 All right, welcome all my name to the Wilson Development Review Board for August 9, 2022. My name is Pete Kelly, I'm the Chair of the DRV. If you are a Zoom participant, please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant tour guide. This is a hybrid meeting taking place at Town Hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the Board of the Public can communicate in real time. The online staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken at this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to August 23, 2022. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRV members participating. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmogar. Present. John Kelly. Dave Turner. Here. Nate Andrews. Here. And Chair Kelly is present. So we have six members of the DRV. We do have one position that remains vacant. At this point, I'll turn it over to you, Simon, to walk the audience through the Zoom instructions, please. Okay, thank you. Welcome to this evening. Evening's DRV, please take a moment to make sure that you are accurately named. I believe everyone is, but if you're not, you can change your name by bringing up a participant's toolbar, hovering over rename, clicking it and then typing your name or you can send me a message in the chat. If you are in the audience today, please make sure you keep your phones and your laptops you have muted so we don't get any feedback. If you are on Zoom, we've got a range of functions along the toolbar on the bottom of the screen. We've got the mute button that turns your microphone on and off. We've got the stop, start, video button which turns your video on and off. That's optional. There's a chat button which you can use if you need technical help or to signal you'd like to speak. Please don't give any public testimony in the chat. We also have the raise hands reactions button. You can use that to wave your hand to signal that you'd like to speak at the appropriate time. So I think we will be using a screen share this evening. This enables everyone to look at the drawings and see people who are speaking at the same time. We do recommend side-by-side view which is what's shown there. Your Zoom should default to that automatically but if it doesn't, you can click the box next to the green rectangle at the top, scroll down and select side-by-side mode. If you want to see more or less of the shared screen, you can use the slider in the middle there to adjust the respective sizes. Lastly, if you are having connectivity problems, there's a number of things you can try. You can try turning off your video. You can try closing browser tabs, computer programs or anything else that might be taken up your internet. Or you can try using your telephone as a speaker and microphone. You do this by clicking the up arrow next to the mute button, clicking leave computer audio and then dialing back into the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Simon. First up on the agenda is the public forum. This is an opportunity for anybody to address the DRP on topics not part of tonight's agenda. Are you interested in speaking? It is. Okay. So is there anybody present in the room? I don't think so. I would like to address in the public forum. If you would like to address the board of the public forum and you're participating in the meeting by Zoom, please raise your virtual hand. So we have no raised hands. We also have no chat requests to speak. Okay. We'll transition to agenda item number two, which is the public hearing. Tonight we've got two items on the agenda. DP18-06.3, which is Vermont Hotel Group LLC. Requests a discretionary permit to revise the building facades, color materials, and site plan of the four-story 92 room hotel at 34-82 Blair Park. And then we have HP22-06, which is a certificate of appropriateness for an after-the-fact replacement of a slate roof with asphalt shingles at 8031 Williston Road. So first up is DP18-06.3, Vermont Hotel Group. Is the applicant present? Yep. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Dave, are you the applicant or...? Dave Zhang, DT Hotel Group. I'm also here on behalf of the applicant. Abby Derry, Trudell Consulting Engineers. Blair Park Road, Williston. Thank you. I am as well. Mark Dowling, G4 Design Studios. 277 College Street, Burlington, Vermont. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Riley, you planned to recuse yourself? I recused myself on the first hearing. I'm going to recuse myself on the third hearing. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Staff goes next. Is this you, Emily? It is. Okay. So this is a request for a discretionary permit to modify the exterior material selection and relocate the HVAC equipment with screening at 36 Blair Park Road. This building is currently under construction to become a 91-room hotel. The property is shared with a multi-tenant commercial building. Within that building is the U.S. Post Office, UPS, and a few other businesses. The property is about three and a half acres located in the Business Park Zoning District. They are not proposing a change of use here, and they have access onto Blair Park Road, which is a town road. This application was subject to design review. Tonight, we're recommending that the DRB take testimony and close, deliberate, and make a decision with findings, conclusions, and conditions as drafted. The DRB may choose to modify the HAC recommendation, which is the focus of tonight's review. This property, this is the first time the DRB is reviewing this specific request. However, the permit review began with PREAP in 2017, discretionary permits and amendments in 2019, and an amendment to the master sign plan last year. The Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee, the HAC, reviewed this on August 2nd. Public Works also commented that as-built plans must be provided, the fire department did not have any comments in their memo. No comment letters from the public were received at the time of mail-out or by the tonight's meeting. So this is the Business Park Zoning District, where a hotel isn't allowed use. They're not making any changes to the dimensional standards in terms of building footprint, building height, parking area, sidewalks, et cetera. There's no outdoor storage or sales proposed nor allowed in this district. And in terms of the development pattern standards of this zoning district, they're not making any significant modifications. In terms of vested rights, so, we're what we like to call the Board Text Zone right now, where form-based code is applicable, as is the current bylaw, because the select board has warned public hearing on the form-based code. However, this application is below the threshold of form-based code. We reviewed Section 8 of the form-based code for the Administration of Nonconformities. The form-based code is focused on additions to a structure. So in this case, they're not making an addition, they're just changing the materials on an existing facade and relocating a very minor utility enclosure. Because of this, it's below the threshold of form-based code, and the DRB's review tonight should focus solely on the existing bylaws. Another thing I didn't include the staff report that I probably should have is the scope of review. So when the DRB is reviewing an amendment, the scope is limited to what is changing and what is being requested. Compatibility, potential nuisances, and hazards. So this section of the bylaw talks about the screening of mechanical equipment. That ground-mounted equipment be screened by offense, wall, or landscaping. They're proposing two HVAC pads. One is of a particular note, which is screen-shotted here, on the southeastern corner of the building. So Williston Road and the bike path would run along this side of the building. And they are providing a six-foot high cedar board fence. And the existing landscaping plan shows that this enclosure would be screened by the fence and softened by the landscaping. The HAC felt that this complied as proposed. Design review. So like many other aspects of our lives, it's being affected by