 Wilson DRV meeting of April 26, 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 bar. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the police stations and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and public and communicated in real time, planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken in the meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, this meeting will be continued to May 10th of 2022. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRV members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarn. I'm here. Riley is here. David Saladino is here. Dave Turner is here. And Andrews is here. And the chair is present. So all DRV members are here. At this point, I will turn it over to staff to run us through some Zoom instructions, please. That's me. Good evening, everyone. Welcome. Just some short Zoom instructions. This is the first hybrid meeting back since January. So for those of you on Zoom, please take a moment just to make sure you are named accurately. You can do this by clicking the participants button in the lower end along the toolbar. Just open up the window on the right-hand side. You can then hover over your name and that will allow you to rename yourself. Alternatively, you can just shoot the message in the chat and I will rename. If you are in person, please make sure if you have any devices, tablets, phones, or laptops, we do switch off all three of those things. We've got the hour with us today. We'll take care of all of that for you and it can get feedback. For those of you on Zoom, we have a range of functions on the toolbar on the bottom of your screen. We have the mute button which turns your mic on and off. Please keep yourself muted when you're not speaking. We have the stop-start video button to get this optional. We've got the chat button. Public testimony must be taken. Please don't use the chat for testimony. You can use it if you're having any tech difficulties. When you get to public testimony, you can press to speak. You can use the reactions button and then raise your hand or send me a message in the chat. Lastly, I think we've got eight or five participants. We can be using screen share tonight, which means everyone can look at the same documents. Your Zoom should be defaulted to side-by-side view, which is what we recommend. But if it doesn't, you can access it by clicking to the right or the green button on the top of the screen, scrolling down and selecting side-by-side mode. You can also see that we have a vertical slider that allows you to adjust the respective size of that screen and video so you can see what we're talking about. Lastly, if you do have a bad internet connection, there's a few things you can try. You can try turning off your video. Try closing browser tabs and computer programs of other apps you might be running. Lastly, you can try using your telephone for a speaker and microphone. You do this by clicking the little up arrow next to the mute button, clicking the leave audio, and then dialing back into the screen. Okay, thank you, Simon. Okay, first up is the public forum. This is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on anything that is not on tonight's agenda. If you have a comment, please raise your virtual hand or enter text in the chat box, and Simon will let you speak. So we've got no raised hands. We also have those chats coming through. Okay. All right, we'll segue into the public hearing tonight. We've got four items on the agenda, HP 22-02, which is a certificate of appropriateness for a shed on Wilson Road, DP 20-23.1, which is a master sign plan for Twin State Electric, DP 21-20, which is TAP Corners Associates for a grocery store. And then continued from April 12, we've got DP 20-18 Ethan Allen Homes, which is the redevelopment of the Catamow Golf Club. So first up is HP 22-02, a certificate of appropriateness to construct a shed at 7,786 Williston Road. Who is here representing the applicant? That would be me. I'm Sean Spencer-Michel. Hi, Sean. Could you state your address for the record, please? Yep, 7,786 Williston Road, Williston Road, 05495. Great. Thank you, Sean. Welcome. I'll stop for the next. This is a request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a 12 by 14 shed in the Village Zoning District. This property is located in the additional review area. A couple houses down from us. The shed will have wind siding and an asphalt shingle roof. Here's a photo of what the property looks like from the street. The shed will be tucked behind the house, so it will be minimally visible from Williston Road. The half recommendation was that this implies as proposed and they've drafted a certificate. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Sean, do you have any comments to supplement what Emily just provided? I do not. Okay, DRB members. Any questions? Members of the public, do you have any comments on this application? There's no raised hands and no chats. Thank you, Sean. Sean, thank you for coming. We're going to close HP 22-02 at 7.10. Okay. Next up is DP 20-23.1. It's a master sign plan for lot 8 in the LaBeurre subdivision. Who is in attendance representing the applicant? Yeah. It's Brandon Murphy with CDD.1 State. Welcome to your address, please, for the record. It's going to be 399 Shun Pike Road. Do you need my personal address? That's fine. 399 Shun Pike and Williston. That's fine. Yes. Okay. Staff, you're up next. Okay. That's me. So, this is a request for a master sign, an amended master sign plan at 399 Shun Pike Road in the industrial zoning district west. Staff is recommending a through and through phase change. We recommend you take test only, close the hearing and deliberate tonight. We've drafted findings, conclusions and conditions. Essentially, this is an amendment to relocate a wall sign that faces Shun Pike Road from below the canopy on the front to above the canopy and increase the size from 36 square feet to 48 square feet. We didn't have any public comments and there were no comments from the fire department. The total sign area increases 244 square feet but this remains below the 8 maximum signage around on property. As such, we are recommending approval because the sign is larger than 24 square feet. This does mean the DRP makes specific findings to allow the signs. We've drafted those for you in findings of facts along with provisions and some standard conditions, including the updated sign paper. Great. Thank you, Simon. Brandon, have you read the proposed conditions of approval and are you in agreement with them? Yes, I have and yes, I am. Okay, thank you. DRP members, any questions? So there is also an addition of a canopy too, in addition to the sign change rate, is that right? The canopy is already there. It's just the signs going from below the canopy to above the canopy. Any other questions from the DRP? Any questions from the public? Raise your virtual hand, please. There's no raised hands and no chat. Okay, we're going to close DP 20-23.1 at 7.14. Thank you, Brandon, for coming. Thank you. Okay, so at this pace, we're going to be wrapped up by 7.50. What do you think? Unlikely. Okay. All right, next up is DP 21-20, which is top corners associates. Jeff and Andy, familiar faces, welcome. If you would please individually, please introduce yourself and give your address for the record, please. Jeff Nick, 151-year-round children. Andy Olin on Dickinson, 14-year-old Westside residents. Great, thank you. Staff is next. So this is a request for discretionary permit to construct the first bans of a mixed use development with the 19,500 square foot through the story grocery store, a service parking lot, extension of Wright Avenue, and related purposes. The second phase will be permitted in the future and include a three-story multifamily building, urban park and public art, additional service parking, and a segment of trade relief. A portion of the property is developed in the Northfield savings bank to remain and the rest of the land is laid out. Now, the property is 3.3 acres located in the top corner zoning district, where the historic and architectural advisory committee, the HAC, will use this application. Staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate, and approve, but only if the DRB focuses on a few items involved. And the DRB may choose to continue if more information is requested from the Evo Council about phasing or from the Public Works Department about street trees. The staff report is lengthy and there's a lot of special conditions that are added. Most of them are fairly minor in nature. I just want to call out that it is a different staff report. This property has a lengthy history. Some may remember state land in the 1970s. It's evolved since then with subdivision, the construction of Northfield savings bank. And this project began with the application in January 2022. The HAC recommendations are included, as are the Public Works and Fire Department comment memos. And no public comment letters were received at the time of mail-out or by this evening. I do include a note here about the tap corners form-based code project. This application, phase one, is vested in the current bylaws and will be reviewed other than because the public hearing has not been warned with the select board. We're anticipating an informational session with the select board in May, but this project pre-sees that, so it is vested. However, phase two may be subject to some elements of the code, both the design requirements and permitting process. At pre-application, the DRB requested a legal opinion about the vesting and phasing as it relates to the five of nine criteria. We requested that opinion in January and received it on February 4th. The opinion is about providing the elements cumulatively over a single development proposal. The one-story first restore building on its own does not fulfill the five of nine criteria. Four of the five required design elements are proposed in phase two. Multiple uses, multiple stories, urban part, public art. And the fifth element, wide sidewalks, is provided in both phases. Essentially what legal counsel has told us is that this can be handled with specific conditions, both that are shown on the final plan set and the plaque, and that statement be reviewed by the legal counsel, as well as showing in the application how the specific design elements would satisfy these requirements, which they've done. They sketched in where the future phase two would go, that the site can accommodate all five of nine elements at the completion of the single development proposal. What follows is a lengthy summary of the three application recommendations and how the applicant has responded to these recommendations. If the DRB has any questions, we can go over those during the discussion. For the Taft Corner zoning district, supermarket grocery store, as well as residential, are allowed uses. It's anticipated to comply with the dimensional standards, building height. Phase two is anticipated to comply with the Adirondack View standard. In terms of development pattern and five of nine, HACF provided some specific recommendations. At three applications, the DRB asked for a larger courtyard or closet near the entrance, which they've provided by shifting the shopping cart area to the north and widening the entryway plaza. What follows is a summary of the five of nine elements that they're providing and how they are being proposed on the site plan. In particular, I'll note that the park is approximately 3,400 square feet. It'll be located at the corner of right average trader lane, and it'll be integrated into the side of the building with the public art, which is approximately 480 square feet mural. In terms of vested rights, this is just a note for phase two that the future building might be vested in its footprint and site layout. However, because there's no architectural detail because it has not completed growth management review for the residential component, certain elements cannot be vested in the current bylaw and might be subject to the new four-base code depending on when phase two is permitted and when four-base code is official. That's just a good question. Does this application get that new view for growth management? Yes, so in January, the DRB did authorize that residential building to go forward to growth management. Enforcement and guarantees. This is requesting legal review at final plans, both of the phasing statement that is shown on the flattened plans as well as some clarity on required private improvements. The bylaw list of required private improvements doesn't include things like buildings or structures. However, five of nine elements are required, like multiple stores, multiple sites, so seeking some clarification on what elements can be guaranteed in the development agreement and how that return is faced. Access. There are two specific conditions included. They'll be extending right app, which is a proposed bridge street. The public works department has commented on access. After application, there is a lot of discussion about bicycle and pedestrian access, mainly how vehicles turn in near the main entrance where customers will be walking back and forth with shopping carts. They've responded to those recommendations by proposing a larger plaza feature. However, the main point of access across the parking lot is the ADA access aisle. So there is a commission pre-drafted by the hack about reconfiguring this area so there's better visibility of pedestrians. I've included the healthy living as an example. This one is obviously significantly wider than what would need to be shown here, but that pedestrian can walk out and not be instructed by vehicles in the site line. Connectivity. At PREAP, the DRB requested a connection to the property to the north. This is shown on the plans. However, at final plans, it would need to include an easement or right of way such that that connection can be used either by the town or future road or for the property to the north to have connected access. The traffic study was provided and determines that this project would not create undue levels of congestion, taking into consideration outright F-Connex Dam Merchants Road to Marshall Ave. For parking, compliance is anticipated. They did provide a shared parking study which indicates a peak demand of 133 spaces. The additional parking spaces can be provided by using a structure or solar canopy, designating spaces for alternative fuel like EV charge, and some of the other elements like forced pavement are an option, but usually not feasible. Their bicycle parking and end of trip facilities are also anticipated to apply on their showing a shower and locker room in the employee area of the grocery store. For on-site infrastructure, municipal water and sewer is provided, and for maintenance, they are showing snow storage and dumpster enclosures, as well as space near the Northern Loading Dock for the bulky storage of grocery store ways like boxes or pallets. Compatibility, this is where the hack provided a specific recommendation about the screening of rooftop mechanicals. The application materials do include renderings and elevations with the rooftop mechanical and a roof plan showing that they'll be located to the north. The hack requested RTU screens that blend into the facade, whether they use red to