 Great. Okay. Item two on the agenda is the public hearing. We've got four items on tonight's agenda. DP 11-08.1 is Vermont State University Master Sign Plan at 201 Lawrence Place. The next item is DP 24-08 which is a pre-app for a residential subdivision on Mountain View Road. DP 24-09 is a three-lot subdivision and that is on Butternut Road and DP 24-10 which is a pre-app for a three-lot subdivision on 347 Fay Lane. So first up is DP 11-08.1. Vermont State University Master Sign Plan. With the applicant please come forth to the table. Once you get settled in please state your name and address for the record please. You're over on the applicant table which probably one-sided signs. I think what we need is a master sign plan here. He's making enough money off us we can discount him to you. Just slide that in. Alright so I think we start off for the record Mike Stevens, Vermont State University. Was there further instructions from now? Address? Address. This address is 201. Hulina Drive. Great. Thank you. Sparky Potter, Wood and Wood Signs. Waits Hill, Vermont and I'm representing Mike. Great. Okay thank you. Staff goes next. Alright thank you Pete. This is a request for an amendment to the existing master sign plan at Vermont State University, Williston campus, 141 Lawrence Place and 72 Hulina Drive within the Taff Corners form-based code area and the Business Park zoning district. New free standing signs are only allowed in the form-based code area through partial or full exemption from the bylaw. The applicant has a partial exemption from the bylaw because they are state certified educational institution. Partial exemptions must be granted by the DRB as part of a public hearing process. Staff recommends DRB approve this application with findings, conclusions of law and conditions of approval as drafted. A brief project history. This project has a master sign plan that is existing. It was approved in 2010. We did receive comment from the fire department for this master sign plan. The building and mailbox numbering are required by town ordinance and signage for gas and sprinkler connections are considered directional signs. For the bylaw, neither item is required to be part of the master sign plan. Spoken with the applicant and they're going to work with the fire department on basically meeting the fire department's request. No comment letters were received at the time of mail out. So getting into the exemption, Vermont State University is partially exempt from the requirements of the bylaw as a certified public educational institution. The Williston Development bylaw has authority to regulate some development on the campus so long as it does not interfere with the university's intended functional use. The applicant is seeking to use their partial exemption to install freestanding signs in the form-based code area where, as I've said, the freestanding signs are prohibited now. A master sign plan is the framework for the DRB to provide this exemption per WDB 4.2.2.9. The applicant has explained that signs are important for wayfinding on the campus and as part of the broader rebranding for Vermont State University, given the number of students and visitors on campus, staff believe that wayfinding is part of the university's intended functional use and that the proposed freestanding signs are proportional to that goal. Staff has drafted conclusions of law 4 and 5 accordingly. The applicant has explained that the temporary monument sign will be removed when the primary vehicle directional sign, sorry, I forgot the number there, this is a long route 2A, is installed. This sign should be removed from the master sign plan for clarity. We drafted a condition for that. Additionally, the applicant has not proposed any illuminated signs. Sign monument 1 appears to have existing illumination. The applicant should include this on their final plans if they'd like to keep the illumination there. We've also written a condition for that. For the frontage calculation, we use measurements from DP 1108, the previous master sign plan. They include the street-facing frontages from the four buildings within Lawrence Place and the frontage-facing route 2A for 72 Halina Drive. What follows are findings, conclusions, and conditions. Great. Okay, thank you, Andrew. Applicant, your turn if you would give us a brief overview of the project, that would be appreciated. I think it's pretty self-explanatory, but walk us through what you're doing. I think we'll let you have the lead on that. Sure. The idea of the concept came by realizing that the campus is kind of underexposed, and part of the reason is because there were way finding issues and just trying to find things on the campus and some frustration around that. We focused on trying to rethink the driver in the pedestrian to see how they were going to find their destinations easily and without any sort of accidents. So that's the motivation. The actual sign plan came from a concept that was put forth for all the campuses. So this particular sign system is relevant to the other four campuses as well. And so the continuity was part of the teamwork that we put together to try to clean up what was possibly not working there and then add to it, particularly to make sure that people