supply chain issues. The previously approved material English Cherry cement board is no longer available. So they went back to the franchise for other approved materials and they've provided a couple of options for primarily the east elevation. This top image shows what was originally approved, that more burnt orange color is the English cherry. That's no longer available. The applicant prefers option one, which is to carry the tan material all the way across levels two and three. However, the HAC preferred option two, which carries the beige down from the gable across levels two through four. And the stone veneer would remain the same along the first level. On the west elevation, some changes are being proposed for the English cherry. The HAC didn't prefer this option that was being made. They felt that the balance of carrying up the stone and the dark brown, it didn't match with the east elevation. There's a material change along the bottom of the windows where elsewhere on the building, the material changes with the floors and not along a windows edge. And this uneven balance where the brown element is wider on the left side and narrower on the right side. So the HAC made a recommendation to provide a more cohesive design between the east and west elevations. For example, do not have a material change around the third floor windows. Minimize the dark brown paneling for the cream colored paneling and the vertical alignment of stone and dark brown should be even on both sides. They cited WDB 2235. Variations should not simply be for variety's sake. Can I interject at this point? So should the DRB adopt the HAC recommendation for that elevation? And we were to close this hearing and hypothetically approve with conditions. Would it then be the responsibility of the planning staff to judge the updated elevations to be in compliance with the HAC recommendation? Yes. It would be a good opportunity for the DRB to consider retaining final plan review or providing some feedback to the applicant and requesting a revised elevation. This hearing was last week so there wasn't enough time to or the HAC review was last week so there wasn't enough time for them to respond to these recommendations. And I would also advise that the applicant discuss this with the DRB before they come up with a new elevation. Okay, thank you. Yep. The last change is to the stone foundation along the base of all sides of the building. So originally there was to be the lighter stone veneer and then a light gray foundation below it. They're proposing to carry the stone veneer all the way down to the ground and the HAC felt that this was acceptable. I think that covers it for the HAC recommendations which are provided as condition of approval number three A through C. Thank you. Okay, condition of approval number three B indicates east elevation option number one is preferred. Is that a typo? That is a glaring typo. That should say option number two. Bravo, Pete. Want to know for the record that the chair actually read the staff report? Okay, I thought that was the case. Okay, this board member gives the chair full credit. Okay, this is an opportunity for the applicant to provide feedback on planning staff's report and any information that you think is applicable to for the DRB to consider. Hi everyone, this is... Oh, go ahead Abby. I was waiting for you to go Dave. I am just saying that my site change is minimal. So if we wanted to just get, you know, see what the board thought about the HVAC location and the fence screening and whether that was appropriate. I think it shows up nicely in the rendering the cedar fence blends with the siding and the landscape softens it. And I don't really have anything to add on the application materials that were already submitted. But if there are any questions on the HVAC location, I'm happy to answer them. Okay, why don't we have a site plan discussion at this point then? And DRB members, any input on the proposed site plan amendments? Only, Abby, could you give us a little clarity on kind of exactly what's changing? I mean, I don't write off the opposition to what you're proposing. I'm just not sure I understand what the change is. Yeah, we had originally proposed all of the HVAC to be located in the northwest corner of the building near the garage entry. And for reasons explained to me by Dave Offline, the architecture, mechanically, it wouldn't suit the project for it only to be in the northeast corner between the driveway and the eastern property line. Kind of where that, there's a concrete pad there right now. Yes, thank you, right where the cursor is. So they had to split it into two locations and where it fit best to have the most efficient runs was the southeast corner of the building on a small concrete pad up in the corner by Williston Road and another spot on the western facade north of the Port Goucher where it's being circling green. So we just had to split those locations up and are proposing new pad locations with cedar board on board fencing to screen. Okay, and is there any changing to the landscaping? No, no, not really. We were able to work that into the existing landscaping. Okay, great. All right, thank you. All right, any other board questions that pertain to the site? The exact location of that pad, is that pad in front of the window, this window, or is it literally just under, almost under the porch? Let's see, does it show up? That's probably a question for G4 perhaps. C201 shows where this pad is, this new pad that's literally almost by the main entrance. Correct? It's tucked to the left. If I'm walking in the main entrance, it's to my left as I'm walking in, correct? Look at the screen right now. What is he showing? Correct. That's what I thought. The brick paver piece is the entryway and as you're walking in towards the building, it would be on your left. Correct. So Paul, was your question whether that pad was going to extend to underneath where the window is? Yeah, was it going to basically block? I don't think it's going to block the window. Because I'm just saying, it's got a six foot right, you know, right, you know, fenced off area. The window doesn't start six foot up. It's basically going to be looking, that's how I was asking, you know, exactly. That's a good question. So if the applicant would answer that please. Yeah, go ahead, Dave. Yeah, so the window is actually pretty, far up there, high up there. I believe the top of that window is almost, Mark, I want to say it's like eight feet or something like that. Yeah, I'm trying to open the set now to get the number. Perfect. But yes, it would cover, you know, the bottom portion of the window with the fence. So the person looking out of that room would see the pleasure of seeing the backside, the inside of the fenced area, and the air conditioning units, right? It's not a hotel room. It's an office space, right? Yes, an office space. That's an office space. Okay. That's all I need to know. Never mind. Okay. There's a good question about the relative to the site plan by the DRB members. I'm kind of fascinated that they signed off on this and suddenly the material that they approved in April isn't available now. I'm just, it seems funny. Anyhow, that's in the story. That was April of previous year. 2019. So no, it wasn't ordered then at that point. Okay. No. Which will lock the company into making it. There are a lot of variables. Yeah. That's not really. It's not surprising to me. That's actually not really all that germane at this point. But. Okay. So the applicant, please. Abby Abby address site issues. If you would supplement staffs. Staffs report about the project in general, please. Well, Dave might be able to answer the front was. The franchise had a lot of influence on the, I don't know whatsoever. It was a little bit of a facade look. When the materials changed? So, David, I can comment. Yeah, I can comment on this mark. This is Dave. Vermont hotel group speaking. So. The English cherry was a product that was no longer available. So. Because this is a franchise, Wyndham hotel. and asked for some feedback on what