 Welcome all to the town of Williston Development Review Board for Tuesday, December 8th, 2020. I'm going to open the meeting at 7.14 p.m. Our apologies for the delayed start. First order of business is a remote public meeting announcement. I, Pete Kelly, as chair of the Williston Development Review Board, find that this public body is authorized to meet electronically without a physical location due to the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott and Act 92 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In accordance with the temporary amendments to the open meeting law, I confirm that, one, public access is available by videoconference and telephone through Zoom. All members of the board and the public can communicate in real time during this meeting through Zoom. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. Two, the public noticed agenda, including Zoom web address and phone number. Agendas, materials, and Zoom instructions are also provided on the town website, www.town.williston.vt.us. Click on public records and documents, then agendas in minutes. Three, the public can alert us if a problem during the meeting. If anyone has a problem with access during the meeting, please use the raise hand feature or chat box in Zoom or call Emilia 802-878-6704 extension three and leave a message. Four, continuing the meeting if necessary. If Zoom crashes or if the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to January 12, 2021. And that's our next meeting. All votes taken in this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call and accordance with the law. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul. Present. Steve Lambrick. Present. Scott Riley. Here. David Saladino. Dave Turner. Here. Okay. I will now turn it over to Emily for a Zoom 101. Emily. Sorry. In terms of tonight's public notice, it was correctly posted in the newspaper for our 15 days. I just sent the wrong link in the email to DRB members and on the website that the website is updated. I'm trying to get the document open. If you're calling in on telephone, you'll want to press star six to mute or unmute and star nine to raise your hands. If anybody has questions during tonight's meeting, you can press the raise hand button on the participants toolbar or comment in the chat. There will be an opportunity for public comment. If you're having trouble with internet connection, you can try closing other tabs or turning off your video. That is the summary. Great. Thank you, Emily. First order of business is a public forum. This is where we give an opportunity to the public to make a comment or address the board on anything that is not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone out there in the public that would like to make a statement? Again, topics that are not on tonight's agenda. I'm seeing no chats and no raise hands. Okay. With that, we'll go into the public hearing. We've got three items on the agenda tonight. Due to agenda item number one, the applicant not appearing to be present yet. We are going to shuffle up the order. So DP 19-18.1 bag riders is not present. We will put them off to the side for now. The other two applicants for tonight are DP 21-08, Kelly Barlin, and DP 09-01.20, the Snyder FC commercial properties LLC and Riley properties LLC for master sign plan amendment. So with that, we will kick off with DP 21-08. Kelly Barlin, who has this one for staff? Me. Okay. Go ahead, Emily. Kelly and Chris, can you say your name and address for the record, please? Hi, Kelly Barlin, 294 Wildflower Circle in Williston. Chris Haggerty, 305 Blackfly Hill, West Bolton. All right. So tonight is a pre-application review for a two-lot subdivision off of Shavbark Lane. The applicant is Kelly and his representative is Chris. What they are proposing to do is create two building lots and two open space lots on lot two. This lot is currently undeveloped except for the shared private driveway that shared with lots one and three from the former subdivision. This lot contains an inherent right to build one dwelling unit equivalent. So they would be adding a second dwelling unit. The property is 10.67 acres. It's currently vacant. They're proposing residential use. The access is private. It's in the agricultural rural zoning district. It is subject to conservation commission review and their memo is included. Tonight, we are recommending that this project, this pre-application move forward to growth management. However, we are noting that there are significant challenges related to access and open space design that may prevent the DRB from approving discretionary permit. And I would add to this further to say that it may just change how the subject subdivision is designed. And I'll get into the details on that further, but we are recommending approve the pre-apps so it can move to the growth management phase and then the details will get worked out at discretionary. Project history, this began in 2005 with a pre-app for a three-lot subdivision. It got approved in 2006. Since then, there have been some amendments to renew growth management allocation, reconfigure building envelopes, and do a boundary line adjustment with a neighboring parcel on Greenwood Drive meeting to today's application. Inter-departmental review, public works, and FIRE commented on this application. FIRE in particular has some concerns about access on this driveway. And staff is noting that there is some conflict between the development standards both in the bylaw, fire safety plan review, and public works. There may be a bylaw amendment in the future to access. And application only has vested rights when a discretionary permit is applied for. So if there's changes to that chapter before it's this application goes to discretionary, it might have to meet the new standards. The conservation also conducted a site visit on November 12th. We did receive two comment letters. Those are included. One comment letter also included information about their access easement from an abutting parcel. And staff notes that this is pre-app. It's time to look at complex projects in an informal way to invite comment and discussion. Project elements. The first to I call to your attention are vested rights for non-conforming lots uses and structures. Lots one through three were created under SUB 0605. Any substantial change to approve final plans can void the vested rights. And minor changes may be allowed. The creation of a new dwelling is a subdivision and considered a substantial change. The DRB's power to correct nonconformities is limited to requiring work that is reasonably proportional to the scale of development. This comes into play with both access and open