match the brick or a beige-gray to match some of the other roof elements, leave that up to the architects, but screening that mechanical so that it is not visible from route 2A when you're heading south and we're looking at the rooftop. For design review, the hack reviewed this application on April 5th, and that most of the elements combined as proposed. That lengthy list of pre-application recommendations were responded to for the most part. Their recommendations are about the mechanical screening, pedestrian safety, and signage, which I'll discuss later. These images show the renderings as well as the proposed public art for phase 2. The hack found that the urban park complies as proposed. It's partially enclosed by the building on the north side and the sloping terrain with stepped seating rocks built into the hillside. Landscaping also complies as proposed around phase 1, the north and eastern sides of the grocery store. Street trees do not comply as proposed, so they are providing street trees in the right of way along the frontage of the grocery store. Right avenue, however, along the parking lot and future phase 2, street trees are located on the private side, essentially in the parking lot landscaping area and not in the right of way. The only exception that the bylaw allows is for terrain, utilities, or physical constraints. However, this is a relatively flat site that hasn't been developed. We didn't see any comment memo from Public Works about the street trees, so we asked for clarification and Public Works says they would just as soon not have trees in the right of way and felt that the plans provided serve the purpose. So the DRB should decide if additional information is needed for Public Works or if this is sufficient advice to permit the exception. I've excerpted the street specification with the street trees highlighted. They're proposed cross-section, as well as the highlighted text about street trees, both in our bylaw and the Public Works specifications. Outdoor lighting complies as proposed. There is a condition that final plans show notes on light timing, dimming, and security lighting. Oh, and there are some places where lighting is elevated around the pedestrian entryways, which is permissible by the DRB for pedestrian zones. Signs and public art, the half recommended that the word fresh go away. That would also bring their signage count down to comply with the 8% maximum area. They also recommended using a different fruit, while apples are okay for Vermont. Oranges are not very Vermont-y. They thought images like maple trees or some other Vermont product would be ideal. And the DRB's review of public art is limited to determining that it's not going to obstruct traffic or pedestrian safety, which a mural would not. And we're estimating the size to be about 480 square feet. And the art must not bear a corporate message, either explicit or implicit. And the public art will be finalized in this too. Impact fees. Final plans for development agreement will need to include updated language that the contribution, the cost of building Bright Avenue, will be credited against the transportation impact fee liability. This project is anticipated to generate 205 PM peak hour trips from the grocery store. The base impact fee is $1,943. So roughly their liability is just under $400,000. And that can be credited against the cost of constructing Bright Avenue. And just needs to be finalized in the development agreement. What follows are specific findings of fact about what elements are provided in phase one and phase two. Conclusions of law, particularly number three, that phase one is dependent on phase two to fulfill the four of the five required elements. And then the conditions of approval noting the ones in italicy is towards the bottom, especially number five about the street trees. The DRB can also choose to defer final plan review to staff or retain review staff recommendation and probably for the DRB to retain it because there's some additional legal council comment required. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Jeff and Andy might want to jot these down. I have three questions that I'd like you to address and not necessarily in the order that I'm going to provide them to you. One is do you have anything that would supplement staff's report that you feel is relevant to the DRB a year? Number two is I'd like to hear your position on the recommendation on the entrance reconfiguration for handicap safety. And the third is I'd like to hear if you have any concerns with proposed conditions of approval. And with that, the floor is yours. Okay, great. I'll let Andy take over most of this, but I think we're good on the parking, right? Yeah, the changes to that parking. One, yeah, I think sort of the supplement and the conditions go together. No major changes or anything to supplement, but just to work through some of the staff comments. I think we don't have drastic differences, but some nuances to discuss with the board. Why don't we go through those individually after and they do kind of go together after you've addressed the entrance reconfiguration? Sure. Okay. Okay. Could staff put up page 10 that shows the three images for the entry? Page 10 of the staff report. So we, this was raised by the HAC, but I think it was good feedback that we got and was included as the condition staff continued it in their staff report. And what we had talked about doing with the HAC was so looking at the center image there, the area that's highlighted, where the bike racks are sort of off the north, excuse me, the corner of the building there, and then the, sorry, the aisle between the two handicap spaces. What we propose to do is to eliminate that southerly handicap space. We'll reconfigure the spaces to the north, but that the aisle between the two handicap spaces that's highlighted in the handicap space to the south would be made part of that sidewalk area that leads to the front door. So as you're coming from the parking area across that large march crosswalk area, there's a more sort of welcoming entrance. As you're leaving the grocery store and looking back to right avenue, you're not having to look over a car on incoming cars, not having to look between cars for the pedestrian. So it would enlarge that area. Yes, just as staff has got, I guess we would propose to leave the landscaped island that's there now. I'm just not sure that there's a need for that much concrete to be added to bring that all the way out to the curb, where the word bike rack is and where the bike racks are shown now. Again, another one of the staff comments was to take those bike racks and move them over to the right-hand side of the entrance facing right avenue, which is plenty of concrete over there to do that. So that would be our proposal. That way, as you're coming and going from the parking area, that there's a wider concrete sort of landing area for people coming and going. Okay. So what is what's on the other side of that crosswalk and then we configure the crosswalk? It still just jumps into the aisle. I don't know if that's any, if that meets every GCD, I think you need a bit extra facility on the other side of the crosswalk. We could, I mean, the intent of the crosswalk parking is there is to identify for the people coming and going that, you know, there's activity there. We could paint that as a sort of don't block the box. Yeah, it might be, you know, just a liability standpoint, right? Like, if there's not a crosswalk or something, it might be, there might be some liability out there. We can come up with a different avian marking. It may be worth just looking in the GCD to see, I mean, the crosswalk sections should, I think it says pedestrian facilities, you know, even with Tony, they don't have to be on either side. So I don't know if that meets the GCD. Staff, your thoughts and comments on what Andy has proposed for a, you know, for a change? Yeah, that sounds about right, and that's what we talked about with the hack. It didn't need to be a major reconfiguration for your issue. Okay. DRV members, comments on this topic, please. Pardon me if I'm trouble visualizing exactly what it'd be for folks. You are not alone. So I'm going to draw it in very nicely. That was good drawing, by the way. Thank you. Yeah, I think this is where review at final plans, maybe before, you know, everything is batched up. If they want to send something over on a case, it's looking right. We can always forward that over as well. Okay. Yeah. I think we're probably at that stage where we're probably not going to get a whole lot of additional fidelity tonight. But it does, it does need to be, I mean, that's an important intersection for safety purposes. I'm guessing you looked at like the example, the healthy living example of running a sidewalk down the middle of that parking lane, you just don't have the width, right? With the parking miles, right? If we took 10 feet in the middle, we'd lose the 10 feet that we've got between the sidewalk and the sidewalk along right Avenue in the parking area. Yeah, right. Yeah, I think when staff in our review, because right Avenue has someone to use that, that someone could go down that way to access the parking spaces at the rear where a duplicated path didn't feel as important. Just, you know, that 10 foot landscape strip, if Bruce were saying no, no chase right away, which I don't agree with, but if he's saying that, could we just shift the parking down 10 feet, get a landscape? Or no, I guess that would work. Then you could get your 10 foot sidewalk. I think Bruce is saying that it's his preference not to do it. The way it was written didn't sound like a hard no. Yeah, well, I don't think it can be better. So it's going to cut him down. Not to jump around on topics, but we did ask that question specifically public works in mid-February, so that we at least got off on the right foot with public works without having the trees either in the right-of-ways or outside the right-of-way. In this case, because the buildings aren't tight to the edge of the right-of-way, there's the opportunity to locate them outside the right-of-way. Along Virgin's Row, you've got both. I think there's a couple of trees and tree grates down where Hanover is directly adjacent to the sidewalk. And potentially on the other side, because you come back where CVS and the back of the health center are located, the sidewalk goes right to the edge of the right-of-way if there's tree trees at all, they're outside the right-of-way. I'm not so sure that they're cross-tree trees. So there is, based on your review and your design and the sizing square foot available, there's no way to get up back down the center. I know it's more concrete. I know it eats up space. So if we were to split the parking area, you're going to get a people walking straight lines, right? They're not going to walk up the door and go left, they go right, and keep on going, and then sort of back around to get to the back end of the parking lot. They're going to walk through the parking lot. They're going to do that. And plus you have a parking building at the back end, where you're going to draw people in from that coming the other direction. I hope, right? I mean, that's kind of the idea. But I think there will be a sidewalk connection from a multi-family building out to the sidewalk along Great Avenue. So I think the people from the multi-family building are likely to use that sidewalk along Great Avenue to get to the door. People obviously, they're parking in the parking lot are going to come up the aisle. That's right. I think most people, when they come out of Supermarket, I think they go right to the back of your car. You're going to load your groceries in your puppy. You're going to be aligned to the back of your car. I agree. I mean, that's the way it works in every other parking lot. Right. So then the third one, the most northerly crosswalks, would that go away? Because you would, in that case, you would have people walking through between parks, getting kept cars potentially coming out. Oh, no, I guess that's not getting kept. That's just, well, but you still, you still could have cars on the other side. Correct. Right. So when I looked at this, that would get wider. I mean, but you would still have cars on either side of the rockway there. Seems like just keep the middle one different because people are going to come out the door. You know, they probably won't walk all the way up there anyway to cross over. They'll probably go straight down to the crosswalk. Yeah, that's right. I'm just going with a free line. Yeah. David, this is John. If you keep going tonight, I won't have to say a word because you keep saying everything I'm thinking. Sorry, I yield the floor to you, John. No, no, no, you're doing great. I just want to let you guys know I am here. I had listening. That was, that was my last question. One other comment I'd like to make is that cross easement to the north that show, I guess there's some question about having that as a firm right-of-way or having us build into the property line. And then at such times as an orderly property is developed, they would come to the DRB and either formalize that connection or ask for a slightly different configuration, which we don't have to agree to. But I don't know if we, I know we would prefer not to make it a formal legal easement at this time but having a condition of our permit that yes, we'll build it and we'll make it a permit easement at the time that the loyalty property comes in because it's not going to be a full connection right now because they haven't developed their site. Right, but once you, once you build out the pure parking line, there's a very, going to be very few places where you'd be able to put it in anyway. So right, I mean, it's going to be whatever. They did ask for it to come through the Northfield savings backside. We declined that request. We said this was better. But who knows if we may decide that that is a better location. So rather than make it a fur legal, we have to unravel it later. We prefer to do it leap component later, I guess, but show it to make it a condition that will provide it. Now you're going to have to shift that little, that little driveway to the West, right? Yeah, shift it to the West. So it aligns the driving aisle and then provide more realistically easements to the property of the North that they can connect to it. Whether it's a floating easement in case the location changes a little, I think that would probably be okay. It might float five feet, but then all of a sudden you've legally said it's going to be here and you want it to be here. Yeah, yeah, I think floating where there's that wiggle room, but in the connection from this property now. Is it possible? Do you have any problems moving in the West? I mean, I think lining up with the traffic flow would make sense to me. So we had moved it in the location of the shown, so it wasn't coming in tight to the garage, but I don't think we have, we can move it wherever the DRB and or the adjacent property would like to see it. I guess similar to Jeff's comment about an easement or right-of-way, I think having a right-of-way through there for the town to have a future street is problematic for a number of reasons. Even granting an easement, we're not looking not to have the