to do to replace the material. And they're using a lot of this large format tile that we're seeing, the brown one. And they recommended to put that on this hotel as well. The left justification of the unevenness on the left and right side, that's actually on purpose. By them, I guess apparently in their brand, they purposely do a left justification. It wasn't just kind of random, but it's something that they do on their hotels across the board if it's approved locally to have more tile on the left than the right. And the reason why on the fourth floor, it wasn't brought down to the fourth and third floor levels is because the tile actually sticks out a fair amount and it wouldn't look that great around the P-TAC area. So that was the reason for that. OK, any other comments? I mean, that tile is a much nicer product than the previous product, I can tell you that. It's a very hardy, heavy-duty ceramic tile that's going on there. So it's much nicer material than the cement board. OK, DRV members, questions about the exterior of the proposed facade changes for the exterior elevations? John? I was going to let these guys go first. Yeah, I'm curious, does the applicant have any strong opinions on the HAC feedback on the east elevation? They wanted to continue that material all the way down. Yeah, we're in agreement with the HAC recommendation to carry the cement floor all the way down from the fourth floor. Do you have an actual option to that? Or is it just neutral on it? Oh, we presented both options as being ones that we like and based on the HAC feedback and also the town's feedback to break up the material so it doesn't look like a long continuous of the same material is a good call. I prefer to bring it down. OK. OK, DRV members, let's talk about the west elevation. That's unless you have something about the east elevation. Well, it's kind of a similar question to what I have on the west to start with, which is, I mean, this is an interesting theoretical issue. I guess if I had found out that the one color wasn't available, I guess my first reaction would have been to, given what was approved already by the DRV, I would have looked at just change to a different color and keep the exact same elevation. And I'm wondering why you didn't do that. It was a different material, not just color. Like that cherry board was not the same material as the existing, is that right, Dave? There's also material from what I remember. I think that English cherry was a similar cement board product. Oh, that's right. I could be wrong. But the main reason for instead of just changing, I mean, I think Mark, to correct me if I'm wrong, I think at one point we did decide go with an autumn red. That wasn't anywhere close to what it was before. And it brought a lot of really red to the picture. And we already have red trims and red window trims. And it wasn't a great look. And really honestly, the main feedback to change it to the tile was more from franchise. The Wyndham Hotel and Resort was really pushing it. And with these change, they like to have similarities among their hotels. And that's why the large format tile was brought into the picture. Right, again, I'm not even at this point commenting on the change in material or the change in the elevations. I'm just thinking that from a simplicity's sake, a simple swap of one color for another. And we're talking about this for a couple of minutes because this board typically doesn't get too deeply involved with the color changes. But since you're changing kind of where you have different colors, it becomes a more complex conversation. You know, again, I'm looking at these three options for the East elevation, the original and the next two. And they're all very different looks. One has a very continuous horizontal band, which I think the hack didn't really appreciate, which I would agree with them on that. But the other one is you've totally eliminated the color complexity, or you've reduced the complexity of the elevation here by just kind of washing that the color that was above straight down the facade. And this is kind of the rear. I think it's hidden by another building on the adjacent side a little bit. It's probably not a very visible spot. It's just a little odd that you're changing the entire. It's gonna be very visible. Is it? The building next door, actually to the east of the building is. Oh yeah, look at that. I'm absolutely wrong. It's set back pretty significantly. And so do you have the image that we're looking at of the original? No, we don't have the original. Do they have the original renderings from way back when? It's in the packet. Well, the original rendering is buried somewhere. Again, that's a very large facade. And I think there was some merit to the change of color that was there before rather than kind of bleeding one or the other of the adjacent colors down into the spot because you couldn't get that. That's my opinion. I mean, there's a trade-off a little bit. I understand what you're saying, but when you bring the color down, then you're sort of reinforcing a geometry of the gable then. So there's a little bit of a trade-off. So now you can see like three pieces with a gable and the two edges. And so it has its own, it reads its own way that way. I think, you know, I understand what you're saying. And it's like now it's geometry is more emphasized in color when you have the full gable land in there. So now I'll move this over to the west elevation. Well, before you do that, I just want to sensitize the DRB that an option that presents itself here is that we maintain the approved east elevation and they simply paint the cement board, the color that was originally approved. What's the long-term viability of that versus? Versus what? Versus, you know, where the colors manufactured into it. Like maintenance? Because I don't want to approve something that's going to end up starting to peel, you know, five years down the road or whatever. And then they got to go out and scrape it and paint it again. I think that would be good. I'm not saying that what I'm proposing doesn't have some maintenance consequence, but I'm throwing it out there for people to think about. Okay, that's all I'm doing. Would you mind going around and giving that to Emily, please? Right, and I think what we were seeing here on the screen is that the 3D image is actually much more compelling than the elevations we're looking at, especially when we're looking at the east or the west elevation. Yeah, I don't know that we want to introduce yet another color into the schemes, even if it's going back to the original. Then, you know, we're just going to have, I think we have a pretty good variety now. I don't know that we want to. Is the peak of the southern elevation the same tile that's proposed on the east and west? The tiles on the bump out in the center, right, Dave? Yeah, it's the same tile, but it's a slightly different color. Okay. Well, these are very different colors here than what I'm seeing on the elevations, but there's none of the light color at the gable. And was that on the southern elevation, was that a hack recommendation, or was that the applicant's choice to change that color also and material there? It is the applicant's choice, and that was originally the English cherry as well, right, Mark? Right, and that's now the tile, the large format tile. So there are two new materials, there are two new colors, but one material that replaced the cherry, is that right? Yes. When the design was approved in April of 2021, was the hotel a Wyndham franchise at that point in time? 2019, was that 20? Yeah, it was 2019. Yes. Then wait, 2019 or 2021, sorry. Well, I'm looking at the packet and it shows a west elevation design as approved April 2021, and that's why I asked that question. Oh, that might be another typo that should say April 2019. I think April 2021, yeah, April 2021 was a master sign plan amendment. And May 2019 was 1806.1, amend facade color materials roofline. Okay. So that's another typo. So let me rephrase my question then. Was this a Wyndham franchise as of April 2019? I