space. And I can get into that further when we get to those two sections. Discretionary permit procedure similarly says that the DRB scope of review can be expanded when a property is not in full compliance with the final plans or the bylaw. In this case the property is not in compliance with the bylaw standards. It was developed under a former version of the bylaw. So for these two staff recommendations aren't included. We're just calling these standards to the DRB's attention when we discuss access and slopes. This property is located in the agricultural rural residential zoning district. We are including specific recommendations. In terms of development pattern this is where open space is required. On parcels greater than 10 and a half acres 75% must be set aside as its own parcel. The applicant's existing and proposed subdivision can comply with the standard. Where it gets tricky is 31276 which requires that slopes between 15 and 29% be included in the open space to the extent consistent with the landowner's right. So where the existing two building envelopes on the parcel are located and where the new one is proposed to be moved to could interfere with these slopes. The bylaw does allow for an exemption and allows for slope development to be permitted on those slopes but doing so the density is reduced to one dwelling unit per acre. If you reduce 10 acres excuse me um if you run that calculation either for 33 acres which is the overall sub original subdivision or 10.67 just looking at lot two it doesn't give the opportunity to add a second building lot. It would only support three houses on one on each of the three existing lots. Um home site design and open space developments uh lots can be no smaller than 15 000 square feet which is shown um and there are clearing limits. Access connectivity and traffic studies were including a specific recommendation. This development is served by shag bark lane an existing private driveway off butternut road butternut road is an unpaved town road. The town's authority on the portion of shag bark lane after lot five is limited because no change or development is proposed beyond lot five. I will note that for access we're looking at unit count regardless of bedrooms whereas density and growth management use the dwelling unit equivalent. Here it's just a house is a house no matter what. Um the access standards of chapter 13 limit a private driveway to a maximum of five dwellings and a maximum length of 1320 feet. The proposed amendment adding one dwelling would result in six dwelling units served by shag bark lane. The length of the existing private driveway um exceeds the limit is about 2000 feet. To resolve the non-conforming length and exceedance of the dwelling units allowed on a private driveway the first about 680 feet of shag bark would need to be upgraded to a road and this requires paving and curving to the public work specification. Not only could terrain make it challenging to meet the requirements of the public work spec the cost to construct and maintain a paved road could be prohibitive. The bylaw does allow an exemption to both the length and the number of units on a private driveway but with the reduced density of one dwelling per 10 acres again which wouldn't allow for that additional unit to be created. Unless the applicant can meet the current access standards under chapter 13 by upgrading a substantial portion of shag bark staff determines that due to access non-conformities any lot served by shag bark is not eligible for further subdivision. Since writing the staff report there could be an option as well to request a legal opinion from our town attorney before this proceeds to discretionary permit to understand more of what the legal implications are of the vested right standards in the bylaw and amending access that's currently platted as a 40 foot right of way. What follows is a table where line by line I compare what the bylaw standard is for access which I summarized. This project is expected to comply with off-street parking and on-site infrastructure. They're proposing private well and septic systems growth management. If it completes pre-application this year 2020 it'll go to growth management in March 2021. They would be requesting one unit of allocation because lot two has retained that inherent right to build. The project previously received points for a primitive trail easement. This application is also proposing a realignment of the trail easement which the conservation commission reviewed and is agreeable to so they would still probably receive points in that category. In terms of density this project complies with the allowed density both looking at the overall land holdings of the original subdivision and just lot two where that density does get tricky is when access and open space reduces it to one for 10 acres under those exemption standards. Residential improvements usually we don't talk about chapter 20 in the DRB however we are noting that accessory dwelling unit can be approved administratively as an allowed right to a primary dwelling unit. There are some limitations on how that lot can be developed and occupy but if subdivision is not a possibility there is an opportunity to create an accessory dwelling. No additional landscaping is anticipated given the arrangement of the open space providing an ample buffer. There are conservation areas on this site and we are including the conservation commission specific recommendations particularly that there be a habitat disturbance assessment at discretionary permit and also that there are uncommon rare or threatened species on this property. In this situation it's a dry oak hickory arboreum forest habitat so what will be required at discretionary permit is an opinion from Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department about the presence or absence of this community and then any recommendations that they have about how the development can be planned so it doesn't have an undue impact on that community and a recommendation is included. This parcel does have a high priority for the environmental reserve fund and it does have a desire for a primitive trail that easement is existing and will be realigned and the conservation commission agrees with that relocation. So watershed health the wetlands were delineated in 2016 and there are small pockets of class 3 and a small class 2 on the parcel. Lots 4 and 5 are north of the wetland and not likely to impact the wetland areas in their construction. There is a recommendation included and lastly outdoor lighting will need to comply at discretionary permit and impact fees will be assessed at the time of administrative permit. In the recommendations