connection there, but a right-of-way or an easement is committing rights to your neighbor. Can this instead be accomplished is a zoning permit condition for, it just seems like the bylaw, I have a quick exchange with Emily Helmness. I think staff's opinion is that section 13.7 implies that a right needs to be conveyed. I agree that it's a good idea to have the connectivity, but I guess I don't see that the bylaw is requiring an easement or a right-of-way be conveyed either to the town or to your neighbor. Yeah, I'm not saying that connectivity is a good idea and having some type of arrangement isn't a good idea. It isn't a good thing, but elevating that to an easement or a right-of-way is a substantial problem. This topic has been fatted around for as long as I've been on the board. So long time, nobody ever seems to be happy with the results. Your comment about conveying rights to your neighbor, your conveying rights to the property line, is that your assumption that if you go to the property line and you convey the rights to the town, you're effectively conveying it to the neighbor? I guess you are. Well, it's simply a connected parking lot. I think that's what we're trying to achieve, but if we need to show something on the plot that runs down that aisle and hits the property line, if the parking lot was to be reconfigured in the future or if things were to change on the other side of the property line. Jeff, you said that you have that approach by having a discussion about putting an easement by the Norfield Savings Bank. Right. And we didn't feel that, which we didn't even ask the Norfield Savings Bank because I think it really intersects back here. We thought this was a better location for it now. I don't know that I understand a town right-of-way because the town would, would the town maintain a 50-foot stretch of road? No, we'd just be the author that it could be a road in the future. They would be town. Does that town right-of-way? Would that have to be in there? I mean, that's- But there's also, we don't think there's no town official lab that shows that right-of-way. It doesn't seem like there's any mechanism to require that conveyance to the town. Yeah, there is a town to see a stretch. And there's not a part of the town, it would be between the two property rights. Right. What comment does staff have in terms of the regulations, language and the regulations that speak to this topic? So I think about it most easily as like residential subdivisions where you're planning new streets and you show where a street or section of the multi-use path will spur on either to another part of your property for future phases or to the budding property and then it has to be required under agreement underneath it. I think they're probably correct that asking for 64 feet of right-of-way within a residential offer to the town is a big ask. But giving that easement that the future parking lots can be connected, it is probably the middle ground here similar to where you would provide an easement to time for a future sidewalk or a path that the other property owner can have loading access through the parking lot at a location to be determined in the future. So wouldn't the easement just say we are okay even when that adjacent property gets developed at next, that all of these is okay with the traffic crossing over their property? Isn't that what they're today, right? Yeah. Right. And that's what you're concerned about. We got a twist around a little bit, let's see. And so they're okay with that, with the concept? Well, they are. They like, that's the preferred location in terms of all these. But lines that people are kind of going through on that north-south and not parking parking lot, parking lot circulate close to the oldie with the western side. I mean, I'm also going to speculate that we ought to try and get this right because the property owner to the north is probably going to do exactly what you're going to do on the back side of the property and probably pretty short order. But is that barn going to go away? I think it's going to get a sign so it's going to get old. Is it going to go all the way over there? No, it's going to go off. I think it's going to pump it there or something. Something going on. Those are going to pump it there? Yeah. Maybe like, well, there's something going on in that shed. It's a hell of a building. Yeah. But I mean, that could come down and they might want to move it to the west a little bit, which we can obviously do. Right. Yeah, you definitely want it on the west, skewed on the west side of the property because you don't want to be putting traffic in the front of a grocery store, which we were just talking about managing the traffic in front of the grocery store. Why would we put more traffic there? So I mean, that's going to be such a myth. I mean, you would think that they've got furniture and access to both to an end to trader lane. Right. But this will be a minimal use, you would think. Right. So I would agree that you don't want that further ease because you don't want to promote cross traffic from one parking lot to another across the front of the grocery store. Do you think, is that garage building likely to stay? I couldn't quite hear. You're saying there's some utility in that? I'm just guessing at that. I thought there was at one point. I mean, it could very well go away at some point in time. I guess, you know, I don't mind cutting across parking lots, but in some ways, I like it better where it is than if it lined up only in that that is a traffic calming kind of device that you don't have a straight run there that people could take a long run at. They're trying to beat the light or something. Who knows what they're trying to do when they're driving to parking lots. But, you know, I don't have a problem with where it's at. I guess I can. I mean, there's the curve on the opposite side is pulled way back. There's plenty of sight lines and visibility there. I'm not clear what the parking to the west of that driveway or what that is. That's just a future driveway in connection to the residential parking lot. Correct. Right. I think whether the DRB wants to leave it as a shown or move it to the west, we'll line with the aisle. We're fine with that. I guess we'll figure that out. The language is Emily suggested could be something on the lines of an agreement for reciprocal access through the parking lot as opposed to an easement. And right away, that would be for as well. Got it. Okay. Hey, Andy, why don't you walk us through the conditions of approval suggested edits that you made reference to? I have a couple of questions on the plans, but it makes sense to do that first or afterwards. I don't have a reference on that. Do you think it makes sense to go to the plans? Well, it might just relate to some of the changes we've got about the conditions. They're fairly minor. Let's do plans. Okay. Go ahead. Let's see. Just a question on the site plan on the screen. Leaving the main entrance at the cars at the stop bar. It looks like there's some tough sidelines left at the corner of the building with the trees along the right avenue. I guess I would just want to confirm that there is adequate internet that's 25,000 hours right now just from that stop bar to looking to your left as you're pulling out. Just see what I'm talking about. Go further this one to the west, the secondary entrance? To the east, the main entrance, exiting the main entrance. Okay. And if you go to your left, like look towards 2A, you've got the corner of the building there. If you just draw a line, if you're kind of where you're sitting in your car at that stop bar, you see the corner of the building and then you've got the trees on the right avenue. So those could potentially block your sidelines. I think you're right. From a practical perspective, you're going to stop at the stop bar to make sure that nobody's coming on the sidewalk and then you're probably going to pull ahead another eight feet. Well, that's where it's, it's interesting because you don't have the on-street parking there. So you've got the curb that's further out. So you've got to pull out pretty far. But I guess that could, that also serves as a, that keeps cars from hitting it. It gives it a little room to pull out a little further. You're probably going to scooch out into that crossway before you've actually commit to turn and taking off. So if the trees moved out to behind the curb within tree grades, it would affect the site distances as well. And you'd be just closing out a little bit further in order to get a good look to your left and to your right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, okay. Yeah, I think, I think the curb sticking out on that, I'm good with that. And then the park, the urban park, is that in some places it's labeled phase one, some as phase two. Is it phase one? So it would not be phase one, but we, I think on the construction phasing plan, it's identified as not being constructed in phase one, but with the conditions that it be constructed within two years. Staff has suggested that that condition instead be that basically everything be constructed within two years, both. So earlier discussion we had with the DRV was, how do you ensure that the park gets done if the multi-family building doesn't happen in a time of attraction? So our attempt to address that was, if for some reason the multi-family building is held up, that money would be put in escrow to construct the park and install the art. Art is a little problematic if the walls are there. Um, that brings up a point in that, I mean, the park was cool, it was great, but it is bounded by the foundation of the, of the building. So how do you build it in two years? It's a building, I mean, can you still put it in and then not destroy it when you go in and put in the foundation for the building? I don't know. The intent is, Chef Davis and technical associates have full intentions of moving forward. This is the road manager they have to wait for next time around. But, you know, this time next year it takes over that project. So it was a little unusual to shift four of the five criteria to the next phase, but the intent is to fulfill the obligation and to build the building. So I think the modified condition as proposed by staff was acceptable in the applicant, but everything be started with an administrative permit, the administrative permit application be submitted within two years for the construction of not only the park, but also the building. And so if we are commenting on the park now, that is germane to this application. Just the, just the phase, you know, that, well no, but it sounds like we could approve all these and within two years you could build the park. Right, right. Yeah. So I feel like we do need to comment on it now, right? Because you wouldn't have to come back and see the park. Again, it was our intent to highlight the detail on the park now, to address the five and nine criteria. Again, in the application we're proposing that if for some reason the building got held up, that the park would happen within two years. Condition is being suggested by staff is certainly adequate. So we provided the detail on the park. We'd be happy to take any feedback on the park. By the way, all these was happy to build solar panels on their roof, but because it was a supermarket, it wasn't going to provide 60% of the, whatever the, 60, 20. Yeah. 60% because of all the cooling and everything in a supermarket, they weren't going to generate the, like, the powers in the end. There's a little, I think there's a little rewrite there that needs to be, otherwise we wouldn't have solar panels. Olivia, thank you, maybe more than Olivia. And just the last question. So the parking, do they need 117 spaces, kind of lost track? So that's the 80% factor. Is there a minimum requirement stuff? So the table is still both a minimum. You can reduce it, 80%. The applicant can provide it at 80% when the term required, 80%. And then going below that, you have to do a share analysis. And so they've got it. So in phase 10, they're proposing 109 spaces, 86 off street and 23 on street, which includes 4 ADA. At the completion of phase two, there will be 143 spaces, 123 on street, 19 in the garage, and 23 on street. Their shared study is proposing a peak demand of 133. And you said that's including all of the street parking. Right, I think where it says 123 off street, I think that's a typo. It should be 101. So we've got 101 plus 19 plus 23 gets us to the 143 total. And what we would suggest is sufficient is the 101 off street spaces, 19 structured spaces, and 13 on street. Well, there's going to be 23 on street spaces. That's on both sides of right avenue. We don't need to utilize all of those on street parking spaces to meet the demand. Some of our on the other side of the street, there will be buildings eventually on the other side of the street that will be looking to use those as well. And I think the way we were rating the buy a lot was if you need additional parking spaces, you can utilize those on street spaces, but we don't necessarily need to use all of those 23 on street spaces. And we've asked all these to limit their parking if we've got them right at their minimum. So then you would be building 133 on site. And those other 10 would be on street. Well, of that 133, 13 of them would be on street. So 143, 23 of those are on street. 143, that's on street, parking garage, and surface parking. According to the share of parking analysis, the peak on the weekend is 133. So staff was suggesting that we've got 10 too many. Our take on that is we've got 10 too many because we're counting all 23 on street parking spaces. We don't need to count all 23 of those on street parking spaces. You just count 13 of them, right? We count 13 to be right where we need to be. On that, while we have that topic going, are you building, do we need to limit how many are built during the phase one when just the grocery store is being served? So only the ones that are shaded on the site plan are being proposed. There would be 15 surface parking spaces that would be constructed at the time the multi-family building is constructed, obviously along with the 19 garage spaces in the lower level of the multi-family building. Right, so Andy, how many does that leave? How many are you building now as you're proposing it for the grocery store? 101 minus 15, so 86 off street parking spaces for the grocery store. So that's how many are in the parking lot, as shown. Right. 86, okay. All right. Thank you for that clarification. Any other questions about plants before we go into Andy's comments on the proposed conditions of a group? Why don't you go forward with your comments, please? Okay, I'll be succinct. Number four, on the conditions of a group, I think we've already covered with the connection to the Dealer Policy property. Condition five, I guess a question for staff. Would the escrow or letter of credit need to include the cost of constructing the multi-family building in the development agreement? TVD, my interpretation of 7.1 is it could, but we would have to ask the legal counsel if that's realistic. And would that be public? That would be a private improvement. Private improvement. But even at 10% might be a little unrealistic about the whole thing. So the applicant's concern isn't that there's no hesitancy in building multi-family building. It's putting up a layer of escrow for 10% of the value of the entire multi-family building would be a big number. And again, we're talking about just the value of the building. The other stuff that's routinely covered by the development agreement, totally fine. Those are that same, but it's just the value of the building itself being included. Yeah, so what 7.1 says is required improvement is gross, public or private, including at sidewalks, street lights, street trees, drives, parking, loading areas, paths, trails, parks, water, sewer beams, and all the pump station things, runoff, erosion control, stormwater, landscaping, and escaping buffers. But it doesn't say anything about buildings, even though we're requiring multiple stories about the buildings. 