have to go back and check. I don't remember offhand if that was a Wyndham hotel or not. I seem to be a quality in at one point and I don't know if a quality in is part of the Wyndham family. I don't know my hotel franchise is well enough to know that. So this is the rendering that was submitted under DP 1806.1, which was that spring 2019 application and it's showing it as Hawthorne. And I believe Hawthorne in Lockheed to our... Yes. Then that answer would be yes. Oh, thank you Emily. Okay, great. Thank you Emily. Okay. And then earlier what I was screen sharing, I just Googled Hawthorne or Wyndham hotels and this is that left justified example of the dual brand, Hawthorne Laquita. Okay. Right, thank you. Correct. Thank you. Okay, perfect. Okay. So DRM members, I would like thoughts and comments on the proposed change to the West elevation. I'm fine with the West elevation as option two on the West elevation because it does break up the wall. Agreed on that. As act recommended. Okay. Option two. Do you mean East elevation? No. The one that doesn't have the main entrance? No, I'm talking about West. I'm sorry, yeah, I was talking East. Oh, you were talking East. I am. Okay, I had transitioned to West. I'm sorry. That's okay. So thoughts on the proposed West elevation? I have no problems with it. My only concern is that we're introducing more than one new color and I think it would be beneficial to have just, we're gonna replace one color, keep it all the same. Could you clarify what you mean by that? So on the South elevation, unless I misunderstood, there is a new material there as well that's similar to but a slightly different color and I can't appreciate the difference in these photos unless I misunderstood. I think that was the same that they're using on the West. It is a different color on the South compared to the West. So on the South is the large format tile, is that correct? Correct, the South is the large format tile and the West is also the large format tile. They are the same tile but different color. Same tile, same material, different color. I would prefer the same color. In these pictures, they look similar, but I don't know, I guess what's lost on me is what the benefit of the different colors is there. It seems like it's getting a little busy here. Thank you, that's gonna help a bunch. So because the packet that we have is such small font, would, could you identify, Emily, what the tile is on this graphic that's displayed on the screen right now? Yeah, and Abby or Dave, feel free to correct me. So the large format tile on the South elevation is here and that's a lighter brown color and then on this, on the West elevation. It's the vertical band. It's the vertical band, then it runs along the windows. Okay. Vertical band behind the port coast share. And up. And up. And those are slightly different colors, same type of material but different colors. Correct. Okay. I guess so. And Nate, what you're suggesting is maybe to make those the same color? Just. I think I can see what they were trying to achieve here or maybe look that South elevation more distinct as a, probably not really the main entrance, but yeah, that is what I was suggesting. And if the applicant can maybe explain why they did that. Sure. Does the applicant have an explanation for the two different colors? Yes. So my understanding where Wyndham was going with two different material is the darker brown is what they typically do around the main entrance to the hotel and the other color that is the slightly lighter brown is what they put on typically the other side. On one side of the hotel is not the main entrance. It was kind of a feedback from the hotel franchise for these two different pile colors. All right, so it's a brand standard thing. Yeah, it's one of their brand. Yeah, okay. And did the fourth floor exterior wall color also change from the original proposal on the Southern Elevation and why we do that? It's different from the picture that was passed around. No, it did not. Okay. Yeah, the pictures are just not the same colors. You get to realize these are the two you're comparing here and these are both South, these are both the North. Yeah, I'm not sure where those, well, I'm not sure which generation those are older, I think, because they don't match what we've got in the back of here at all. That was either the original DP or 1806.1, the amendment in April 2019. I'm not sure if this rendering matches that one. So was that other color approved at one point? That's in this versus this? Yeah, pass those back. So that application 1806 final plan is not filed April 10th, 2018. Was the DRB hearing? It says there's a continuum to it. So this, I think is the same image, that the color in this one is just a richer print, I believe, but looking at where the cars are and the rendering, I think it's the same one. And this was that original DP hearing, they submitted the DRB continued so they could revise things. And then that second hearing happened in April of, or whatever I said earlier. I think there are some significant differences between those photos and what we're being shown here is being approved in April of 2021. Yeah, these photos I would probably ignore because they got these approved in April, 2018. And then they came back, they didn't file final plans on this one. Then they came back a year later in May, 2019 with the revisions. And that's the comparing in your staff report. And that's what we want to be comparing to. Yeah, thank you. I think the 3D image that Emily's been putting on the screen is very helpful on the entrance elevation. And I would agree that the fact that that's the main entrance does make a difference. And I like the improvements that this is over what was originally done with the cherry color. And the asymmetry does not, it doesn't bother me any of that. So, and I think, I mean, the pork a chair is off center on that facade anyway. So I think there's already some acceptable imbalance there. This is a pretty big building. And I think it can handle these different elements that are on there. And I would, I'm certainly not an architect, but I would make the case that because of the size and scale of the building, breaking it up like this is the proper thing to do. Right, yeah, you don't want your eye to go that whole way. Right, right, exactly. I mean, I'll also mention that, you know, if you want three opinions asked, two architects, so. No, I get it, but I think that's, I think there's consensus in this group on that. So what I'd like to do is sir, give you an opportunity. Are you interested in addressing the board? Yeah. Okay, so if you would come up to the table with the placard that says public. I think applicants fine, because I don't know if there's a chair on that side. Okay, okay, you can sit right there where the applicant sign placard is. If you would state your name and address for the record, please and then pose your comments or question. Okay, my name is Brian Forrest. I live at 114 Wilson Woods Road. I've been a president of Wilson for 10 years. I'm the former energy coordinator and a present member of the HAC. I reviewed this project with the last meeting and I was kind of dismayed at the direction this building was taken. And in order to understand what was going on in the architect's mind, I went to the G4 website and came up with these photographs here, what they originally intended. And this building is a large building, but it has no inherent massing that would logically break it down into smaller components. So your elect was kind of putting wallpaper on a building trying to make it into different parts. And it's really not, it doesn't really work very well. So the architects had grappled with that. And I think they came up, they acknowledged that it's a big building, but they gave us the nuance and some subtlety by changing color slightly, changing material slightly, and putting accents, couple of accents here, accent at the entry, which the color combination I think is very rich. And I think that I would respect the architect's original intent. And I think if you