below originally I've wrote in cannot in recommendation number one I think the DRB should change that to may not and keep it vague as a recommendation because we'll be looking into this further as the application moves forward to discretionary permit maybe seeking a legal opinion. With that I conclude thank you. Okay thank you Emily just making a note of that change. Nice job Emily. Okay now it's the applicant's turn. What I would like to have you do as a starting point is so this is for Chris and for Kelly. Is if Emily could could put up on the screen the site plan I'd like you to walk us through you know what you are doing and talk a little bit about talk a little bit about the access challenges and talk a little bit about the slope please on the property which is which is pretty significant. Sure so I believe that the the slope it's going to be subject to a field study but a couple things to put in perspective let's talk about the road real quick the private lane it's referred to as a driveway but in 2009 I can't remember the exact date when it was built but I could pull that out but it was actually built to town standards it's an 18-foot wide lane with swales and dispersion trenches and all kinds of culverts and everything necessary to meet town standards so I I'd like for the DRB to just keep in the back of their mind my intent is not to convince you guys tonight that you know it should be a road but I would like to point out that back when this was approved it was up to town standards as being a private road okay that said the other point to note on the road is that the elevations on the approved plan for the road the steepest elevation on the road was actually um 12 grade so if you look at the where the road goes how you you come up off a shag bark and you you snake through it's pretty it's not much of a grade at all where you see this switch back there is a bit of a grade obviously that's why there was a switchback put in place but it's not until there you go you found it Emily um so this is the actual approved road plan from I free I can't remember the date Emily but believe 2006 2006 okay so if you look at the steepest grade it's it's I don't think you can read the numbers but if you can um the steepest grade is actually 12 percent okay so that while there there there are definitely some steep grades on this parcel what I'd like to note is that lots four and lots five they just run right along that road so in other words it doesn't drop off it's it uh you pretty much would be a flat driveway from the lane up onto lot five as well as lot four so I don't again it's it's I would think it's going to be subject to a field study or somebody to look at the lidar and the topos closer and um and maybe Chris can weigh in on it a little bit but I don't believe that that the slope is is even at 15 percent and if it was it it would be it would be at the very bottom of the 15 to 29 percent where we're talking about building right that's my understanding as well that like you said Kelly that road was was staked out and constructed as design so I have no reason to think that anything exceeds 12 percent and um you know I don't think that if we're doing any measurement off of lidar contours I don't think that's appropriate I think we should be basing it based on that design and or you know further field verification but the lidar may not capture that road as accurately as as needed to to kind of certify its compliance with the with the design the other point to note is that the the um existing lot that um is uh that stands that I can for all intensive purposes start to build on I guess pull a permit and start to build on is in essence lot five um it's just configured slightly differently um and if you take lot four and just put it below the switchback that was the original design of the property so there were actually two building envelopes um on this parcel and by moving lot four to north we're avoiding any wetland buffers we significantly moved it north of that and it's just overall it's just a better building lot because uh being in that switchback you are lower than the road where with lot four you're you're above the road so um for aesthetics for all kinds of reasons it just made sense to move lot four up above um what else would you guys like to know about the parcel itself Emily mentioned it's not in uh there's some class three contiguous wetlands way down below but they tend to be on yeah down there um majority of them are are not even on this lot and the wetlands as they're outlined that's right where there are right where there are culverts um Emily made reference to a primitive path if you look at the southerly part of the lot Emily can you um yeah so the beginning the beginning of the primitive path can you go to the yeah the beginning of the primitive path was set to be right where Emily has the arrow so this house um just south of the arrow that's the peter judge home that's the judge residence so what we were thinking when we did the the walk with melinda scott and the the conservation commission um what's also not listed on here and i don't know if Emily you want to pull it up but right right uh there is a right of way that the judge property has access to shag bark lane um on the lower part Emily do you do you actually remember where it is i think it's in the vicinity of the words open space on our plan but there you go there you are so might be a little bit hard to put in perspective but um yeah so the peter the peter allison the peter and allison judge home so it yeah it's it's right around there um where there's a right away so the reason why i'm bringing that to your attention is because we thought that it would make sense if the trail and or beginning wasn't right by this residence here um so i'm indifferent honestly i mean we could leave it there and it can be the trail could be built out i just thought uh to maintain um this uh this residence uh privacy a bit if you moved it up by the right of way then um it would end there so people could walk up shag bark and enter the the uh primitive path there so again um i think it's a good idea to move there if we move forward with the discretionary and get the approval that's what would be um put on the plat but right now as it stands um it is it is uh on the current plat as it's shown on this map okay anything else um i think that about covers it there was some reference to the the fire department um laying reference to the the road itself and uh having pull-offs and the like but i think that um i i think that that's anticipating that it really is truly a driveway i mean it this truly is an 18 foot wide road so you can get a fire truck going up and cars going down