7.1.1.7 says all other improvements required by this bylaw to protect public safety or mitigate the potential impacts of development is essentially interpreting, mitigate the potential impacts of the development. If I say tough words, it's supposed to be a mixed use development. The five of nine are including multiple stories and multiple uses, probably stretch or mask legal counsel, but things like the public art, the urban park, that could be included in the required driving improvements. I think if it wasn't for program manager, we would be probably building that this year. We weren't prepared to, a month ago, we weren't ready to ask for any allocation. Do you think that if you get your allocation next year, you go with as fast as you can on that? I would think so. Okay. That was number five, jumping ahead to number nine. As long as the DRV is good with 133 parking spaces, I don't think we have anything more to cover there. Jumping down to 22, we talked about the parking lot connection and what mechanism it was for formalizing that arrangement. I think the last one is 25 and where are the street trees in it? Yeah. Where do you want to put the trees? I think the president would be where they're showing now. If the buildings were closer, if we didn't have the space between the parking area and the sidewalk, I think the Davis point is to make visibility easier. I mean, you can certainly put the structural soil in there, the tree grates, having them outside where you've got a larger planting strip, you're going to get a bigger tree, better growth, fewer issues, and you can certainly do trees in the tree grates and the planting pits within the sidewalk, so it's not on something that's impossible or can't be done. Our percentage would be to have them outside the right way within the sidewalk. Okay. DRV members, questions? Yeah, Pete, I'd like to jump in while we're talking about these trees. I think that's really about my only final comment here is I'm looking at this plan and I'm trying to imagine we were trying to build a walkable, comfortable space here. As you know, discussion in the past has had a concern with the fact that whereas the form-based code wants to see buildings up on the street, we've now got a parking lot right there. The street trees are helping to separate that, the parking lot from the drive or from the road and the sidewalk and to screen that. And as you walk down the sidewalk here, the fact that the trees are different at the parking lot I think is a potential positive thing that we could make something of it. And I'm just going to ask the applicant here whether, you know, what is the town gaining by moving these trees back off of the road? Besides a rather mundane explanation that the sight lines are better. You know, from an aesthetic or design standpoint or an urban fabric standpoint, how is that as the town benefiting from having those trees be different along there? And is there other landscaping that's going in that's going to enhance that experience as you walk down the sidewalk and go past a parking lot instead of a building? Okay, you've got that plan. You've got the four trees along there, right? You want the parking lot outside? Right, so I'm not sure about the benefit to the town, but between the sidewalk and the parking lot, you've got the four trees and the continuous deciduous shrubs between the trees along the building. There's smaller trees as well as the two planters that are elevated, you know, built into the structure of the building, as well as perennials that run along the edge of the building and adjacent to those planters. And then further down, obviously, you've got the landscaping associated with the park. So there are perennials there? Are there annuals? By the park or back by the sidewalk? So in the between the parking area and right avenue, those are deciduous shrubs between the trees adjacent to the building. There's perennials along the building with annuals being put into the planters that are up against the building. So those are a mix of perennials along the face of the building there with the trees, and then there'd be annuals in the planters themselves that are elevated. So I'm saying the AA's, what are those? Those are the shrubs, right? And how tall are those? I can't read this plan. So I mean, they're going in at 18 to 24 inches, but and unless they're pruned, they get four, five, six feet high, and yes, they may probably be maintained at four feet. Four, I see. So they're going to grow to more than the 24 inches? Correct. Yeah, all of those shrubs through there, while they may be planted at two feet, will mature to a much, much higher height. Again, like, yes, as they be maintained to a height of about 40. Okay. That's all the questions I have for these guys, Pete. Thank you, John. Other members of the DRV questions? Yes, you're mine. Just found trees. No, this is anything. I did have another question. The, can you slide to the left of the site plan? I'm wondering if this board is building that far end that right after now, because there's no real way to turn around at the end, but if it's just a dead end road, is there a value in building? I may be able to sidewalk, but well, I guess the reason we stopped short of the intersection was we know what the Bridge Street required cross-section is for Bridge Street now, but when form-based code takes effect, it's going to be a different cross-section for trade only, probably a different right-of-way. So it makes more sense just to keep going right to the end. It's where you said to me, I mean, you were just suggesting, you were today, you were just suggesting, why build the street extension past the entrance of the parking lot, right? Or maybe just a turnaround, a temporary turnaround. Follow what you're saying, Andy. Yeah, we could certainly go, you know, 25 feet past the curb cut there and stop. Again, the reason we took it all the way there was it just, we wanted to make sure that we had addressed the wards conservative during the time for the construction of the park, and we wanted to make sure that the road went as far as the park went. Right. Well, it's probably not as much as just those three spaces there, so many parks there, how do they get turned around, you know, to be correct? But probably nobody's the park there. Nobody parks down there right now, I mean, or along, yeah, along Merchant's Road, they don't hardly park. Okay. Is there any requirement, is there any requirement that you actually build that extension? Other than showing off plans, but. Yeah, I think I'm going to build this part of face too, because if it's permitted this way, or it's existing right of way, bested in it, so this gets permitted to be built like this, but doesn't get built until face two, I think it will be bested. Yeah, we could see that. I could see that living under the permit for all of face one, but not be constructed. You presented a adjusted development agreement and letter of credit. We do a certificate of compliance for everything, but that stub, if it ended up not making sense to build it, and it could come in, you know, it could shift into the phase two build, essentially administrative way. I think it makes sense. I think that makes sense. I do too. That's a good one. Right. I mean, water and storm are going to be built out to the end, but the basin could end. The end of the radius there. Sure. You could get cars. If you extended it, you could get cars parking there. Could become an attractive place for people to meet. Well, and then just on the tour route, I'm a bit stressed out maybe piled up there. Yeah, I probably bet. We can go to me with both works on that. Okay. Will that affect your parking spaces for this phase? Well, I guess not because there won't be one. Right. I got the task out there. Okay. Other questions? Dave, do you have any? No, we've got that. Dave, any more? The only question I have is around the mural. How will you come up with, I mean, if it's just a painting on a wall, how will that be maintained or guaranteed to be there for as long as the park's there? I mean, there is paint. The mural that lasted a long time before Bromance had taken it down. Was that one on the alleyway there? It never faded. It was always glossy. So I know there's paint and then a coating you can put on those murals that will make them last. Dave, we would understand the maintenance of public art to be an ongoing requirement, just like the maintenance of landscaping. So if you let all your landscaping die, no matter how long it's been since approval, you might be asked to replace this same thing for art. Does the Historical and Architectural Committee approve that design? Is that part of your question? Like what would it be apples? Not oranges, right? But the part of the baggage you have, the picture of what it would look like. So that is not just a facsimile. That is the exact tool. That's what you would be planning to put it. Something like that. And that's the concept, right? Do you want to make suggestions as to what it might depict, fun in one circle, or give the artist some better idea? I was thinking successful 2022 local Olympians. Do your members have comments on the public art that's proposed the concept? I think the concept is fine. I understood that the public art would be approved as part of phase two when the building went in. We would see then exactly what's being proposed. I mean, if this is kind of a preliminary review for the next piece, which it isn't, we could comment on that, I guess. But I'd rather spend our time commenting on the park. We're happy to come back with the art during phase two. I think that's probably appropriate. Sound good with that? Yeah, I think I have a condition. Maybe it's the finding of fast public art, a colorful mural on the side of approximately 480 square feet. So that's what is being approved. The specifics will be determined in certain ways too when they show the full specifications. And then the DRB can make findings. Does this bear a commercial message? Yes or no? Yes, this is the public art. That's when you have the commission figured out the artist. Okay, any other questions from the DRB? This is more of a comment than anything else. Under science of public art, I'd like to go on record to say that the hack is way overstep their bounds, their authority, and that statement that's in there. And that's completely appropriate. You're speaking of the type of fruit that gets displayed? Is that what you're talking about, Pete? That's what I'm talking about. That's Scott. I was thinking about proposing we let them use pineapples though and bananas. So I was thinking, so John, I was thinking that's the fruit that I came up with too, because it's as far away as I can get it from here and still be in the United States. That's completely inappropriate on their part. Somebody should tell them that, or I guess I'm telling you that right now. Well, I would, what I was, I also have a reaction to that, but I thought that it would be best served. You don't have to say it's the only company? In a deliberative session. No, I think it needs to be out there in the open. About, well, I think there may be a statement made with our approved conditions of fruit, which would make the same statement. But that's for the group to decide together. Well, that's my opinion. Any other comments? I have one comment on the on the park. I want to comment that I appreciate the design and the detail that's shown on that and that I like it. So that's just a comment. Great. Thank you, John. Okay. At this point, I'm going to open it up to the public or anyone participating tonight who would like to, to address the board on this application. Please, please raise your hand or send me a message in the chat. Okay. I didn't have some comments in the traffic today. I saw Roger's name up there. Do you want me to take through this now? Absolutely, because we are, I would have closed the hearing had you not said something. So for yours. Just a couple questions, Roger. I'm hoping Roger's listening so he can answer instead of me. So, so before we do that, Roger, we all know you, but if you would please introduce yourself and give your address, please for the record. Yes, I'm Roger Dickinson of Lamarout Dickinson Engineers, 14 Morse Drive in Essex. Okay, David, man. Hey, Roger. Just a question on the intersection itself. It looks like there's 79 total trips that would be going through the top school owners intersection. I'm just curious how, so it's over 75 trips. I'm curious why you didn't look at that intersection just in the north. This won't exceed 75 trips. There's 14 trips heading out to over Merchants Row towards Marshall Avenue. Those are on the lower left corner. And the remainder of the trips are exiting and entering the two way. If I answered your question or not, I guess the B trans threshold is 75 trips. So there are 70 more than 75 trips. Yes, there's going to be more. Yes. But you didn't analyze that intersection. I don't have two and two A to the north. Oh, of Tash Cornish? No, we did not. That looks like that. It'll have 79 trips going through it. And then I guess the other could just really the other question on the level of service results. I'm curious, it looked like you had pulled green time from the route the two A to give to the side streets and you recognize that in the paragraph below. But I don't know if the trans, I mean, I think the trans prefers to have a long green time on two A. So I don't know that you can just optimize to get the better delights there. I think it's a good point. I think you're still going to be level service B overall. I don't think we can take any green away from two A without consulting the trans. That's my one comment there. Yeah, I think there's a lot of excess capacity at the right avenue intersection there. If that's more, I think if this goes through actually, but you're probably I'm guessing Chris Godwell comment on that. But that's more, I guess, just the heads up. That was really it. I guess the, yeah, the two, the two and two A intersection, I don't mean we're 79 chips. I don't feel too strongly about that. I was just curious whether that was analyzed and just not in this report. Off double check. I don't, you know, I'm a little bit out of a, could you scroll up on the report just a little bit there? I'm at a disadvantage because I don't have it with me here. I was attending for the next application. A little more up to the project trips. Let's see here. Yeah. Yeah, I didn't take it to account. Passed by traffic, which quick calculation here. So 47 minus 15, 54 plus 22 minus. That's only 64 trips going through the tax corners. David. Oh, you know what? I didn't do the minus 15. I didn't take that negative 15, the northbound out. So you're right. You're right. Yep. That does get it to be fine. Yes. Okay. That's all of it. So Pete, can I ask one question here as well? What David's question has brought up is, are there going to be changes to the merchants row intersection? I know there's there's some very strange stop signs there already. Are those going to change? I mean, that's not aware. I'm not aware of any changes on merchants row. That's the only intersect intersection I know where you don't have to stop to turn left, but you do to turn right. When you're coming up merchants row to turn right onto right avenue there, you have to stop. But when you're coming the other direction, you can turn left without stopping. Yes. I think though in the future, you will have, you know, drivers will have to be cognizant of traffic x-ting all these before making that left turn. They'll have to yield before making that left turn. John, so I think the stop sign that's in is correct. I think it'll make more sense once. It will make more sense. I suppose after this is built than it does now. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Anyway, that was just a quick off the top of my head question that came up. Okay. Last call for comments, questions by the applicant. Okay. DRB members, any wrap up questions? Okay. Okay. 825. I'm going to close VP 21-20. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. We have VP 20-18 Ethan Allen Holmes, LLC. Summer field phase one. The applicant, please go to that table. Pete, while that's happening, I'm going to let everyone know that I'm going to be recusing myself on this application. I'll be turning my camera and my microphone off and either listening or not. And I'm recusing myself as a flooding landowner. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Ken and Brian, if you would introduce yourself formally for the record, please, and with your address. Sure. Ken Bellowell, 683 Maple Street, Waterborne Center, Vermont, 05677. Brian Currier, Lurie Burke Civil Associates, 13 Corporate Drive. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would also just let you know that both Chris and Mike Senesac or the applicants are here in the event that there's a question that's asked that they may be best able to answer for some reason. And also that Roger Dickinson, who was previously introduced, is our traffic engineer and the event that they're questions concerning the traffic study. Roger would offer testimony or answer questions based on that as well. Okay. So we've got Roger's contact information for the record from the previous application. If YouTube will kindly give you a name and address for the record, please. Christopher Senesac, 86 Ethan Allen Drive, South Burlington, Vermont. Michael's on the side. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Staff, what's up next? All right. This is a request for discretionary permit to construct phase one of Summerfield Residential Subredition. Phase one includes 60 DUI as 60 dwellings, or about a strive, which will connect from Mountain View to Raven Circle, the stormwater system, land community facilities, the property is developed with a golf course currently. The overall subdivision proposes 122 DUI as 138 units, including 32 one-bedroom units. And this is a reduction from what the DRB saw at pre-applications and birth management. I will note that the planned community facilities are proposed in phase two, though they are shown on the full site plan as far as the approval. This property is 30.46 acres. The current use is commercial, a golf course, and they're proposing residential. It's located in the residential zoning district, where Conservation Commission review, but not design review was required. Staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony in close and approve this application with a few items to discuss below. There are several items that can be addressed in the final plans, and therefore staff has dropped an emotion to retain DRB review of final plans. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing the discretionary permit for Summerfield, aka Catamac Golf. It was continued in order to complete Conservation Commission review in April. And this property has a lengthy permitting history, going back into the 80s and 90s, when it used to be continuous with the lands that are now Coyote Run, Coyote Lane, Raven Circle, and various parcels on that review. But more recently, if again, this is the application review 2019-2020, receiving growth management in both 2021 and 2022 cycles. Conservation Commission recommendations are included, as well as public works and fire. For the fire comments and note that the DRB can adopt them, but they can only be enforced to the extent of the statutory authority of zoning. The public works specifications and by-laws are ordinances, but the fire department play review document is a select board policy. Two comment letters were received at the time of mail-out, and a third letter was also received and included in your packet. Some of these comments are beyond the DRB's jurisdiction, and we provide some context here. There is a gas pipeline located within the state, so right-of-way. We've also emailed the DRB and uploaded to the website the plans for where the gas pipeline is in the right-of-way. And it's about 175 feet from the property line, and then there's the additional 50-foot buffer on this parcel. So the gas pipeline is a good distance from this property. Construction traffic. This is something that the DRB cannot regulate. It's not in a zoning by-laws. However, it might be something that the Act 250 permit takes into consideration. The applicant has told me that their plans are to conduct most of the construction from Mountain View Road. A little bit of work will happen at Raven Circle for the water sewer connections, but the majority of the construction traffic will come off of Mountain View Road until the time that they need to connect it through when they go over 40 units. And lastly, that the DRB cannot predicate approval of this application on improvements to Mountain View Road besides elements that are called for in the traffic study. And I linked to some documents about feasibility studies about Mountain View Road and the Select Board's traffic comment policy. But why is that? I don't understand. That seemed unvoluntable. It was brought up in the comment letter sheet. Yeah, there are comment letters about how Mountain View Road doesn't have any multi-use path or sidewalks or bike lanes. Oh, so this is in response to that? So this is in response to that, yeah. The Select Board did a feasibility study and determined that widening the road for on-street bike lanes was the preferred alternative. The draft official map that's going to the Select Board, we are also identifying a desire for a future multi-use path. So for this property along the frontage, they're giving that easement, but we can't require it for the entirety of Mountain View Road. What follows is a list of the pre-application recommendations and how the applicant has responded to them. At PREAC, there was a recommendation to work with public works on a street section that achieves the goals of reduced pervious surface and traffic, calming this in response to the public work specification where there can be some flexibility for a project that proposes affordable units. However, there were meetings with public works and ultimately the plans provided do not deviate from the public work specifications as requested by DPWR. For the Residential Zoning District, it complies as proposed with use and the dimensional standards for lot size and frontage as well as building height is anticipated to be met at administrative perfect time. For open space development, there is a recommendation included also from the Conservation Commission that the boundaries of lot 14 be designed to align with the wetland buffer basically to keep private property out of wetland buffer where people would like to mow but aren't supposed to do mowing. There are elements that are desired in open space like for habitat, wildlife, travel corridors, rare or threatened species, unique natural communities, etc. However, this property is currently developed as a golf course so there's very limited opportunity for open space on here. Most of the golf course ponds are not formal wetlands and therefore can be filled in and developed. For pedestrian friendly development, this complies as proposed. The building entrances face the street. There are sidewalks on both sides of the street or multi-use path and the neighborhood does include a focal point which is a park, a community building, pool, playground and gardens. Furthermore, no cul-de-sacs or dead ends are proposed. They provide connecting streets for access. Housing choice is also complies as proposed. This is also incentivized in growth management and this is the first subdivision to ever propose one-bedroom units outside of the growth center. For vested rights, this is not applicable to the conditions of approval. It's for discussion only but the existing golf course is a non-performing use in the residential zoning district. So, if it ceases to operate for more than a year, it goes away and there was a separate approval, DP-1908, that allowed the remaining lands to operate as a golf course, a freehold golf course with the bank or facility. In growth management, there's a specific condition of approval included. Basically, this is just housekeeping for us and affordable and 60 market rate units. And the bylaw requirements for affordable housing as well as the density bonus are based on a percentage. So, some of those numbers are changing for total units that are affordable that the DRB sought, pre-acid growth management because the unit count has gone down, the required amount of units that have to be affordable has also decreased. There's one note here about sustainable transportation that the DRB and advocates should discuss the number and location of transit shelters. At growth management, it was clarified that one transit shelter accommodated five people would need the requirement. Whereas carpool, you provide five spaces of carpool, five car share, a tent by school storage, etc. The shelter could be located near Mountain View Road, where green mountain transit used to run a bus line near the middle of Summerfield, kind of co-located in Central Phoenix, the community facilities or near Raven Circle. What follows is a summary of the growth management score and how they are proposing to meet the 71 points. Even though the unit count is going down, they're still providing a diverse mix of housing, both unit types and sizes, one, two, three bedrooms. Subdivision final plans comprise as proposed a draft plan is provided. For access, there is a specific condition included. Final plans must include the street and driveway parking lot connecting Corabana's Drive facility to phase one. This was subsequently clarified that the community building will be built during some of the later phases. So this segment of road and parking lot that's highlighted doesn't need to be included in phase one. Pedestrian access as proposed. There is a specific discussion point related to the multi-use paths for connection. At CREAP, the DRB requested that there be a multi-use path going towards the surf right-of-way if there were ever to be a connection made over to Crennard Woods or a linear park in the surf right-of-way that this property would have access. It's being provided, I'll zoom in on this image, more to the north where the most direct connection would kind of go through two people's side yards, which doesn't make feasible sense. The preferred location for the DRB and in a comment letter from John Hemmelgard is towards the south. However, this is where the wetlands are located in the stormwater pond and the Conservation Commission would also recommend that the path not be located near the wetlands. And vehicular access complies as proposed. At CREAP, there was a recommendation that there be a future spurn straight towards the Martell property to the east, and they've shown that road stirring off with 64 feet of right-of-way. Off-street parking loading also complies. Each individual home will have their own driveway and garage, and the community parking lot will have the EV charging, the harmful car share spaces. Final plans must also specify ADA parking in the community lot as required. On site infrastructure, final plans must specify that utilities, electric, internet, cable will be located underground. Otherwise, they can buy as proposed municipal water and sewer. And that the new neighborhood park must follow the procedures for air, and that they are providing a neighborhood park and that the infrastructure will be owned by the town of Williston, including acceptance of roads and public roads. Maintenance, this is fairly nitpicky, but a condition is included that final plans include a revised declaration document that includes more information about the purpose and restriction of landscape buffers and watershed protection buffers. Our experience with subdivisions that turn over from a developer to a homeowner's association is people get confused, they want to mow, they want to move trees, why the heck are these ugly boulders here, and just provide more clarity about the purpose and intent of these buffers. Density compliance is anticipated. They are proposing the density bonus of five units per acre by providing 30% of units as affordable. This is where a condition is included that final plans show how the growth management score and density bonus are being provided, even though the total unit account is decreasing, and their total dwelling unit equivalent falls below the maximum number of units they could build. Landscaping a condition is included. So at CREAP, the DRB talked about that western buffer along this right-of-way, there's a gas pipeline in that right-of-way, and the DRB requested a 50-foot buffer with supplemental plantings to buffer these future properties from whatever could happen in this right-of-way. They've provided those plantings sort of in the middle of the 50-foot buffer. There's no requirement in the bylaw that the DRB required go on the edge of the 50-foot buffer, it's supplementing existing vegetation, but the DRB could require to pull it farther away if there was concern about the gas pipeline. Other than that, the landscaping complies as proposed. They are providing additional landscaping between the new houses and the golf course, which staff lines is acceptable. Street trees complies as proposed. There are streets in the right-of-way with the required 40-foot spacing, and no prohibited species are proposed. Conservation recommendations, this should have been updated, but the conservation commission did include their recommendations. There are several areas not present on the property mentioned above, like habitat, travel corridors, etc. There is some discussion about scenic lusia, so the property does contain primary and secondary middle ground areas. At CREAP, the DRB requested renderings from Mountain View Road at the New Road and near Ledgewood. However, the