did, you'd have a finer building of what we're actually devolved into here today. That's my comments, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, DRB members, any additional comments or last questions or concerns? One, so again, this where I was headed at the beginning part is that the relationship between the West and the East solidations, initially, if you look at the two images that we have for those from the, what I think is now we're saying design is approved May of 2019. There were some similarities there. They were actually playing off of each other and being similar with that, whether you like it or not, the cherry colored cement board that was on there was similar on both facades. But with the changes we're making now, they're not really relating to each other at all. Other than they're both perhaps responding more strongly to the gable that's on that facade. But again, I'm just, would be interested in knowing why you seem intent on not having those two elevations relate to each other at this point. There was no intent there, not having it relate. I just was responding to the franchise lots at this point. I find having that very large area on the East elevation to be a little bland and kind of a step backwards in terms of the amount of detail and the complexity and color selections on the building kind of washes it out significantly and changes the level of detail. That's just, that's my opinion. Okay, applicant final comments or questions? Oh, okay. Oh. Members of the public, any final thoughts, comments, questions? Oh, no raised hands or requests to speak. Paul. Question to the hack. No, he doesn't represent the hack. Oh. He's a member of the hack. Oh, he's a member of the hack. Okay. He's not representing the hack. Oh, so out of curiosity, did the hack make any recommendation what to do with that big area like changing materials? Was that you at that meeting? Yes, I was. So that price should be addressed, Emily. Oh. Are we talking about the West elevation, the main entrance side? No, the East elevation, the bland elevation. Back like the option too. Did the hack come up with, did they make any major recommendation to say, this should be like stone tile all the way, stones aside all the way up to really break up the exterior and make it distinctive. Did they make any recommendation like that? No, they just said option two was preferred. And there wasn't as detailed as discussion, excuse me, about a material going away and reducing the amount of variety. So in other words, they didn't propose a third option. Correct. And they were trying to be very careful on their West elevation recommendation to not design the applicants project, but provide them some guidance. Okay, that's on you. Okay. Any other questions? Paul, you good? I'm good. Okay. Okay, good. Okay. Last call, anybody? Public, applicant, DRB members? Only that I do like the change of the stone base. They don't have only a single mature. Yeah, I do too. So anyway, I just, whatever I know that I don't make just negative comments. Okay, great. Okay. Sorry, Pete could I ask one question? Absolutely. Are there any other changes that you would like to make to this elevation that we're talking about here that were you just going with what the hack recommended or are there other things you guys would like to do to add to it? Because it does look, I guess, washed out to me as well on the East elevation. On the East, no. I don't really have any. At that point, I was just kind of going along with what Franchise was hoping to accomplish and just waiting for feedback to see what kind of response we get. Okay, thanks. Very good. So we're going to close DP 18-06.3 at 754. Thank you all for coming. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Riley, you are welcome back. Okay, next up is HP 22-06, 8031 Wilson Road. Are you representing the applicant? Please come forward to the table and introduce yourself, state your name and address for the record place. My name is Jack Lau and I work for Lake Point Property Management, 65 Main Street, Burlington. Okay, who's got this first out? That's me. Okay. So this is a request for a certificate of appropriateness to resolve the zoning violation for replacing the slate roof with asphalt shingles without the benefit of a permit. This property known as the Worthheim House is located in the National Register Historic District of the Village Zoning District where a certificate of appropriateness is required for exterior modifications and or material changes. We do note that the Historic Sites and Structures Survey from 1978, as well as another undated survey, both list asphalt shingles as the roof covering. However, a 1999 survey lists slate in aerial and street view imagery that's included in your packet does depict a distinct change in materials from 2015 and 2018 and the 2021 photography from Google. The bylaw is silent on cost and financial hardship of materials and the hack of DRB should make a decision based on the guidelines of Appendix H. So the zoning violation was issued on June 29th within a day by receiving the application. Rich McClain, the managing partner for a late point property management responded. And then on July 6th, the certificate of appropriateness application was submitted. Hack review took place on August 6th where the applicant Jack and another representative were present. At that hack meeting, some new information came to light that the northeast gable and the east gable of the building were asphalt shingles before the replacement. And the applicant. Can I cut you off there? John, a gable doesn't have shingles, correct? No, that's correct. Okay. So I. The gable is the pointed flat part of the building. Okay. So I just want to point that out, okay? Because a roof and a gable are different components of a building. So the north side of the gable, the roof panel facing north. This is the photo that was submitted by Jack. So you can't see this side of the roof. But that side was asphalt shingles. And then in this photo here, this part of the roof that is facing east was shingles. And when you zoom in, you can see the porch was slate and some of that difference in the texture. It's hard to see on the big screens. It might be better in the packets. Now, and this is from what time period? Is this currently? The current picture. Do you know when this photo was? This photo was 2019, I believe. Because the porch is currently asphalt, correct? Yes. And Emily, you're saying that that is showing slate? I would need to fact check myself on when that photo is from as well. It's either 2019 or pre-2019. Okay. That picture there, that's slate, right there. That's slate. No doubt about that. So when the zoning violation was issued, we were under the impression that the whole roof, including the porch, was slate. And in the hack review, it came to light that the north and east facing sides were asphalt shingles. And then it was the south and west facing side and the porch were slate. So what the hack did is they considered all the recommendations option one through five that were drafted by staff and they created their own recommendation to store the slate roof on the street facing. It says Gable, it should say roof within one year. And the asphalt shingles are acceptable on the other portions of the roof. And this image highlights in yellow, the south facing roof where they would like to see the slate. The hack discussion kind of forgot about the porch. So staff does note that the DRB could consider that porch roof because it's also very visible from the street. Okay, anything else? I think that's it for me. Great. Okay. Jack, what do you have to supplement staff's report? I think that sums up what we're looking for. And we also agree with the recommendation that hack made. And we'd again, just like to apologize for the issue that we've caused and the mistake that was made with moving forward with replacing a roof without fully pulling all permits that are necessary and finding out that this building is indeed on the historical registry. DRB members, questions? Paul? No, I'm good. John? No, I mean this building is certainly adds to the character of the historic district and I think we need to keep this slate roof as we've been discussing here. Right. It seems like frequently. Yeah, we've had a slate discussion lately. Including the porch, I think the porch is a piece. Porch is very, very visible, I drove by. And it's close. So it's something that you can kind of, we can see from these pictures right away and this one here that it's something you're very close to and so you can really perceive the texture and the heaviness, thickness of that roof material. So. Nate, any questions? All right, nothing to add. Okay, Scott, you good? You're good. Okay, members of the public, any comments or input? There's no raised hands or chats to speak. Okay, Jack, anything further before we close? No, sir. Okay. Okay, we're going to close HP 22-06 at 8.02. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the DRP at 8.02 is going to go into deliberative session. So for our one Zoom attendee, you're welcome to hang out through deliberations and we'll let you back in. We'll also post the decision to the website later this week or you could contact us tomorrow for the decision. Welcome to the town of Willison Development Review Board for Tuesday, August 9th, 2022. The DRP is out of deliberation and it is 8.34. Is there a motion for DP 18-06.3 Vermont Hotel Group LLC? Yes, Simon, I'm going to need some assistance here. Thank you. So as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, John Hemmelgarn, moved at the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of August 9th, 2022, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 18-06.3 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from the DRB, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans in which this approval is based. We're going to adjust a couple of conditions, specifically condition number three is going to read, I think in its entirety. Final plans shall address the comments of the Wilson Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee memo dated August 2nd, 2022, as amended by the DRB on August 9th, 2022. A, stone foundations carrying the stone veneer to the ground foundation is acceptable as proposed. B, east elevation, provide a facade treatment on the east side under the cable that is similar to the west entrance facade using the same pallet of materials as on the west elevation. C, west elevation, the proposed changes to the west elevation are acceptable. D, the proposed changes to the south elevation are acceptable. E, the proposed changes to the site plan for HVAC screening are acceptable. I believe that is all the changes we were proposing. Great, thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second. Dave Turner seconds it and need discussion. Yay or nay? Paul Christensen? Yay. John Hemmelgarn? Yay. Scott Riley recused. Dave Turner? Yay. Nate Andrews? Yay. The chair is a yay. Five in favor, one recusal, motion carries. Is there a motion for HP 22-06, 8031 Williston Road, Allen Brook Partners, LLC? Yes, I, Scott Riley, make a motion to approve the certificate of appropriateness for Allen Brook Properties LLC application of our HP 22-06 for the purpose of correcting the zoning violation for replacing the slate roof with asphalt shingles without the benefit of a permit. We will be adding the following recommendation that the applicant will restore the slate roof on the street facing roof and the porch within one year. Mr. Riley, I would like to make a friendly amendment. Yes. And make that a shall instead of, so the applicant shall replace the roof. I used will, correct me? Yes. What's the difference? It's a legal, legally more powerful. All right, let's amend that Emily from will to shall. So the applicant will restore, excuse me, the applicant shall restore the slate roof on the street facing roof and the porch roof within one year. Great, is there a second? Second. John, Hamilton, second set. Any discussion? I just want to, it looks like Simon already corrected it, but recommendations versus conditions, is that? Yeah, I didn't make that change. Oh, okay. Yeah, you've aligned through recommendation, right? I did, I shook out. Yep, you're on following condition. Okay, any other comments? Okay, Paul, yay or nay? Yay. John, Hamilton. Yay. Scott, Riley. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. Chair is a yay, six in favor, none opposed, the motion carries. Next up is under communications, staff to provide an update on the village bylaw zoning update. Yep, so included in your packet is a brief memo about the village bylaw zoning update. So back in late June, early July, on behalf of planning commission in the hack, we publicly launched a zoning bylaw update. Light form based code, there's a specific website just for this project, willistonvillagevt.us. You can find the draft zoning document on the website. This is my version with all of my markup and planning commission markup on this document. And this bylaw revision is a long time coming and it's two fold, one to provide clarity on the design review guidelines and the historic preservation standards. So you guys aren't making them on an ad hoc basis under each property that there's more guidance than just quote, respect the original context. Because as we've seen with our most recent slate roof applications, that makes sense in theory, but when you get into the nitty gritty of applying it to siding replacements, window replacements, roofs, it gets challenging. So the goal is to provide more specific guidance on materials and recognizing that even within the historic register district, there are truly historic buildings and there are structures that are modern. And an 1860s house is a lot different than a 1960s house in the types of changes that can be made to it and providing that flexibility for those different types of structures. The other portion of the bylaw revision is to provide some clarity and flexibility for new project design, adaptive reuse of historic buildings. Currently, commercial uses are allowed everywhere in the village, including quiet streets like Tower Lane, Village Grove. This proposal provides some more clarity as to where commercial use is allowed and when it is brought into the village that it's done in a way to reduce conflict vis-a-vis buffering fences. You may recall several years ago when the Lantman House became Rage Line Real Estate. There is some discussion about the DRB about headlight glare and they required a fence strategically placed along the parking lot. I said, hey, that's a great idea. Let's just write that into the standard, the strategic buffering of commercial and multifamily uses from the budding properties. So we're in the public input phase of review to make sure that the draft we've written aligns with the goals of the Village Master Plan. That document was adopted in 2018 and it set out clear guidelines around adopting materials lists for historic structures, adopt material lists for other structures, have a demolition and a demolition by neglect standard, create guidelines and standards for rear lot development, new commercial, new residential, et cetera. Since launching the Planning Commission has given me some feedback on revisions to this document. I'll be the first to admit that I wrote the permit threshold table and it is terrible and I hate it because it is not making things clear but we're working in that direction. And the route is going to a contributing structure versus a non-contributing structure determination. So in the National Register District, everything needs that certificate of appropriateness when you guys with the hack and the dice put on the National Preservation, the National Park Preservation Hat and administer the National Register District. And then everywhere else in the Village, the additional review area is a town designation and in theory, the things outside, like on Maple Road, Tower Lane, Village Grove, Slate Barn Drive, they're in the Village but outside those two review areas. And rather than looking at things geographically, look at them as contributing a