found their destinations safely. Great. Thank you. DRP members, questions please. This is not so much specific to this application. I understand the limited review that we have, but for the purposes of future applications, I'd like some clarity on which portions of this application are requiring our review. Because as far as I know, signage is not one of the pieces that comes under our purview under this exemption. You can. Yeah. Do I need the microphone to do that? Yeah. So, Andrew and I talked a little bit about the best way to handle what the VTSU folks wanted to do with signage here and how to take it through the exemption process. So the venue by which a partial exemption is granted is a DRV hearing. The subject of the request with signage, which is not one of the enumerated things that municipalities can regulate for partially exempted properties. That said, there are certain schools of thought that suggest a Venn diagram with a large circle that says structures and inside of a small circle that says signs. In other words, signs are structures. They come with setbacks. They come with dimensional standards, design standards and things like that. So not really being sure of what the legislative intent is in terms of just how exempt signs are, whether it's a content exemption versus a design element. The best way to do it is to take it through a DRV hearing. That's what needs to happen to grant a partial exemption anyway. The easiest format in which to process that was an amendment to the master sign plan. So we meet the requirement of our own bylaw that the DRV holds a hearing and is presented the discussion points about exemption and we end up with an approval that makes sense. Does that help? Yes. As I read this, I couldn't, if I were so inclined to be opposed to this, which I'm not, I don't know how I would do that. It seems that my hands are tied here, that there's really nothing that we could oppose. So the other points I would just make briefly is we do have some things related to signs that I think you could talk about in an approval and that are relevant. So we have things like we require landscaping at the base of a freestanding sign. Can you still do that even though the statute doesn't say you can regulate signs? I would say you probably can. Some things like that. Given that landscaping is one of the things we are allowed to. Yeah. That's fair enough. And lighting on those signs. Yeah. So if there was really glaring lighting proposed or something that just really didn't make sense, and then, you know, after that, you know, again, some signs come with lighting, but we also have a whole chapter that's just about lighting, whether it is in regards to a sign or not. So then I did have one question, which was I noticed that one of the signs was within the view triangle, but I'm not sure the view triangle is anything that's actual either. I think we're required to put something for each person with a review triangle to make sure that visibility was good. So we did that as a request in the time. I just noticed the secondary vehicular directional number two. The blue sign number two. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah. That was an interesting location. The way the traffic was flowing either way, there was really only one location that could take this sign and be visible. So we put it there because there was no other option. Now there's not any landscaping issues. It was just the way the streets were set up in the parking area. And so coming down and land to drive, you need to read those letters. We put it at a distance that was readable from the point of making a decision. So the things were pointed that out. I forgot we put it right inside the truck. I guess this is a question for staff members. Is it required or would they not be in the new truck? So it is required that they meet setbacks. Yeah, so with the NASA sign plan checklist asked for, we should update those new triangles. And I would look at the photo rendition. We're in the middle row, I think all the way to the right. So when I would look at this, I would look at, it's showing up in the view triangle on the overall triangle. What sort of sign is it? It's a relatively small sign on a post. My judgment here would be it can be placed in that view triangle without actually creating a line of sight issue. So the view triangle is on the checklist because it's a yellow flag. And then you go look at the type of sign being printable. That's it. I don't want to punish these guys for bringing such a good application that it generated these questions. Compared to, say, some of the previous sign applications you've had recently. On the other hand, I would appreciate any design review that you've seen that you think might need improvement. Good? Great, thank you. That's a personal opinion. Other questions? Pete, I have a question that isn't germane to anything that we're doing here. We're the Green Mountain State, right? And we're proud of our heritage. How the heck do you come up with a red and blue sign? No comment. Facilities. I've been looking at that for months trying to figure that one out. Facilities is my expertise not marketing. Yeah, there's a rocket scientist behind that one. Differentiation. If you say so. Other DRB