at the same time so i i don't see access being an issue with a with a fire truck the distance off the road is is something that i know is in the the bylaws but uh i did want to lay mention to that and i think that's pretty much um what i wanted to bring up okay uh christ do you have anything to add before we turn it over to the board i don't think so i did have one question i think in emily staff notes there was mention of six units on shag bark and i was just wondering where the sixth unit comes from i know we have the judge property accessed um and two of kelly's previous lots that i've been built on we're adding two more i'm assuming that that that right of way which we neglected to show we weren't aware of of that right of way in the crunch of time to get this plan together i'm assuming that peter judges um new right of way that's not depicted um counts as one of those uses so we're counting um lot 19 shag bark lane or address 19 shag bark lane its driveway is the first one on your left okay yeah gotcha and it is it is a the thing to point out about that property is just until recently it did have a but or not address um yes it did have a uh it does have right of way onto shag bark but i think it was in the last year or two that it was actually um that it was given a shag bark address versus having a but or not address yeah there was a bla between um 19 shag bark and 101 shag bark and part of that approval public works wants consolidated access the one point on but or not road is limited to agricultural use only and the house has its driveway off shag bark so that just sort of happened with um i wasn't aware of that that change but okay uh anything else before i turn it over to the board no i'm good thank you okay you're welcome um okay drb board members any questions so kelly scott reilly the um have you checked the uh have you checked the the road standards recently you know i know i knew you built this quite a while ago um have you checked the public works on what the current road standards are i haven't checked with public works scott but i do believe that what the fire department was asking for was that the road be widened to 24 feet if it was going to if it was going to um have six dwellings on it rich okay a little nuts up yeah i think that might be obviously something you got to look into i think we're into a couple of generations ago from when you built this to what's going to where the standards are now right i agree okay thank you scott uh anyone else there are there any uh are there any plans to go further than lot five um so there's a kelly where's your where's your house uh my house would be lot five scott are you way up your let's see now up at the top is the harder residence that's harder okay yeah yes and there's a there's a hammerhead built to spec just uh at the beginning of my property line okay so um emily you referenced the uh a legal review your eye your idea there you want to run through that yeah so we're recommending approving the pre-app tonight um and before this goes forward to discretionary permit um matt and i will talk to the town attorney and ask for his legal opinion on the the vested rights of an existing driveway and adding additional units to an existing driveway um that was created under old specifications so so does that speak to whether or not the uh the driveway would be subject to be um built to the current standards is that the issue correct it's upgraded to the current standards okay and what's up into sorry to interrupt but to what point would it need to be improved i know we i know you touched on that in the staff notes but it wouldn't be in its entirety correct it would be only be to the point where it needs to be road versus driveway and based on number of uses correct so the entire length of the driveway is about 2600 feet from butternut road all the way to the house on lot three just to lot five is which is here is 2000 feet but our by-law says a private driveway can be no longer than 1300 feet so um what would end up happening would the first 600 700 feet would have to get upgraded to a private road so that the private driveway beyond it is no longer than 1320 feet and what i'm saying is that the town's authority ends at the access point for lot five because that's where change is being proposed we wouldn't be looking at 1320 feet all the way to lot three because that's existing um and is not being proposed to change but if if the public work standards are 18 feet if the road was constructed to the standards that are still in place today that is no longer an issue right if if the if the road if if this road still meets the current public work standards then that's not an issue because then it's considered a private road right well the public work specifications don't have standards for anything that's unpaved um what our by-law says is five or fewer dwellings can be on a private driveway and then more than that or that longer length you get bumped up to public work specifications which would be um a paved private road really there's no there's no allowance for wow for for gravel roadway even though we have town gravel roads in real estate correct interesting so you'd be going from a dirt road but or not onto a road of yeah i'm shaggy back yeah yeah and the bylaw does give an exemption to that because obviously having that paved road in the middle of dirt roads is out of character but the only exemption is that one dwelling for 10 acres okay yeah those places where the bylaw does allow exemptions it's with a reduce a reduction in density so applying applying some common sense to this and i'm just uh the the thing to keep in mind is um i could build on a larger lot five tomorrow and also have an accessory structure um with a two bedroom dwelling not to exceed 1500 feet so in essence if i if i did nothing um if i if i pulled this then i could be building in essence two structures but you couldn't but you couldn't sell off that second structure correct that's the rub that's the rub yeah so it would uh it yeah so really what i'm looking to do is to be able to subdivide the close to 11 acres into two nice size lots that i i don't the lane that is on there i don't know if the members of the d rb have been on it but uh it's uh it's worth a drive it's it's plenty wide so i understand i was for those that don't know i was on the d rb for 12 years um so i i know what you guys have to go through um and i'm sensitive to that so uh that's back that's back in ancient history yeah it is it's one we rode our horses um but um it's not plenty wide if you got two of today's modern fire engines side by side in a winter condition with plow banks yeah that that's true all that i'm saying is