applicants' photos show that those aren't very good locations to provide detailed renderings because the New Road is so long that you would just have a rendering of a road with trees. You wouldn't see any of the homes in context with the background of the Adirondacks, and Ledgewood, as shown in this image here, they would be very tiny, they would be visible, and the bylaw does say that people should expect views of residential neighborhood, so those homes would be visible, but they wouldn't obstruct the views of the Adirondacks, and they did provide concept elevations of the proposed homes that would be visible in the middle ground areas, and the conservation commission didn't have any recommendations about New Shed. Watershed health-specific conditions are included from the conservation commission, there are some class 2 wetlands and buffers identified, and some of the units are in close proximity to the wetland buffers, particularly Lot 14 and Lot 32. The conservation commission is recommending that there be signage and fencing where the buffers come close to the individual homes. After lighting complies as proposed for the parking lot in the roadway, final plans must include some information about the community building lighting, and that any dimming or motion sensors that would be provided. Lastly, impact fees are due at the time of the administrator permit, which are about $8,000 for a single family dwelling and $4,000 for a multi-family dwelling. I think there might be a typo in that number, but they can be confirmed in chapters 43 and 45. How it follows are findings, conclusions, and conditions as drafted with italic text, the specific recommendations. Thank you. Okay, thanks Emily. I'm going to turn it over to the applicant at this point to supplement anything that you feel is appropriate from the staff report, and also to address proposed conditions of approval, and if there's any that you want to take the subject to. Ready? Ready? Ready. Okay, great. Thank you. So this project is a long time in coming to be here for a request for a permit. It goes back not quite two years, but close to it when it first started pre-application review. So that's a long time even in the Williston system. A couple of comments that I would like to make really to make a few things clear to make it clear what our intentions are with the project and some specific concerns that we've either heard about or that were anticipating, especially from people in the area. A few comments about the project in general, and then some comments about some of the conditions. So the first comment I wanted to make is that as staff has noted, the number of dwelling in the project has decreased from what the board has seen before. The reason for that is quite simply we're at the point now where we've had engineering testing. That includes the lineation of the wetlands, the design of the stormwater facilities, the design of the roads, all of those things, and all those things met best themselves in land area. So the numbers have changed because we know more about the property, we know more about the specific design. So the design total number of dwelling units has changed accordingly. I would argue that it's still the same basic design and there are just a few minor changes around the edges. So that at the outset, I would also note at the outset, this is something that has come up in previous discussions about this project. I know it's come up with a lot of other projects about construction activity, instruction vehicles, how that's likely to impact neighborhoods. As Emily has already mentioned, and I would just really want to amplify that our intention is to not use Raven Circle as a construction entrance. Our intention is for all the construction activity to be entering and exiting the site from Mountain Bureau. We feel it's in the best interest of everybody, especially the people that live there along Raven Circle to not have those vehicles going through there. The only construction activity that anybody could anticipate down by a Raven Circle will be when that road connection gets built, because that will have to be built at some point in time. There would also be some work that would be done related to water and sewer line connections to meet the public work standards. But our intention is not to use Raven Circle as a construction entrance. So we really want to emphasize that point in case that comes up at a later time for members of the public. I did want to mention, I don't want to belabor this, but there's mention in the report about the DRB allocation for growth management that was made this past March. It's not a big point, but I just want to make it clear that this permit doesn't cover the allocation that was approved in March. In fact, this permit was submitted to the staff prior to that hearing. So we had no idea what the outcome of that hearing would be. So those units of allocation that were approved by the DRB, basically just a little over a month ago, they're not part of this permit application. Our permit application tonight is only to cover the number of dwelling units that were approved in the growth management allocation decision that was made in 2021. We will have a year's filing deadline from the data decision, which I think was last week or a week before, and we would come in with our phase two permit for to cover those dwelling units at that moment in time. So this permit only covers those dwelling units that we received allocation for back in 2021. So I just wanted to make that clear. I know Emily made a number of comments about how the number of units in the project has changed and how that potentially affects the number of affordable units, etc. We fully intend to maintain those percentages and those ratios. We think we have a fairly good understanding about what those numbers need to be. What's not discussed in the staff report at least explicitly is there are two different standards in the bylaw pertaining to affordability. And suffice it to say, the map on that is complex. But we think we understand it. We think both us and the staff understand it, and we intend to fully comply and make sure that we meet that provision. One of the major goals of this project was to do a development that had the kind of affordability component that has really never been built in this part of town. And I would argue it's never been built in town. So it was designed to be ambitious in that regard. And it's fully our intent to build the project out within those parents. So, and let's see. As Emily mentioned, so on the plan that we submitted, it showed highlighted the community building. And then staff originally made a comment about how that road, the road that would lead from carbonis drive and would lead to provide access to the community building that should be built at the same time. None of those dwelling units that would be accessed from that road are part of this phase of development. And so our intention would be to build out the community building in phase two, which would be when we would come in for our permit to cover those units of allocation that were awarded by the DRV last month. So we would not build a community building at this point. We would not build that road that would provide access to it at this point in time. Our focus in terms of roads would be to build carbonis drive, which would link Mountain Dew Road, excuse me, all the way down to Raven Circle. The other roads would come in at subsequent phases of permit. I also wanted to address the landscape bumper on the west side of the project, which would be the side of the project that invites what was supposed to be the circumferential highway right of way. And I know there were some concerns stated about the gas pipeline that we know exists within the CERC right of way. Now, I originally would have assumed that the gas pipeline would have been built roughly in the center of the CERC right of way based on the drawings that were submitted by Vermont Gas and that were on a file of planning office. In fact, the pipeline is built within 25 feet of the property line in CERC right of way and the Brennan Woods subdivision. As Emily stated earlier, that means that the pipeline is roughly 175 feet from the property line that's shared between the golf course and the CERC right of way. So this landscape bumper that we would install, the closest to any portion of it could be CERC right of way, well, not CERC right of it, the gas pipeline would be 175 feet. We clearly would not put the trees right on the property line. We would put it within the landscape bumper. We would want the trees to be planted in a way that is going to provide a naturalistic looking environment and not some artificial adhering to a property line. It seems to me it would be hard to argue that it would be accomplishing any safety purpose given the spacing numbers that we've seen in the plans that are on file and what our research shows. So I would simply make that point about that landscaping. We want to have the kind of flexibility to be able to plant those trees and shrubs so that we can achieve a good aesthetic outcome. A couple of comments. The scenic view shed, you know, as Emily pointed out, where this project is going to develop, it's going to be a good distance away from Mountain View Row. I think it's fair to argue it's likely to have virtually no impact on the vision of how the streetscape looks from Mountain View Row and certainly of the Adirondacks. As anybody who's driven on Mountain View Row knows, Mountain View Row is a high point and as you go down towards where Southridge is, the land slopes gently downward. So you're looking across, you're looking westward, you're looking from a high point. The CERC right-of-way, in fact, is built up. It's not at grade, the same grade as the golf course. So the notion that there would be any impact on the views of the Adirondacks, I think it's safe to say that there would be virtually none. Maybe a few rooftops might be visible, but it should not under any circumstances. It hit us somebody's view of the mountain there. A couple of points about watershed health. So, and this is highlighted, this will be page 11 of the staff report. And then in particular, regarding units 32 and also lot 14. So unit 32, the line looks really close. That's the edge of the watershed protection buffer to unit 32. As it's shown now, that would roughly be about two feet. We have some wiggle room and we can ship that building. We propose to move it a minimum of five feet away from the edge of that watershed protection buffer. In our conversations with the conservation commission, one of the things we mentioned to them was their concern was with mowing. And that's a realistic concern. But the way that we're looking to plant this area is not as a manicured lawn. It would be planted with trees and shrubs. So it's not going to be planted in a way that somebody would want to go out there and take a lawn mower to it. As I emphasized to the conservation commission, the other thing is where unit 32 is, they're not going to be individual lots. These are essentially going to be footprint lots. So individual homeowners, they would necessarily have need for a lawn mower. There might be some sort of a weed whacker that might be used to trim back weeds and things like that away from the edge of the structure. But that would essentially do that. So, you know, our intention is to stay out of the watershed protection buffer. But we do feel there's a low risk that somebody's going to go in there with a lawn mower, which I think is what the real concern would be in that area. Lot 14. So Lot 14, which is up near the northerly part of the northeastern side of Cardboard Stride. So that's proposed to be a single family dwelling. And as we proposed that there would be a portion of the watershed protection buffer would be across the lot. There is lots of case history in town where the board has approved those things, where open space can be included on a portion of somebody's lot, somebody's individually owned lot, and then there could be a portion of a watershed protection buffer. If the property line was placed at the watershed protection buffer, there's a setback that's built in into the requirements for zoning that would have to be adhered to from that property line. It would be very little developable space left on that lot for property owners to do anything. But there are some techniques that are mentioned in the bylaw, whether it's fencing, woody trees, large boulders that can be used to protect, demarcate, and keep an overly ambitious property owner with a new John Deere from going in there and mowing the grass down. We're certainly willing to utilize any of those techniques that would be acceptable. My own experience would be that the large boulders, assuming they're large enough, tend to be the most effective because they don't rot, and the homeowner can't cut them down, making big enough so that the homeowner can't move them. We would ask the board to approve the design of that lot as we proposed it there with those conditions that I just mentioned. One thing I would mention that I think should be made about the Conservation Commission's memo from April 20. I would just, for the record, state that at the Conservation Commission meeting, they did not have a quorum, and there was not a vote, so there was a discussion among three members of the board. We've addressed their comments to you, and we've addressed their comments and plans, but just for the record, I would just state that they did not have a quorum at the meeting, and that did not include a vote. One of the things that was discussed under conditions three, condition E, the Conservation Commission asked us if we would be willing to put some sort of informational signage for areas where houses are close to wetland buffers. We would be more than happy to do that. It could be a good public education tool. I mentioned the landscaping next to the CERC right-of-way. One of the things that was noted tonight is that, so the other comment I wanted to make about steep slopes, so in our submittal there was no information about steep slopes, and we should have put a zero. We will fully document that there are no steep slopes on the property that affect what is considered to be developed land from what is not developed land. This is a site that, with the exception of some wetland areas around perimeter, is largely devoid of the kind of development constraints that you see in many middle parts of town. That's one of the reasons why it makes this site a good site to be able to try to locate a project that utilizes the density bonds that's afforded in the bylaw to build affordable housing. I think that's all of the conditions of approval. We will be happy to answer any questions that either the board has or members of the public has. Great. Thank you, again. Here are the members' questions. I just have one on the block, 13 DMARC with the boulders. It sounds like you would prefer the boulders for the DMARC of the wetlands. Do what kind of spacing would you use on boulders to DMARC the wetlands? We replaced them close enough so that somebody couldn't drive on John Deere. The contractor between them. In the past, I know there are some examples where that's the kind of detail that's subject to inspection by staff prior to the issuance of the certificate of compliance. I would posit that the board might be able to entrust staff to do that again. Maybe we would be happy to do any of those three things that I mentioned. I mentioned boulders because I personally think they're the most effective. If you want us to put a split rail fence, we can do that. Understanding, of course, that fencing is not forever and there's a maintenance aspect to it. If the board feels that's a more effective tool, we'd be happy to do that. Anything else, Dave? That's it for me. I'm curious why you didn't take the offer to revisit them at the street cross section. There's no opportunity to bring down the 13 nathrolanes. Less permeate, less cost, less impact. I'm curious why it goes more changed. The biggest conversation we had with Public Works was around the right way. 64 feet is a pretty big taking. We were proposing some smaller private roadways, I think in our original pre-app applications. The feedback from Public Works is that they fully intend to take this roadway over. When it is built from Raven Circle all the way through the Mountain View, it will be a connector. Their preference was to meet the 27 foot standard. Was that our recommendation to say that they should work with Public Works? It was Public Works asking them to. It was your recommendation and we had meetings with Public Works and we were grateful. 