questions? All set. Members of the audience, any questions? Anybody participating remotely? No raise hands. Okay, before I close this, I just want to say thank you for this. Because it's a new standard. And I ask staff to use this as the new prototype when people come in for a master sign plan. Absolutely. And just follow this because there's great clarity. So thank you. With that compliment in the holiday season, I will close DP 11-08.1 at 720. Thank you. Thank you guys. I'm sure we'll see you soon. Okay. Next up is DP 24-08. Will the applicant come forward, please? Good evening. If you state your name and address for the record, please. I'm James McCullough. Address 592. Governor Chittenden Road and Willenstead. Welcome. Thank you. Lucy Thayer, landscape architect. Chevelle Consulting Engineers 478 Blair Park Road. Great. Thank you. Abby, are you going to weigh in? Do you want to get this over with now? I might, yes. Abby, you're an introvert. Great. Okay. Staff's next. So this is a request for a pre-application review at 88 Mountain View Road in the residential zoning district. The property currently has one home on it. And they're proposing a subdivision to develop it with an additional 39 homes. Discussion of alternatives that pre-application stage is encouraged by the relevant bylaws. And the applicant has provided two options. Both options have a cul-de-sac configuration and a community centre. Option one on the left there comprises a mix of single family duplex and multi-family buildings designed to Maharishi Vasti architecture principles with things like all entrances facing east, fences and slab-on-grade construction. Option two is two multi-family buildings in the western part of the site. So staff is recommending approval. And of the DRB discussed some of the issues identified and edit the recommendations when necessary. We did receive two comment letters, so one that was included in your packets and one that was emailed around to the board yesterday. They raised matters relating to traffic, stormwater ponds, scenic views and screening. In terms of the zoning district requirements, we do anticipate compliance with the dimensional standards in terms of height and setback. A very minor point that the road can't be in the side setback. In terms of open space development, it's an in-field development as it's less than 10.5 acres. However, they are proposing an open space type pattern, i.e. they're not doing a third of an acre lots, which means that open space should be provided as part of the development and that should certainly include all the wetlands on the parcel. WDB 39.9 seeks pedestrian-friendly development in the RZD. One of these requirements, as well as having requirements that sidewalks are provided and that buildings be located in a certain distance of a focal point, like an immunity centre. It also does require that all principal building entrances face the street with a direct pedestrian connection to the sidewalk. Option two, so the multifamily option there on the right, does appear to be compliant. Option one, a lot of the entrances don't face the street. So that might be something that the Board wants to discuss with the applicant. Moving on. In terms of Chapter 11, which is now affordable homes and growth management, the development is subject to the requirements of inclusionary zoning. So it will be required to provide affordable housing or a payment in lieu. Essentially, they've got two routes they can take to get to discretionary permit. They can even provide the affordable housing on site between 10% and 15% of units depending on their affordability. If they follow this route, they would not need to compete with growth management. The applicants indicating that they're going to be providing 30% affordable to take advantage of the density bonus and the RZD. So it looks like they would be compliant with that. The other option they do have is to go through growth management. They would probably delay their application as the RZD is oversubscribed at present and it would probably take them a few years to accumulate all the allocation they needed. They would also have to make a payment in lieu for the affordable housing they were not providing on site. We expect that would be approximately $200,000. Access and connectivity. Access is likely to be compliant. They have direct access to Mountain View Road given the constraints imposed by land ownership and wetlands. That's the only access they could achieve. Two things. That means that they probably would be limited to 40 units because it essentially is a dead end and they wouldn't be able to connect through to the joining parcel. Just for context, the Board might recall that the joining parcel to the east is Sally's Way previously known as Michaud's development which has approval of 14 units. They did plat in a potential right-of-way connection to this parcel, but it does sort of terminate directly into the wetlands. So it looks like connectivity is not possible, unfortunately. And then lastly on Chapter 13, we are recommending that the discretionary permit include a transport study for traffic, looking at trip generation and how that's going to be distributed onto the surrounding roads and traffic impact fees to pay for mitigation