that it's it's wide enough for you could fit two fire trucks side by side on the road this is dave turner i did take a ride down the road and while i was on the road i did meet another vehicle and there was no problem by passing another vehicle but again we have to go by the standards thank you dave how did you find the uh the steepness on the on that road the steepness on the road was fine until you got up to the top building a lot of top house unit there but it is uh curbed enough so that uh you don't go straight up the bank so it's not bad the only thing i didn't notice is was the fire truck turner man so that's right up at the top okay there's according i think the public works wants them like 400 feet apart so if you do go in those lots would there be an issue making the driveway wide enough for the fire truck to turn around in okay something to consider anyways yes thank you okay thank you dave uh anyone else from the drb with questions i guess i have just a general question for for staff on the public work standards i mean if we feel that they're um do we have any jurisdiction to go against what public work standards are or if if it's required to be paved it's required to be paved and we have nothing to say about that avid i i can jump in on that um the question at hand that that we've talked about asking council would be more to the point of if shag bark lane was built to a standard that was understood to be an acceptable standard for a road by the town at the time it was permitted are there are there vested rights for the applicant to continue to have shag bark lane treated as a as a road for the purposes of reviewing additional development as opposed to if all of what's in front of the board tonight on on that plan that's accessed from shag bark lane was proposed today we would be applying today's standard blank slate so it's it's not so much a question of modifying the public work standard it's a question of at what point in the lifespan of a development um when a road is permitted and constructed if it's understood as a road at the time that that happens does the town have an entry to require it to be modified later on to support further development um and you know the town has some recent experience in in these matters related to field stone drive in the divita subdivision off of oakill road um where you know we did find that there are some limitations to what a town can say about um what needs to happen to something that was built out of as a road at the time it was constructed thanks matt thank you matt matt do you want to can you want to just touch on what um what david asked prior to that your explanation about our ability to bend public works's requirements yeah you you don't that's what yeah right um so so you know well let me let me put it this way what we say about private roads in our zoning bylaw is that they shall be constructed to public works standards um which are the standards public work and works imposes when a road is constructed that the town of williston might end up taking over um and you know built into that policy is the anticipation that um the town might find itself in the position of needing to take over a previously private road um at some point and would want it to be constructed um to the condition um that it would that it would require if it was built with the intent of it becoming a town road so there's you know there's there's some variability in there which emily pointed out in the staff report in terms of under today's rules what can be a road and what can be a driveway and you know this limitation on density that comes into play um if you allow uh a driveway to exceed these standards but i would say the bylaw sets pretty clear boundaries there um generally in terms of how a road is built um we're going to we're going to go to public works and defer to them um we're not talking necessarily tonight about how a road will be built but rather how it was built when it was built and what it was understood to be by the town at that time and you know this is this is not the only road in Williston that that does not meet any currently adopted public work specification for a road um you know literally any dirt road in town there is no town specification for those roads anymore um and we we have some other um private roads in town that certainly don't don't meet spec either okay thank you matt uh any other questions or comments by d rb members okay is there anyone out in the public uh who has a question or would like to make a statement on this application raised hands in their chats okay uh chris and kelly uh any last comments um no i think we did a pretty good job covering it thank you i just like i'd just like to thank emily and melinda for their help in getting the application together yeah thank you guys yep they do a good job they do thank you for mentioning that that's appreciated okay uh last chance for questions okay seeing no activity uh we will close dp 21-08 at 801 uh thank you very much for coming thank you have a great evening you as well okay emily has uh has the first uh applicant on the agenda are they present or are they still um still have not arrived they have not arrived um okay okay mr chairman you're being paged i thank you uh we didn't we our our office was not involved with the preparation of this application but um while the first agenda item was being discussed i did contact the property owner and he's authorized me um to represent the application if bag riders don't show up so that they aren't kicked to the first meeting in january now that doesn't mean we have to take up that agenda item now we can leave it at the at the end of the agenda at the end of the agenda whatever the the board's preference is i did email them um the corrected link just because i thought they might be trying to get on and i have not heard anything back so okay uh andy uh you are probably one of the most trustworthy people that i know but uh we don't let it go don't let it go to his head come on what uh what documentation do you have that we can use as verification of that statement none i spoke with glenn i spoke with glenn comings the landowner uh by phone again while the the first agenda item was was under discussion so i i don't have any documentation other than my phone call with him about 25 minutes ago okay and you and you were the engineer on that project we were the engineer on the project we did the original master sign plan we just weren't involved uh with bag riders application to amend the current sign the current master sign plan but we will be because i suspect that uh one of the staff proposed conditions is going to be that the master sign plan be updated to reflect what