property with a contributing structure or a non-contributing structure and then reviewing changes that are made based on that determination. Some instances like the Lampman House or the Slate Barn on Slate Barn Drive, it's probably pretty clear which route the determination of contributing structure status would go. But then there's other properties in the Village where the discussion might be more lively and more information would be needed to make that determination. So rather than, you know, we consider the idea of having a whole list of structures in the Village and if they are or not contributing. And that would pretty much mean that this bylaw revision would be reduced to property owners arguing whether their property should be on a list or not. And the determination process means that it happens on that per-parcel basis when somebody comes to the board where they say, I might wanna demolish this building. Is it contributing and what route will I go? Rather than having it be an implicit decision where someone makes plans with their architect or their engineer to do a renovation or do an addition and find out farther on down the road that the HAC approval or the DRB approval is gonna go in a different direction than the work that they've already made plans for. So I am open to feedback from the DRB if you guys have looked through this document or want to over the coming weeks. The Planning Commission directed me and the consultant on some big revisions like simplifying the permit threshold, simplifying the materials list for contributing versus non-contributing, adding a maximum building footprint allowance as well as a minimum required private open area. So those things are kind of form-based code inspired and where this bylaw proposes to go away with residential density as units per acre and go away with commercial allowances based on square footage. They think that some backstop on maximum footprint size that matches the village scale and requiring private open area would help ensure that the development pattern meets what's here currently in the village. And then several other smaller changes to pictures and intense statement where things are shouts or shoulds either getting rid of them or making them a shell, that type of thing. On slate, this is drafted with probably the strictest interpretation possible, which is where structure was likely to have slate originally and maybe it now has metal or as well shingles requiring it to go back to slate. And the hack is not in favor of that. The Planning Commission is not in favor of that. So that is gonna be something that's walked back whether they allow slate to go away where it exists, that's still up for discussion. A community meeting is scheduled for September 20th and I think that's gonna be the moment where we use some tools like Mentimeter or other live survey tools to gauge people's interests. Where does the community wanna fall on that spectrum from most strict to most lenient? Recognizing that the village isn't Colonial Williamsburg but nor do we want structures to go the way of losing all of their historic value and finding that middle ground. Right. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I mean, I think from a DRV standpoint, since that's correct, the clearer you can make that for us, the better, the clearer. Otherwise, we become the bad guys on the slate issue, Scott and I probably are at your office. And I would just bring up another point. I watched a landlord in downtown Burlington with a historic building fight the city because the city said you had to have a three inch reveal on cladward wood siding and he wanted to use a four inch reveal and they took him to court over it. And to me, that is, and he won by the way. And so to me, that is getting much too controlling on what is going on. And there should be, you know, there should be the ability to maneuver a little bit within, you know, the town is a evolving community. Things change and should be allowed to change, maybe not drastically or dramatically, but it does change over time. So I would hope that gets incorporated into, you know, into your provisions. Yeah, I had a meeting today with a couple who own a historic property in the village that is an 1800s home, but it's outside both of those review areas. And based on the changes that they would like to make to their home, I thought of ways that this bylaw is not fully meeting that intent and revising that to provide that flexibility for incremental change. When I was reviewing that permit history of and historic photos of places in the village, they never wear a static thing. Even, you know, things in the 1800s were very simple and then late 1800s, early 1900s, a lot of embellishments were added to homes, additions, doors and windows moved around. So providing, like you say, that flexibility that there's a little wiggle room to provide modification over time. We don't wanna brick in the front door that faces the street, but there is some room for flexibility for other changes. The current iteration of the hack in DRB is very different than the iterations of the boards in the past. So we have heard feedback from people feeling like they were treated really poorly and very mean in the past. I would say probably more than a decade ago where the boards were very nitpicky on that same level of, oh, three or four inch reveal, how deep should your front porch be that you're adding to your home? And a lot of this has been like kind of, you know, historic advisory therapy for people where like, sorry, you were treated that way in the past and the current DRB and hack interpretation of that standard is a lot different, is a lot more flexible. Let me just chime in for the more for the board's that occasion, when I first got on the board, which is close to 15 years ago, we had a number of items come before the board where people wanted to replace windows. And at the time I got on the board, it was that the bylaw or whoever would manage them, the staff was hard on, if you had a wood window, if you had a wood window or you had to put a wood window back, and it just boggled the mind. If you're gonna paint it red, green, blue, whatever, anyways, then buy a wood window with either fiberglass or metal cladding, it'll last 10 times longer and you don't have to sit out there and scrape it and paint it and rock it and what have you. And you know, we, the board, and I was one of the people thumping my fist on the table saying, guys, this is dumb. This is just, so to me that was an evolutionary change in the way staff looked at things, the board looked at things, and that whole topic really has just gone away. You know, we haven't seen anything like that in ages, but at the time I got on the board, we saw it a lot. Yeah, so I mean, it really has come up again in my mind with these slate roof questions that have come up here, but you know, you're putting in a new window that is so far superior in performance to the old, historic one, that's one thing. To put in a inferior replacement, a superior roof like a slate roof with an inferior one, as well as shingles, is much harder to do. The better one is to see the thermal imaging of old homes with brand new insulated windows and the windows are all correct and the rest of the building and just venting. It's like, okay. So the other question, and this kind of tells on what Scott was saying, that this is an evolving piece, is that, and it's gonna be over a longer period of time, but there are going to be times when a non-contributing structure has been there long enough that it becomes a contributing one. So I hope there's some way in the bylaw that's written in that that can be reevaluated and changed. I was gonna bring that up. You've already identified that one. Remember those lovely aluminum, they have been on the houses now long enough to be quote, historic. That's true there, right. Right, so what the determination of contributing structure status says is what can be a contributing structures? Structures built before 1900, especially between 1820 and 1860, includes primary buildings and