measures for any impact they might be having. The parking is likely to be within the standards set by the bylaw. We do have minimum and maximum standards. Ultimately, the parking depends on the mix of units that staff has reviewed the two layouts and it looks like they will have enough parking to meet the requirements. Interestingly, the applicant is proposing solar canopies over many of the parking spaces. In October, the select board adopted a bylaw update that does allow solar canopies over parking areas within setbacks, which means some of those solar canopies that have joined the private road are going to be acceptable now. On-site infrastructure, so WDD 15, does require a sidewalk along both sides of the proposed roads. But there are some exceptions. The two options show that the applicant presented showed a sidewalk on the west side of the road, where the majority of the development is. But only in the vicinity of the community centre on the east side. Looking at the two options there, the ready purple line shows where sidewalk is not provided. Staff is recommending that we do provide it on the east side of the road for option one, to connect those homes in the south-east corner to the community centre on onto Mountain View Road. For option two, I think it would be appropriate for it to be on the east side of the road to connect the community centre to Mountain View Road. But the DRB might want to discuss whether it's necessary on the lower portion where it links the parking lot to the community centre. We anticipate compliance from neighbourhood parks. The applicant is proposing quite a large community centre, which we are a good building and does qualify as a part of the neighbourhood park. We have a lot of function in it, but we are recommending some outdoor facilities, particularly to benefit those multi-family homes that don't have yards. They could be provided with something outside. Sewer is a technical matter. They are in the sewer and water service area. The DRB may or may not recall that the adjoining Sally's way development is connecting through to the Meadow Run sewer pipe. So there is public sewer pipes in Meadow Run there. And there is a private pump station. The Meadow Run needs to let people connect to Subject to their negotiations. So what we are recommending here is the applicant liais with the owner of Sally's way and Meadow Run to hook into that public infrastructure and their private pump station. For accessory uses, we are recommending a construction management plan to be provided. This is something to indicate where fencing is going to be placed to prevent entry into the construction areas and how contractor parking will be managed. There is really a public safety issue, particularly to ensure that, particularly when the development is sort of partially occupied if that occurs to make sure that emergency vehicle access can be maintained and that residents aren't wondering what that means to construction areas. Density. Sort of density has got very complicated. But sort of the upshot is they are properly limited to the 14 dwellings here served by a single point of access. So Williston measures density on a dwelling unit equivalent basis where one dwelling unit equivalent is two bedrooms or more and a half dwelling unit equivalent is a studio or one bed. What that essentially means that if you were to develop lots of small units you can have up to 79 units whereas two beds you'd be restricted to 39 but of course they are still restricted by the 40 units on a dead-end road there. You may be aware from discussion on recent applications that the state recently enacted a law requiring municipalities to allow five dwellings per acre on any area served by water and sewer. So they'll be able to avail themselves of that but they're also doing their density bonus providing 30% to get up to those five units per acre. At this stage we don't have the precise unit mix so we can't calculate the development but I think there is perhaps a lack of clarity on density but I think the takeaways there are that they can develop to five dwellings per acre but they're probably capped by the 40 units on a single point of access so we do anticipate compliance there. Landscaping should be fairly standard. Type 3 landscaping buffers to the joining properties and they'll probably just be doing the parking lot landscaping as part of their discretionary permit requirement. Street trees are required along both sides of existing and new roads so they will need to be provided along the new road for the cul-de-sac. The DRP may waive the requirement for street trees along Mountain View Road to preserve the scenic vista. So at this stage we don't know exactly how the the grades are going to work. The adjoining development on Sally's way add discretionary permit the DRP to the decision not to waive the street tree requirement. I think in that case they were set back from the road and the changing grade meant that they were willing to fear with a view. So we are recommending we do that and we have a bit more information available to make a robust decision there. And then scenic view sheds. The property is within a scenic view. You can see on the right-hand side there's a viewpoint from Mountain View Road in