they're proposing in terms of submission of final plans okay uh i'm satisfied we we will we will take that application up last tonight because um you're gonna you're gonna be present either way yep so um this way uh uh chris and whoever else is present can uh can be heard on their application and uh and then you can be free to go chris so uh so with that um we will open up dp09-01.20 which is a master sign plan uh addendum for the Snyder FC commercial properties LLC and Riley properties LLC uh Scott i assume you are recusing yourself on this one yep i am recusing myself from this hearing as i have a financial interest in the property okay uh very good uh and uh and chris and andy you are the representation for for for this application scott are you going to be uh are you going to be participating in this or are you on the sidelines you're muted i'm on the sidelines thanks okay okay so chris and andy you're representing the applicant yes okay if you would please for the record state your name and address please andy roe lamar on dickinson 14 morris drive Essex chris Snyder Snyder FC commercial 4076 shelvin road suite six shelvin great thank you uh who's got this one for staff um i have this one for staff i'm going to go ahead and share my screen all right um so this is a second round hearing um this item was heard on november 24th this is a proposal to modify an existing master sign plan uh related to the commercial portion of the finny crossing development in the taff corners zoning district um we had an initial discussion with the development review board about the applicant's proposal on november 24th and and the board provided some feedback to the applicant about um how it saw itself potentially ruling as it relates to making special findings under the comprehensive plan and williston development bylaw language as it relates to larger and more numerous signs that are included in a proposal as part of a master sign plan um the general advice of the development review board at that time was that the um sign on the southern facade of the building as pictured in the staff report should be reduced in size um and that some of the other sign elements that the applicant had thought about eliminating be be re-included in the plan including sandwich boards um within the plan so the applicant has submitted a revised sign plan uh that sign plan takes this 160 square foot window sign on the elevation in question and reduces it to a 50 foot um sign which is about the area of of two of these uh large glass panels on the site uh it brings back some of the lamppost banners uh and the sandwich boards that were originally part of the master sign plan prior to this proposal and i'm going to bring you down um to the amendment this amendment does meet the requirement that all signage fall within the eight percent of street-facing facade uh maximum limitation remembering that this is eight percent of the facades of each of the commercial buildings but that the signage doesn't have to exactly correlate to the building rather it's a site-wide limit um i have quoted here the special language related to larger signs but noting that by reducing the 160 square foot apple logo to 50 square feet um we we brought that window signed down to the 25 limit of that glass area on the building so the recommendation tonight is for the drb to uh have this conversation with the applicant about the changes deliberate on the project staff recommendation is for approval and i just want to go into the summary of the signs that are in the draft condition of approval showing the reduced size here at 50 square feet of the large sign that we were discussing um the slight decrease in light pole signs from a total 435 square feet down to 450 the other thing staff is recommending because there's room within the eight percent maximum is to uh go up from what the applicant was asking for at five sandwich boards go up to six this allows one for each of the three major commercial tenants on each side of the building since there's since there's room there for it staff suggestion was include that six six square foot sandwich board and i'm going to stop there and stop screen sharing for the moment i can bring the site plan back up with me okay thank you matt uh first order business uh chris and andy uh are you in agreement with the staff recommendation to add the additional sandwich board yes okay uh what uh what else do you have to uh to add and uh that that to supplement what matt did uh just a couple of things just to note that all of the window signs now are proposed to be no more than 25 of the window area so there's no increase being proposed there um and the other thing that staff had suggested was um modifying the sign table so that a couple of the other retail spaces could potentially have projecting signs and i think that's a great idea uh the only thing that we would ask is that they had suggested that the two signs on the north side jn five and jn six that would be the the two westerly tenants in this building um be potentially eligible for projecting signs a tenant that had expressed interest in the westerly space um had actually proposed a projecting sign so we'd like to also request that the one sign on the west face of the building jw one also be eligible to be a projecting sign as well other than that no no other comments on what uh staff presented um it's consistent with the plans as submitted okay great thank you andy no i'd like to say just one thing uh you know i appreciate the drb's guidance and information and help um and i think it helped uh clarify the approaches and uh i thought it was a good discussion at the last meeting i appreciate uh the thought that you guys gave back to us oh thank you um didn't want to get it back in the queue you know that was that was what we were trying to do yep anything else chris no okay drb members any questions yeah one question just how big a projection are they do they want on that sign well the sign wouldn't be any larger as a projecting sign than is being proposed as a wall sign it would just have the ability for a different type of signage with the the sign projecting out from the face of the building being perpendicular to it as opposed to being mounted on the face of the building flush with the face of the building yeah i'm just saying it's not like walla walla washington eight year kind of length of sign sticking out right no no and i i'm not i can't recite them for you but i know having looked at the projecting sign requirements before there are specific limitations on um you know similar to freestanding signs and wall signs there are similar uh restraint on projecting signs okay sounds good and andy this is john