've looked at all the open spaces that are in your development um through the circles of roads as well as Chelsea Place which creates that and i guess what i'm most concerned about is about the density of uh living in this is how we have all of the useful space for recreation which is all in one area um i understand that space is a premium but at the same time i don't wonder why there's any more space between us it's tough when you have a urban community that's growing like past corners um and how it varies from Wilson Village itself as extension versus Essex Towns kind of the same way but what's very curious to me is how Finney Crossing itself seems to have more of a green space initiative in place whereas your new area seems to try to condense people's um property all together and lead it to a common area a single common area as opposed to the multiple ones that are currently at um in Finney Crossing for people to to aim to there's a certain benefit of having space around you whether you're coming out from your vehicle going into your garage or whether you have a space look out through your window whether back or forward um where you can see open space and hear nothing but silence um or just get the feeling of there being volume around you and i am very concerned that with the limited limited amount of space um between some of these units that that may not be the appeal that people find of course am i talking about the area bounding Allen Brook because that's all going to be designated as being preserved but it seems to be very condensed and even though i like how the structure is of the overall layout it's almost as if that kind of condom condensed living is more appropriate more to the center of task corners as opposed to the area leading out as far as traffic flow goes uh mr laws spoke very well about it both um the email he sent before as well as what he said today but that's all for other planning to address uh two ways definitely going to become a major artery and whether the search has to be created to be able to circumvent that remains to be seen but as far as what you're proposing i'm more concerned about whether this is going to be a area where people say i like living here i like the space that i have around me as opposed to what people currently have infinite crossing it just seems like there's a much more greater density in this area and that concerns me because it's promoting a higher density living but ever that little bit further away from task corners as opposed to what finney crossing currently has so apologies for rambling but again i wish i could screen share so you could see the image that i have on my screen of the proposed plan layered on top of what finney crossing currently is it just seems to be a great condensation or great merge merging together of people and density as opposed to what currently exists even closer to task corners so thank you very much appreciate it thanksy and what is your address for the record i live uh and brendan woods 117 hannon um my ex-wife colleen who shares custody with my children lives on sefer road 574 all right thank you thanks um for anyone who is on zoom uh press the raise hand button if you would like to speak or comment in the chat so far i'm seeing no one else um on the list um for our telephone persistent you can press star nine to mute or unmute or star six to raise your hand i'm seeing no other raise hands and no comments in the chat okay d rb members any closing remarks or comments for the applicant please i said enough earlier i'm done i don't have anything people okay thank you dave dave turner i'm good okay paul i'm done okay thank you christin andy anything any final remarks or summary i think uh we took a lot of good notes i appreciate the comments uh i do you think um obviously traffic is a concern along route 28 uh it's a existing concern uh and i realize that's outside of my purview outside of really the d rb's purview and you know uh we understand that there are some challenges associated with that uh i do think that uh in terms of you know um other comments and layouts and open spaces and i think one of the things that we have found is that some of these pocket parks work reasonably well and address some people's uses but larger open spaces actually get used more and that's one thing that we found at finney crossing uh and so we have that's something that's learned uh from use um but it's also uh in the current drawing and in layout of the overall neighborhood um you know i think it's also pretty blocky so there's more dimension and there's more space in here than probably what you're seeing on a 8 and a half by 11 sheet of paper so i do want to acknowledge that that there's probably more open space and because the roadways are wide and those components are going to be there but in general i appreciate the comments and uh certainly understand uh people's concerns okay uh thank you chris so i'm going to close uh at 907 i'm going to close dp 21 dash 18 uh the pre-app hearing thank you for coming thank you very much okay we are now going to go into deliberation at 908 uh so for the participants on zoom the drb is going to go into closed deliberations i'll put everybody in the waiting room um it's tbd how long that's going to be when the drb comes out they will um make a decision the other option would be to give staff a call or email tomorrow um we'll let you know what the drb decided and the draft minutes will be uploaded to the website later this week as well um for those of you who are remaining i will place you in the waiting room now thank you and the video is not showing up either okay uh is there a motion for dp 21 dash 18 yes but i don't see emily's uh uh no there we go yes as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 i david turner moved the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the applications submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on the application by the Williston Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of september 14th 2021 accept the recommendations for dp 21-18 and authorize this application to move forward to growth management review as well as specified plan as well as specific plan the following changes under item six we will strike the hack is not convinced the brandering layout contributes to the goals of the walkable destiny and family neighborhood considering small blocks of regular pattern of grid streets that will be struck struck um at the end of the next paragraph we will add the drb finds the branding layout to the aesthetically pleasing and provides traffic common we will restrike we will strike item d can you go down emily thank you and item g we will add the word consider and change it to consider community gathering and garden spaces the fave lane is a good example of the neighborhood space with excess successful green central green um item h we'll just add the word consider to the front of the paragraph we will strike item eight and i believe that's it okay thank you david is there a second i was i i i go ahead all right dav saladino is first in dav saladino second sit any further discussion hearing done uh we'll go one by one please uh yay or nay paul christensen nay john hemelgarn yay dav saladino yay dav turner yay uh the chair is a yay uh motion carries five in favor none opposed and scott riley uh has uh abstained due to a financial interest in the project so motion carries actually pete did christ i said nay yes oh i uh i'm sorry i i did not pick that up thank you okay uh let me restate that then uh paul christensen is not in favor uh the motion carries uh four in favor uh one opposed and scott riley uh abstaining so motion carries okay uh next up is the approval of the minutes from august 24 2021 uh is there a motion to approve the minutes i move that we approve the minutes as uh for for august the august 24 meeting as written thank you john is there a second i'll second it dav turner seconds any further discussion okay roll call uh paul christensen hi hi john hemelgarn uh yay dav saladino hi dav turner yay uh chair is in favor uh motion carries five in favor none opposed okay uh is there any uh any new business before we adjourn no meeting on the 28 no meeting on the 28th okay that's important business um okay uh is there a motion to adjourn okay dav saladino uh makes a motion to adjourn is there a second i'll second it dav turner seconds it any further discussion all those in favor indicate by saying yay all right yay okay thank you all appreciate your time thank you be thanks