13 nathrolanes, let's see. There's on-street parking considerations. It's how Public Works and the town wants to re-ordinates around parking, maybe in the winter time. We'll probably do it, but I think it's an insane design too. I've seen 30, 24. I personally, kind of like 27. I think it's narrow, but doesn't seem constricting as well. I think it would be a preference thing. I guess I can spread this. I thought Public Works would ask you to be considerate, but I'm not understanding. We can ask you to be considerate. I guess related to that, David, I think your question and our response to the question, it highlights some of the challenge as an applicant in trying to address all the issues that are related by the planning staff and the planning regulations and the DRB, which of course works closely with the planning staff and then other entities like Public Works, which sometimes have a tendency to you know, they operate in their own sphere. They have their own special considerations. We would like to meet all of those things. What we would like to make sure is that we're not put in a bind where we're trying to meet a condition that rented the conflict with some other department. Totally. That totally makes sense. Now as far as I would also add, as far as traffic calming, there is the intent to include speed tables in the design of the roadway. That's pretty okay with that. I believe so. Yeah. Yeah, so we went public street. No, so we didn't the speed tables. Now we went down that route, but we were able to put a wiggle in the original, from the original layout of the connection down in our view. You know, our original pre-app application had a pretty straight shot through there. So we felt by creating a meandering effect through the first thousand or so and then it's a slighter meander as you get into the denser. It's a 25 foot front-end setback. So you're going to feel like you're in a neighborhood, then you come to an intersection and then the way the groves would grades work, there's a pretty steep or fairly steep decline compared to the rest of the site down to where the stormwater pond is. And then you have that somewhat of a sharp left-hand turn in there. So we felt the road layout on its own would be effective producing speed without going to the table. You know, put an awful lot of effort to make it smooth. So my personal opinion is I hate to see those. Thank you much. That's absolutely necessary. And you'll have the 40 foot tree space in two, which is a real great traffic calming. Yes. Yep. Yeah. Time for the green belts and the trees. Yeah. Any else, Ted? Okay. One, actually for you guys, what's the one-better unit? That's done, you mentioned by staff that you're thinking about putting in one-better units. What's the, more of an honest question that I guess. What do you say, what do you, I mean, how they, how they again? Yeah, just under a thousand square feet. One-fourth. Two-fourth. Two-fourth. Two-fourth. That was the east end? Yes. Where are you seeing what we should, at least you believe that, that that works or that's viable right now. I mean, this, like I said, this four-care house. Sure. Just, just market input. You know, they're, you know, everybody is tending to buy smaller and smaller homes. We have four-better homes are kind of like the dinosaur in the past. True benefits are very common. There's a huge need for, you know, units that don't have to be 2,000 square feet, but could it be a better, better than a half? Bath and a half, rather, and have a one-car garage. What we wanted to do was offer units that basically, if you drove in there when this place was done, you wouldn't be able to tell what was an affordable unit, what was an affordable unit. And that was the whole, we built a number of units up at Spears Street South Village. And, you know, we watched how Ireland did his stuff with the affordable and that's kind of yet to be done. But at the same time, what we wanted to do was bring everybody together. And so as you drove in, we didn't have the affordable and one corner, you know, everybody else in another corner. We tried to bring, make it as inclusive as possible. So the better, one-better units fill a need, certainly for the public, and we've had all kinds of inquiries on already. So that's kind of hard to have, but one-better units are the majority of them going to be affordable? Not necessarily. We see that there, we see that there's more of a need actually for two and three-better units based on the input that we've received. And I think, you know, because a lot of these units could fulfill the needs of a young family coming in that, you know, didn't want to spring for the $600,000, you know, McMansion, but needed a nice place. That's what I imagine these days. Well, you probably can't. So, you know, it's just an option that we felt was necessary based on what the market does not provide at this current time. This we felt was a huge wrong card. Okay. Paul, questions? No, most of mine were answered by everybody else. Thank you. Ken, you were very specific in the beginning that this permit application was for your Allie, your growth management allocation from 2021. Yes. Can you, I wasn't part of this then, can you talk more about the different phases and how you see them happening, what is exactly in terms of types of housing, et cetera, assuming it all goes through next year as well? Welcome to the DRV and again to enjoy growth management review next year in March. So, the Williston process is, you know, you have a project, you go through a pre-application that getting past pre-application enables you to participate in the growth management process that's held every year in March. There are some pretty complex rules about how much allocation is available and onward and onward. A project like this, because of the growth management rules, it's virtually impossible to get all of your allocation or even most of your allocation in any one year of allocation review. So, we are limited by the number of units that are available and that we can be awarded allocation units by the DRV. So, some of that is unknown at this point in time because we won't know how many units are potentially available in this allocation area in 2023. There are any number of factors that could affect that. So, having said that, there's, you know, early on there's a lot of time in building infrastructure. So, we have to build a road, we have to build water and sewer lines, there's storm water facilities, you know, all of those things. There are also market factors that would take place. So, we're talking about roughly 60 dwelling units here, you know, that could easily take three or four years to build that out. Now, before next year at this time, we would have to come in with our discretionary permit application for phase two for those units of allocation that we were awarded last month. It's a lesser number of units than what we were awarded last year. You know, what the build out of those units would be, we wouldn't necessarily get approval for a permit and immediately start to build those units. They would be, you know, part of why our approved permit is. But the build out of this project, it's, you know, reasonable to anticipate this would take place over a number of years. It could be as much as 10 years. Part of that will depend on the market, part of that will depend on the allocation schedule. You know, at this point, we not only, technically do not have a permit from the town, we will also be required to go through ACTI 50 and have all of our plans reviewed by the state. We've tried to engineer some of the plans anticipating what some of those state requirements would be, whether it's in terms of traffic or whether it would be terms of stormwater or wetlands or those things. But, you know, that ACTI 50 has its own process and its own time mark. So we're still a little ways off from when we would actually start building. But I think it's reasonable to expect that over, let's say an eight, we'd have build out over, say, roughly an eight to 10 year period of time. Oh, the growth management units, you've already been awarded. No, not what we've been awarded. But I think, you know, realistically, you might see in the course of any year, anywhere from maybe 10, 15 or so dwelling units that might be built, on average, it would probably vary on an annual basis. But you wouldn't see, you know, 50 or 60 units be built all at one time. Because we're not building apartment buildings. Got it. Thanks. Okay. Other questions? We'll use Panthex. So it was brought up, based on looking at the chart that I'm seeing in my package. Sorry. Those two options for the path locations. Oh, yeah. Yeah, can I think of a comment about that? Is that, yeah, sure. Sure. Well, so a couple of comments. So first of all, the initial proposed location in the path, that was a suggestion made by staff. So I guess I know that there's some concerns that have been raised by folks who live in Brennan Woods. It certainly was not our intent to set up a conduit of people that might somehow intrude upon their space. The idea was to provide an access point. In the event, the town would be able to develop a linear park or pathway along proposed CERC right-of-way. It's something that's, it's been stated as desired by the Conservation Commission. It's kind of an obvious question for the town to ask, given that there's not going to be a highway on it. What are some ways that the town could utilize that in a way that's consistent with all of the other things that it wants it to achieve? So I think I would amplify and make the point, and I don't think this was the intent of staff, but it wasn't necessarily to provide an access point to the Brennan Woods subdivision. It was to provide a path that would get somebody to the CERC right-of-way, where there might at some point in the future be a pedestrian path. If Brennan Woods wants to construct some kind of a path or entry point to get to a linear path on the CERC right-of-way, I would see it as being something that they could pursue or not. It certainly was not our intent to build a path that would lead people over to the Brennan Woods subdivision. It was really purely to provide a potential way for people to get access to the CERC right-of-way. And then the other comment that I would make is that the other possible location down near the southwest corner, you know, one of the challenges there would be the location of wetlands. And because of the slope of the land, you know, water flows downhill. And so that ends up being the ideal location to locate a stormwater facility because that's the natural flow of water. So, you know, it raises questions as to whether or not it's really feasible to build a path in that location given the design constraints that might be present. So I just wanted to emphasize those parts. So this picture is a little bit of a mispronounce in that there really is no path going to Brennan Woods. It's just really okay with the two red lines drawn on that makes you believe that there is a path, you know, proposed and going to be approved, you know, so that was kind of one of my questions. Oh, okay. Yeah, so conservation permission recommendation 3-H, which is a condition, pedestrian access to surf right-of-way should remain as proposed. Yeah. Any proposed communication was not required. I think that makes that makes work sense. Yeah. A minor change. What is what does that stop path moved south between 13 and 22 so that at least we're aligned with a street that goes to the community center and it would get those driveways out of that intersection. Yes. Oh, sorry. Yeah, sorry. So we originally looked at that. I believe we had that location in our pre-application. So we went into the engineering and stormwater design. That intersection is raised a little bit above existing grades. So those duplexes on the west side are going to be proposed as walkout minutes. So those you can't see it here because there's no gradient, but there's it's a fairly steep drop through the unit. So that's why I shifted in a little further to be more straight path. Right. Yeah. I mean, it could go through there just would be steep, you know, so that's why. Yeah. Okay. So I'd like to open it up for public comments at this point. If anybody has anything that they would like to say or have the DRV address or questions that they want to raise, please indicate by raising your hand at Zoom, please, or contact Simon via the chat function. Okay. We've got David Westman who's raised this hand for the live speech. So David, if you could unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Dave Westman. I'm budding landowner at Brennan Woods Drive in Williston. And I appreciate the comments that, well, I appreciate some of the staff reactions to the comments that I filed earlier in the month. And I generally just wanted to hit on a couple of the main points. Largely, my comments were regarding that cert right-of-way and the pipeline that exists along that right-of-way. And Emily emailed me this week with the drawings just as she showed here tonight. And I think that is interesting that the proposal on file with the Public Utility Commission and the planning staff is that the pipeline is 25 feet from the western boundary of the right-of-way. I would just point out for the board that in other towns and other areas, the as-built conditions of the right of the pipeline did not appear exactly as they did in those drawings. And I would strongly recommend that a site safety survey of the exact location of the pipeline be developed and that that be marked very clearly because there is a lot of construction in this first phase as is being proposed. And I think reasonableness and prudency would demand that we should mark that pipeline and there should be a site safety plan in place in the event that any earth-moving equipment does disturb that 50-foot buffer that was established by the DRB in the pre-app process, which I very much support and