hemelgarn that was jw1 that you want to switch to be a projecting sign correct the single uh one sign on the west elevation of the building yeah i've got my plan out now so i can see that i think that's a great idea that's my only comment okay thank you john uh other members of the drb questions uh members of the public uh are there any uh questions on this application no chats and no raised hands okay uh last call for for questions or comments by uh the applicant or drb members okay hearing done uh we are going to close dp09-01.20 uh at 813 uh thank you very much for coming thank you very much for your time tp19-18.1 master sign plan amendment uh Cummings master sign plan uh who is uh andy you're here for you're representing the applicant yes if you would uh for the record state your name us please andy roe limerland dickinson 14 morris drive sx representing glenn Cummings and uh bag riders thank you uh who's got this one for staff um so this is a request to an amendment an existing master sign plan um located at 347 shun pike road it's one of the roe bear lots um and uh hat currently has a sign plan um um for the Cummings development um so basically this is just uh a request to take out um five six square foot wall signs and replace them with a single 31 square foot wall sign um and uh staff's recommending approval of the master sign plan amendment um with conditions of approval um this is the first time the first amendment the drb has reviewed related to this master sign plan the original master sign plan was approved under dp19-18 um july 9th 2019 um none of the other departments police fire public works have submitted any comments for this application and no comment letters were received at the time of the mail out um so the applicant is proposing um a master sign plan amendment that allows for a wall sign in excess of the usual limitation of 24 square feet um um again they're proposing the replacement of one six foot square wall six square foot wall sign with a 31 square foot wall sign and the elimination of four wall signs each at square six square feet in size so the net additional wall area wall sign area for the site is uh one square foot um um and there are this is a newly developed lot there's no non-conforming signs and the existing master sign plan um was approved for a new site development um so the frontage requirements are still met with this amendment the potential maximum sign area is 157 square feet and this proposed amendment would put the um that uh proposed total sign area at 151 square feet um just it might be just a little bit easier if I just show you the site plan and um what's being proposed so the final uh plans for the previous master sign plan have these four signs uh listed j k l and m those are proposing to be eliminated and um this sign would be replaced with a larger sign over here with the hundred with the uh 31 square foot sign um so I think that is all I have and and uh I there is a recommendation um or a condition of approval just stating that final plans must show all existing and approved sign locations um in plan and elevation view um and must include a table of approved sign locations and dimensions sorted by sign type um that's all I have okay thank you Melinda uh Andy recognizing you didn't have a lot of time to digest this uh do you uh do you have any concerns with the proposed conditions of approval nope I think um I did have a chance to review things uh earlier and you know Melinda summarized it pretty well they're taking five signs and uh or eliminating four signs and making the fifth one larger yep okay so you you don't have any concern with any of the proposed conditions of approval no okay right thank you uh DRB members do you have any questions I'm good I'll set I'm fine just one question is this because bag writers is taking over that whole side of the building basically yes I was out there today for the work happening next door and yes I believe they're taking that that whole side of the building okay the only reason I ask the question is so if for any reason they left we potentially are going to be revisiting this by taking one big sign down putting up the little signs if it breaks it up back into little subsections again right that's correct when the building was originally um proposed it was intended to be split up into um basically three to six or uh divided or combined into 3000 square foot increments and in this case bag risers is is taking 9000 square feet um if they were to leave and a tenant was to come in and take a smaller space there would be a need to amend the multi master sign master sign plan again in order to revert back to something similar to this okay sounds good looks like we got permanent employment ahead of us Andy what is bag riders I had to look them up they do air system custom air suspension so when you see those cars that are sitting low to the ground or trucks or any kind of vehicles that's what they do they replace they replace the shock absorbers and the springs and allow you to inflate them and deflate them and change all kinds of change change the whole geometry of the uh underneath side of the car in effect you're riding on an airbag okay thank you okay um any other questions you're good Andy all set yes thank you okay good um okay we're going to close DP 19-18.1 the Cummings master sign plan amendment to reflect the tenant bag riders we're going to close this at 821 uh thank you Andy thank you good evening right okay uh we are now going to go into deliberative session uh at 821 Tuesday December 8th 2020 we are back from deliberations is there a motion for DP now as authorized by WWDB 6.6.3 I David Saladino moved at the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of December 8th 2020 except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 19-18.1 and approve this discretionary permit for a master sign plan subject to the conditions of approval above this approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek administrative sign permits which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you Dave uh is there a second? I'll second yep Scott beat me yeah okay so uh so Scott second at it yep further discussion uh hearing none uh we'll do a roll call vote please indicate yay or nay Paul yay John yay Steve yay Scott yay Dave Saladino yay Dave Turner yay the chair is yay seven in favor not opposed motion carries unanimously is there a motion for DP 21-08 Kelly Barlin pre-app for a subdivision? Yes as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 I Scott Riley moved at the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of December 8 2020 accept the recommendations for DP 21-08 and authorize the applicant the