the northwest corner looking across the parcel towards Knob Hill with Camels Hump in the background. In the RZD people should expect to have views with residential development in them and the protection of the view shed is not absolute. It does reference that view sheds can accommodate development with good site planning. But the sort of key aspect of the Bylaws Drive Act is to make sure that those buildings sort of blend into the background created by the slope and the trees to make sure that no building is sort of outlined against the sky. So for option one, so for option two most of the development is sort of on the west side and is pushed back from the road so there will probably be a slightly easier path to demonstrate in compliance with that. On the left on the option one there's a bit more development in the view shed. We do have buildings close to the road so that will take a bit more work to figure out what the impact on the view shed is. So I think... Lastly we do have the official map which is we have a multi-use path on the south side of Mountain View Road. Landowners need to demonstrate how they can accommodate the plan facility and WD-B15 does require sidewalks along roads. So in this case they need to make provision for that multi-use path across both the frontage of both locks so the new development and lock one recommending that the applicant accept it. That may be something the Board thinks about given their experience on that aspect. So that's it. What follows is a motion to allow it to proceed to either growth management or straight to discretionary permit if they go the inclusionary zoning route. That's it. Okay, thank you Simon. Okay, so walk us through the two options what the two options represent from your perspective. Sure, so could you put the options up? Yeah. Alright, we'll start with option one which is mixed... So there's a mix of housing types. There's single family dwelling which are the smaller ones with only kind of one entrance location. There's duplexes that have kind of the dual pieces and then there's the multifamily residential piece that's the L shape in the bottom. And so the site is configured based on the Maharishi Vasu principles and part of... That's kind of how the site was laid out and part of the important features of that is that entrances are on the east. So the entrance to the project is to the farthest point east possible on the site which is kind of why it is the configuration that it is and it's also very important that the entrances to the buildings face east. So... What is... Why is that in that principle? Yeah, so Jim McCollough here. The Shepastaveda several thousands of year old traditions ask that the houses face east the entrances face east and that the entrances come from the east. This is a science I guess you would say that's developed in India thousands of years ago it promotes health and well for the occupants and protection for the occupants and the properties as well. In the post today there's an article about a sort of a similar similar situation where the Mazusa goes near the front door of the Jewish people's houses and in fact you don't have to be Jewish to have one and through the millennia that Kelsman has been strongly believed to protect the occupants and the house. It's a somewhat similar idea. The Shepastaveda design was actually a precursor to Feng Shui which is more commonly understood today by Westerners. Okay, thank you. Based on what you just said did you say that there is no exit to the west out of any of these facilities? No, the principal entrances are on the east. Thank you. And there's also some north facing entries as well. So that is how the site is designed. That's why the site is laid out the way it is is based on those principles. So we have once you enter the site you come in and you can there's some side areas where you can park to access all of the various residential units. There's the community center building that is part of the open space. So that's on the wetland side of the road. And then we have our roundabout and that's kind of the nuts and bolts of the first option unless there's any questions about that one. What's the envisioned use of the community center? I beg your pardon. The envisioned use of the community center. Yeah, so the old guy is deaf in one ear and he can't hear out of the other and the fantastic acoustics in this room exacerbates the problem so it's only minimally worse than town hall. So would you ask again, please? Oh, I just said what is the envisioned use of the community center? Thank you. So the community center is intended to be used by primarily the members of that community and for those members who would be using it for their family get-togethers. And it is felt that it could also serve as an area that sort of in an indoor space that satisfies some of the recreation requirements, if you will. Potluck suppers, that sort of thing. And it would it'd be a space where friends from, of course, outside the community who were visiting members there could, would be as well. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. I notice these three buildings that are off by itself on a dead end with no turnaround. Don't we require a turnaround for fire apparatus on developments? It depends on how many units there are. Do you know what the regulation is there, Matt? I'm not sure usually in any dry place there's some kind of turning facility even for, you know, more than two. Well, I don't see, I don't see any kind of turnaround that's an option one down in the bottom corner. Some of it would also depend on how much the truck is able to access from the cul-de-sac versus going into the driveway, whether that driveway is so long as to require the truck actually go into it versus just pull up on the cul-de-sac. So we would look for some clarification from the fire department on that. Do you have any comments on that from an engineering and design perspective? Well, we didn't see any comments in the memo from the fire department on that. And so right now we feel comfortable with what's proposed, but we'll certainly take a closer look at it and work on planning and zoning to make sure it meets regulation. Okay. Alternate two. So option two is an option that just has multi-family housing. It does it so the just one unit type in terms of multi-family housing. There's no single family or duplex units on this. But otherwise it's generally the same layout, access points. The multi-unit, the multi-family units are served by parking lots to the north and south, and there's still the cul-de-sac piece and there's still the community center. So largely similar except for the unit type. And is that envisioned as three stories? I think those are two stories currently proposed. And I think that I, 36 I think is the height maximum, but these are two stories. Okay. Okay. DRB members, questions. I mean I like clarification that can you say definitively that they're two stories? Yeah. That's a big difference when we start talking about how well this fits into the context of the neighborhoods. Is that two stories at 36 feet or is that? No. Okay. So we don't have architectural plans. So that's a very important 10-0. So what the actual heights are, I'm not sure, but assume a standard two-story. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so you're like, I would assume so, but 10, 10 and 12 or something. Just. I would jump in and add that again, the Shvastaveta wants slabs on grade. They want the building and the occupants connected to the earth. So that would reasonably lower the overall height by maybe as much as a couple feet or even a bit more. But they wouldn't be like extra large stories that are at 36 foot height. Got it. And we heard from staff in option one here how the four homes along Mountain View could be in conflict with the viewscape. Could you just comment on that? Are there things that you're planning to reduce that conflict here? It could be building height. It could be something else. So of those buildings, three of the four are single, they're single story. So the duplex is a two-story building, but they'd have a low profile. And if you think about street trees, typically it's not really going to be any taller than the street trees. So building on that question, staff had suggested that a perspective be included, that would be showing a view of towards Campbell's Hump from there. I think that that would be a good thing to do because that two-story duplex is going to be right there. And it's going to be the first thing in this development that you see as you come as you head east. That's true. So there is some flexibility if we needed to shift that duplex into a different location on the site, maybe move around with the four single dwelling units that are just south of that. So there's a little bit of flexibility, but once we have that perspective, we'll have a little more information. So following up on that, then the other component, the other element here that plays into this conversation is street trees. So I think you need to think about what kind of trees those are, how they're going to get, whether those are things you want to include or whether you want to ask us to exempt those, which I think you have the right to do here. I do see it on your plans that you include the street trees along in front of block two as well. And I'll point this to staff as to whether what I wanted to is the subdivision here, part of this application, and therefore the street trees are going to be required on all of the blocks? Yes, we would. Do you have any comments on the sidewalk? We heard about continuing the sidewalk on the east side. Is there any reason you prefer not to or you agree it would be better? No, we would prefer not to include those. One is because we'd like to reduce the amount of impervious on the site. But generally going to be low traffic, like we've mentioned before, there's not going to be greater than 40 units. So we have provided connectivity throughout the site and we think that for those short distances that it is not unreasonable for folks to either use the sidewalk on the west side of the road or if it's low volume traffic, maybe folks are walking in the road or on the grass. We would like to leave it as proposed. Do you think it's the same for garages? No, but there are solar canopies provided where it makes sense over the exterior parking. So while it's not a garage, it would provide some cover. The solar canopies being the shaded area. Back on the sidewalks, I