addition, can include accessory barns or sheds. It does not include fences, walls, driveways, parking area, landscaping, and trees. Those elements cannot be an contributing structure. So contributing structure is rooted in the Village Master Plan, and what are the things here that are contributing to that historic character? And it's primarily the 1800s and a few things in the early 1900s. So I got a question for you. I don't wanna drag this on too long, but Two Door Down is a 1940s cape, which is a beautiful little house for the time frame. And now your classification would not include that. That's a neat- They can bulldoze that home. Well, that's a neat little house because it's indicative of the time frame that it was built. And it's outside the window. It doesn't have any dormers on it. It's simple. That's a very sensitive design statement. I just think that it's indicative of the time frame of which it was created and the way your thing is built, that could get scraped. It could. So rather than say 1900, and again, I'm the first one to kind of poo-poo the fact that a building automatically becomes historic at age 50, which is what historic preservation says. I do think that at some point, if you say rat, not 1900, but 100 years old, now you're automatically kind of progressing that group. Some buildings will automatically over five or 10 years become a contributing member just because of their age. But I would almost wanna say that they need to be at least a certain age and indicative of the period in which they were built or a representative of the period in which they were built. Basically a copy-paste of the National Park criteria. Perhaps. Without knowing how it's by heart. I mean, there's a building for sale. I think this may have come up in a previous meeting, but down where the, down, straight down, route seven, route two, across next to the dentist's office that's being built, there's a house for sale. Just to the west of that, which is an old Sears house, as I understand it. And I would, I mean, I wouldn't, now it's in the wrong, it's only district, but this is our topic, but I would love to see somebody pick that thing up and move it someplace just to keep it from getting demolished and so, anyway, that's all. Yeah, so a subtext to this whole bylaw revision is there is interest from the hack in expanding the historic overlay. That's beyond the scope of what the village master plan called for, it would require, you know, a town plan amendment first, say, consider expanding to a town-wide historic overlay. There was a lot of heartburn over the Roe-Bear House when it got torn down to build U-Haul. The Sears house sits in the same. And the Sears house is in the same zoning district because currently there's only protection in the village zoning district, but the majority of historic structures are actually outside of that village zoning district when you just look at the hard numbers. So I think there would be a future where this, and I tried to draft the standard to scale up if it were to be copy pasted to other parts of the town and there was a town-wide overlay. But I appreciate your point and I think that's something that we can add in that it's not just looking at a fixed period of time, but it can evolve. And the way a non-contributing structure is written is alterations over time. So they're probably deep within the fiber art store. There might be something that's over 100 years old. I don't think corner quick. I'm not sure when it was built, but I don't think it was 1800s based on some photos I've seen, but again, something where the wind that was in the roof and the siding, so many things have been changed incrementally is even a contributing structure anymore. And that is a determination. On the other hand, so that actually becomes kind of the opposite argument here. It's not necessarily old, but it's a fixture in town. And you could probably do a little booklet on that building that's changed over time and the role that is played in the history of the town and therefore, does it have some other historical significance in the history of the town? Because I think that makes it something a contributing factor. Okay, so for whatever reason, some president got shot here and died in that building. It becomes a contributing factor right there, even if it's only 20 years old. If something really historically significant happens, it becomes, again, I'm exaggerating that, but there could be something really important happening. Right, so I'm hearing what you're saying and I think that is something that I'm in agreement with to add that scalability based on what the, basically the National Park Standards are. It's more than just 50 years. It's the timeframe and style is exemplary and maybe something significant local or nationally happened there. The way this determination standard is currently written, the determination letter is issued by the zoning administrator and I think there's some opportunity there with how the noticing is set up if it should be, you know, a warned public hearing. So there's more opportunity for that discussion and that judgment call to be made in a forum. Well, probably owners have an option of like appealing type of. Yeah. Like when the list is, you know, yes, I'm appealing. My house is not historical. I don't want that. I don't want it to be a contributing structure, you know. Do whatever the hell I want to do to my house. Same with the mineral one time. Same with my barns. Appeal, but hopefully they would be coming with. I did not take state money because I did not want to give them access. You know, you would be providing photos and documentation and evidence. There might be some professional opinions requested. So show us that these aren't the original windows and that so much has changed over time that it is a 1960s house, not an 1860s house, like prove it. Some things in the village, it's obvious just looking at it, that it's contributing like the slate bar or the Lantman house. Other things, it's a little stickier. It's going to be some work initially to come up with that list that's contributing what's not. And once you've done it, oh, there's going to be a. Yeah, and that's why we're doing it as this letter standard. So if somebody doesn't change anything about their property for years and years, they might never have to go through this. But if they're going to be making a change where I want to demolish and build something brand new, well, you might want to start with this first before you submit your application to demolish because it can go two different ways. All right. Yeah. How's fun with that only? There's more, so just, there's surveys online. If you skim through it and have feedback, I'm open to all, all input at this point. Okay. I got a home to add for this, that significant event occurred at. That gigantic home that's at the, it's at Walker Hill. Yeah. It was built with stolen, don't be. Oh, yeah. And then seized by the federal government. You ever been inside that thing? What? Yeah, I've been inside twice. Once when they had it for auction and once when one of the contractors fell in the foyer off the scaffolding all the way to top with a step ladder on the top of the scaffolding and he went down. And that's when I found out how big that building was because engine one was coming up the driveway as I was coming up fan sick one. And all of a sudden I watch engine one get smaller and smaller and I'm going, holy crap, that building is huge. I thought it was like a double wide from the road. It's 20 acres, by the way. Okay. Let's get this back on track. So is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of July 26, 2022? Okay. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds. Any discussion? Hearing none. Yay or nay? Paul? Yay. John Hemmelgarten? Yay. Scott Riley? Okay. Dave Turner? Yay. Nate Andrews? Yay. Chairs are yay. Six in favor. None opposed? Meeting minutes are approved. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. A second? Second. John Hemmelgarten seconds it. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all.