application to move forward to growth management uh we will be making one change to recommendation number one we will substitute the word cannot with may not so the first sentence will read the proposed development and uses may not meet the development standards of WDB chapter 31 because the new development proposed on the slope on slopes between 15 to 29% does not meet the reduced density standards of WDB 31-7-2-6 thank you Scott is there a second second uh John Hemmelgarn seconds it is there any further discussion uh hearing done uh yay or nay Paul yeah John Hemmelgarn yay Steve yay Scott Riley Dave Saladino yay Dave Turner yay uh the chair is a yay uh seven in favor none opposed motion carries unanimously uh is there a motion for DP 09-01 20 yes there is your signed plan amendment yes there is as authorized by WDDB 6.6.3 I Steve Lambert moved at the Williston Development Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearings of December 8th 2020 and November 24th 2020 except the findings affecting conclusions of law for DP 09-01.20 and approved this discretionary permit for a master sign plan subject to the conditions of approval above with one additional additional condition of approval number six which states that condition of approval number three table three sign JW-1 may be either a wall or projecting sign this approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek administrative sign permits which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based right thank you Steve is there a second Paul second it Dave Turner seconds it any further discussion uh hearing none uh Paul Christensen yay may Steve Lambrick yeah uh Scott Riley extension Dave Saladino uh you're muted sorry I I Dave Turner yay uh the chair is yay uh six in favor and not opposed one abstention motion carries okay next up are the minutes of November 24th 2020 is there a motion to approve the minutes first uh Pete I moved that we approve the minutes as as written of the meeting of November 24th 2020 correct yes I'll second that okay Dave Saladino seconds any discussion hearing none we're going to do this in group in a group uh all those in favor indicate by saying aye aye any opposed okay motion carries uh seven in favor not opposed uh that motion carries unanimously is there any other business to bring forth to the DRP at this point any Mariah Carey songs you want to sing do we do we get the guess who came up with that idea I I think I think I think I think I've got a pretty good thought I do too try to introduce a little fun yes and and done well yes that's the way it should be uh well before I call for a motion to adjourn I wish everybody happy holiday season thank you very much for your support of the be in 2020 in this virtual world uh the staff um you did a tremendous job pivoting to this virtual um meetings I think they really came off without really any major hiccups and and you're to be commended for that so thank you very much I second I second that I third that you're here thank you it means a lot yes Pete I was thinking earlier did did we do uh growth management via zoom last year we must have yeah we did that was our first meeting I was just thinking it must have been either the first or the second meeting and that would have been quite a test yeah I think everything blew up in mid-march yeah St. Patty's Day and yeah St. Patrick's Day is forever tainted yes because they had to close the bars early yeah what they what'd they do with all that green beer they put it in the savannah river and so then yeah growth management was our first zoom call and yes that was interesting we were all it was all new to us certainly wasn't me yeah I was still trying to figure out how to keep my computer my computer network here at home was not yet improved well it seemed to be working well working out pretty well for everybody now it's great works it works very well yeah I do you know with any you know with any luck and roll out of vaccine we maybe maybe next summer we can be back back together we'll see how that plays out hey have we ever done an outdoor meeting not that I can recall not to hear items although you've done you know site visit yeah well maybe we accept the gazebo there I want to put in one plug before you go okay over the break and the holiday when we return your first meeting in January there's one hearing item on the agenda but I'm also going to be bringing you the consultant team that's helping the town work on its development standards for the growth center and I they're going to be asking you to think about what you feel like in the tap corners area in terms of development standards has been working not working how how it how it's been going administering the code what what maybe you wished the code said that it doesn't say or did that it doesn't do or does that that you wish it didn't do but we are we are moving forward with a project to significantly retool the development standards in Williston's growth center and you'll have an opportunity to have an audience with that consultant team at that first meeting in January so as you're as you're doing your last minute shopping if you're doing any of it in person in Williston um think of some of think of some of the site developments that have come through the board in the last you know 10 years or so um and uh what what you like and don't like about them and and what you might want to see different so Matt let me ask you a question given given that uh my company is uh uh it's significantly involved in that is that something uh you want me participating in should I be a side on that it's just an advisory conversation um so this I can give you I can talk for an hour on that subject this this would be not that similar from from connecting the planning commission uh with the drb to to talk about development standards uh at the end of the day all that's going to matter is what the select board really adopts um and um there's there's significant um public involvement uh that needs to happen but we recognize in a small place like Williston a lot of our um most involved people are also serving on boards and and value the input so okay I keep keep that in mind as you're sort of looking around Taft Corners uh what would you want this place to turn into in the next you know 25 or 50 years and and what's your experience been as a as a board member administering the current rules okay great keep an eye on that thanks all right is there a motion to adjourn I'll make some moves Dave Turner makes a motion is there a second sure Scott Riley seconds it uh any further discussion all those in favor any opposed all right thank you everybody happy holidays Merry Christmas Dave and COVID-free you got it