would lead me to my next comment, which is that these plantings that Emily referred to and that can address as being important for the visual character, largely I understand that point and there needs to be a visual buffer. My point in raising these comments is that earth-moving equipment within that 50-foot buffer should be completely avoided. And you just heard one of the site developers comment on how the steepness of that specific area would make building a path, for example, difficult. Well, my concern is that in the process of doing those plantings that the construction team gets a little anxious with earth-moving equipment and then ends up bulldozing something so that they can make a nice pretty terrace for the plants and then all of a sudden you've had a major disturbance within that 50-foot buffer. And so that's really my main concern. I understand the need for the plantings. Thank you, Emily. Yep, that's the area I'm talking about. My recommendation is that there would be no earth-moving equipment within that 50-foot buffer for the reasons of soil stability and undermining of the pipeline in addition to the clear markings and site safety plan of the pipeline itself. That's my first comment. I don't know if I should pause there. I just have one other comment on the Mountain Dew Road and traffic study. I can either hold that or or say it now. Please continue and if you would continue, you're doing a good job if you would just limit your comments because I don't believe that the DRV has the ability to influence this, but go ahead. Well, yeah. No, I understand that point and I, you know, believe it or not, I appreciate it. And I listened in on the whole discussion and I'm getting a sense of what the whole discretionary permit thing is all about. And clearly you guys don't have the ability to, you know, stop all construction until Mountain View Road is fixed in perpetuity, which it very much should be. And that's probably a matter for the select board. And I appreciate that. You know, I would just point out that this project does a but a very lengthy stretch of Mountain View Road and that this property has had a very extensive history of development, which yes, thank you, Emily. So you can see that this road is being proposed right up to Mountain View Road. And then there's a path that basically dead ends at Mountain View Road. You know, I'm a cyclist, I'm a runner, I've cycled, I've run on Mountain View Road and it's a death trap. And especially in this area where you've got the comings and goings of the parking lot and people are really picking up speed on this stretch. And it's, it's not fun. And so I guess what I would suggest is that in I know that you can't stop the construction until Mountain View Road is fixed. But you do have the ability to require that a pathway be built contiguous to Mountain View Road, which would be in conformity with that draft town map that staff was referring to earlier. And that is proposed. There's been many sort of alternatives put out there. But in the in the site map that I'm looking at page one, the site map is considered that whole contiguous blue line, which includes the whole parking lot of the existing golf course, in addition to this road. And so my suggestion is, is that the whole point of the town map was to indicate to developers where we want pathways and points of contiguous pathways and connectivity for residents. Requiring that this project build part of that pathway amount, or that a Butts Mountain View Road would be a very strong indicator for the rest of the developers who were sure to come for Mountain View Road, that that pathway is important for the town and that it needs to get built. And that's what I want to say about that. I also do think that we need to talk about the traffic problem, which is a 10, roughly 10% increase in traffic on Mountain View Road. Mountain View Road cannot handle 10% more traffic. And what if anything can the DRB do about that? I don't know. But I would certainly love to hear it. We have, we can require a traffic study. And the traffic study. Correct me, Steph, if I go into the ditch a little bit here, I don't want to go into the ditch, but we can, we can influence the intersection of the new development to Mountain View. But that's the limits of our influence. Yeah, I mean, as again, as a cyclist, I would really encourage any level of improved visibility. That is, that is not a great location for cyclists or pedestrians at this point. And so having, you know, potentially 10% of the Mountain View Road traffic now coming and going from that intersection. I do think that that deserves consideration. It's going to be a nightmare getting in and out of both my neighborhood in Brennan Woods from Mountain View as well as potentially even that spot. So the traffic study that I looked at is, you know, that was filed here. Yeah, that's the one that's on the screen. You know, that that speaks to a larger sort of systemic problem that needs to be addressed here. I mean, at the very least, an intersection on that, on that, on that, on where that road is coming in would be helpful. Anything else, David? I had a question from what to staff that the impact fees, I did not see a total generated from that. And would that meaningfully contribute to the proposed cost of the overall Mountain View Road fix that is needed? I know that's not a DRB question. That's a staff question. Right. I believe Roger took a shot at that on page seven. Yes, if I may jump in. The project will pay in town impact fees for transportation. It will pay over $200,000 total of $219,000. And then it will also be assessed State Act 145 transportation impact fees, which will total up to almost another 52,000, large majority of which will go towards the Route 2A Mountain View Road intersection and the Crescent Connector and at the five corners in Essex. So yes, this project will be contributing a substantial amount of impact fees specifically to improve roadways and intersections in the town. Thank you. Do we have any estimate of when the Mountain View Road improvement project is scheduled or budgeted? So I like to refer to this, David, as being on the part of the CERC Alternative Schedule that is in the five years until never category. In other words, this project for Mountain View Road is understood as a certain pharyngeal highways alternative project that should be 100% funded through the state of Vermont. When Williston last revised its transportation impact fee, it put $100,000 towards this project in the list of impact fee projects under the theory that if the town could spend some small amount of its own money on this project that would get it in gear, the town would like to be able to use impact fee money to do that. So the answer is Mountain View Road at the time of the feasibility study was done was about a three and a half million dollar project. It's probably quite a bit more than that now. It is still understood in the state system as a certain pharyngeal highways alternatives project eligible for 100% funding, no match required by the town. Despite that, the town has said it would spend some impact fee money if it thought doing so might get it moving. But the performance of certain alternatives projects being constructed in the region has been extremely slow in Williston and in the other surrounding towns. So there are really no promises that can be made about the schedule of that project. Are you pursuing the transportation alternatives or by pet grants or any other funding sources? I think these could be the match, could be magical ones for those. It's a possibility that the town could try to use impact fee money to leverage other money, but the town is also focusing more into the regional planning commission at the legislature and Petrans to try to get this project scheduled as the attempt is being made from many other circular alternative projects in Williston to actually make it happen. Thanks, Matt. I mean, all the more important, I think, to demonstrate through this project that the town is viewing the town map as a critical sign of our infrastructure and investment and that at the very least the town can do. And I know it looks ridiculous from the road to see these little 200-yard or 200-feet stretches of pathway that don't go anywhere. It is very much in keeping with the idea that we build it as the opportunities present themselves. And by my review of these maps and everything that's being presented here tonight is there is project area contiguous to Mountain View Road. The DRB can request that the developer build a part of that multi-use pathway that the town is interested in pursuing. Yes, and Emily is showing that here, right. I said that property frontage along Mountain View Road is about 470, 500 feet-ish. The DRB could require that multi-use path on their property and within Mountain View right away. It's kind of what we did with the roadway or something different, right? We had each one build that piece of sidewalk once it happens. And I would also suggest that if the developers wanted to be generous, they could approach the other landowners and request access to it. But I know that that's not within the purview of the DRB, but since the developers are here and they are, that is former property of theirs, I thought I would raise it. Okay. Anything else, David? Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Any other members of the public that would like to make a comment? We have no other raised hands and no one's sending messages in the chat. Okay. DRB members, last chance at questions. Africa, any final comments, remarks? I don't think so. Okay. Thank you. Okay, we're going to close DP 20-18 at 9.39. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. DRB is going to go into a deliberative session at this point. Simon, if you would do your thank with the film, please. I'm just going to put it back on in the white. Yes, so for members of the public, we don't know how long deliberations can be. You can stick around or you can contact staff tomorrow for the decisions. Back to the town of Williston Development Review Board. It is 10.46 on Tuesday, April 26, 2022. Is there a motion for DP 20-23.1? Yes. As authorized by WB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, move the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all company materials, including the recommendations of the town staff, and advisory boards required a comment on this application by the Wilson Development Violation. Having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing on April 26, 2022, accepted findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 20-23.1 and approved with discretionary agreement for master sign plans subject to the conditions above. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans of paying approval for these plans from staff and then seek administrative sign permits, which must proceed in strict performance for the plans on which the approval is based. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Nate, second. Is there any further discussion? Nope. Nope. Okay. Yay or nay? Paul Christensen. Yay. John Hemmelgarten. Yay. John Riley. Yay. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Dave Andrews. Yay. Okay. Seven in favor. Not opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion for 21-20 tap corners associates? As authorized by DB 6.6.3, I gave it Saladino, moved at the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all company materials, including the recommendations of the town staff, advisory boards required a comment on this application by the Wilson Development Violation and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of April 26, 2022, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 21-20 and approved the discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above of the following modifications. Addition, strike condition 3C, amend condition 4A to read an easement or agreement for reciprocal access for a future connection to the north through the parking lot, shall be provided at final plans, the connection shall shift to the west to align with the access aisle until we've built the property line during phase one. Strike 9A and then add a new 9A that reads bicycle parking near versus or entrance shall shift to right avenue south and south the side of the entryway plaza. Strike condition number 22 and strike condition number 25. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, staff, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict accordance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, David. Is there a second? No, second. Dave Turner, second sit and further discussion. Hearing none. Indicate yay or nay, please. Paul Christensen. Yay. John Hemmeldarn. Yay. How Riley. Yay. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. Chairs are yay. Seven in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 20-18? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I spot Riley moves that to the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials including recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board for required comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law and having heard and newly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing on April 12, 2022, except the findings in fact and conclusions of law for DP 20-18 and approved the discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval of this approval, authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from the DRV. I do want to say from the or here from staff. I would say staff. Obtain approval of these plans from the staff, Williston Planning and Planning staff, and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which the approval is based. We are going to make a couple of changes to the conditions. Three D, a watershed protection buffers must be clearly demarcated on the final plans and on the ground with boulders, which are preferred or fencing. Eight strike A, final plans must confirm overall acreage and the density analysis shall include steep slopes. Final plan shall identify the acreage of open space and adding 25, the multi-use path shall be constructed along the property's entire frontage along the mountain view road. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? I'll second. Dave Saladino seconds it. Is there any discussion? The motion said April 12th, and John noted that it's April 26th, so I updated that. Very good. Okay. So you accept that? Friendly amendment? Yes, I do. Dave Saladino? Yep. Okay. Anything else? Yay or nay? Paul Christensen? Yay. John Hemmelgarn has recused himself on this one. Scott Lively? Yay. Dave Saladino? Dave Turner? Yay. Nate Andrews? Yay. Chairs are yay. Six in favor. One member recused himself. Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of April 12th, 2022? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as well. Thank you. Dave Turner makes a motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second? I'll second. Scott Riley seconds it. Any discussion? Hearing none. Yay or nay? Paul Christensen? Yay. John Hemmelgarn? Yay. Scott Riley? Yay. Dave Saladino? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. Nate Andrews? Yay. Pete Kelly is a yay. Seven in favor. None opposed? No opposed. I want to stay longer. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.