understand your reasoning for that. But I think there's a tremendous amount of value to providing sidewalks for its children their living units don't have to cross streets. And I can see that's why I will be suggesting that we keep on option one, the sidewalk to the east of the cul-de-sac. The other thing I don't understand is why the sidewalks don't navigate the community center. That can easily be remedied. What is the maximum number of handicapped spaces that are required for this development? By our code? Hold on. It will be four for the minimum number. Four for the 24 unit as well as all of the other units. So it's done by total number of spaces. So I think there are around 80 spaces which generates the need for four accessible spaces. Well, there's 33 in that and the one by the 24 dwelling unit. So there's 33 parking spaces. How many of those should be handicapped? It's total count of the whole project which is 80 and that's the formula which produces four total on the site. Three of which are very close to the large unit. As you would expect they would be. Right. Any other questions by the DOB? Yes. So I find this to be a very interesting application. The... I'm trying to understand to what extent those are driving... or why are those being included in one of these options? Not the other. And are these being designed for people who adhere to this religion or this principle? I don't think this is science. So are these units going to be limited to people who have these beliefs or do you feel that these are just principles that will attract evidence? So I'll take that. Yeah, but to the first point they are both designed to the same principles with the East facing. Okay, they're very different fields in the site. Yes. To what extent the site layout is also an example of those principles. They're both consistent with the principles. Yes. And to the second part of your question. So my bride and I, Lucy, she's in the audience right back here. She and I study and practice transcendental meditation for years. The building in the subdivided portion serves as a residence with the appropriately permitted 27% defunction as the transcendental meditation center. And transcendental meditation technique is again thousands of years old brought to this country and largely to the world out of India by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and that technique is taught in that building. It's not able to sustain the entire property and Lucy and I are very aware of the housing shortage in Chittenden County and Melissa's responsibility to step up and provide housing where we can and where available. And yes, it's a business opportunity to subdivide that property. So that's another important aspect. Given all of that, absolutely not a requirement to be a transcendental meditation practitioner and although it's felt that because of the severely limited number of projects of this nature in the East, this will be a fairly popular project bringing young families and young working families to the area, number one. And number two, if there are people and surely there will who are not transcendental meditators, the fact that they're being associated with others who are will quite likely we expect to become attracted to the technique themselves and further advancing the power of community there. Will there be a homeless association such that we could all know? We haven't addressed that, but I would expect that there will be. We don't have any association plans at this point in time, but with the private street and lands that are going to be gardens and places for picnic tables and paths for walking, it's going to be kind of like community land in there. Community center will also be jointly held. Yeah, yeah. I'm not sure you can avoid the homeless association. Yeah, I guess I just worry that I don't know what those bylaws would be and whether they're going to be promoting transcendental medication or if they should be on chin or not. I just hate to get into the stuff where we're getting into discriminatory. Yeah, but I think that it's better to just cut this conversation because even what you're trying to avoid, you're actually going into. Well, all right. Let me take this a little further then, please. Because there's a discussion here about whether these streets, whether these entrances have a direct sidewalk to the road. And the only reason they don't is because they're trying to adhere to these principles. And that I do think is something that we need to talk about. That's a concern of mine. I mean, it's not that I don't like these. I think this is fine. But it seems like this is not in compliance with our bylaw. And really, our core mission as a DRB is to judge compliance with the regulations and not weigh in on principles and some of the things that are being introduced here. It's really not our place to weigh in on that and uncomfortable with even as far as we've gone so far. Fine. I would like to talk about the fact that these sidewalks or that the front door entrances don't address the street like the bylaw. And I apologize for taking a long time to get there. That's fine. And proceed with that line of questioning, John, please. I'm just wondering whether there's any leeway in our bylaws at all that would allow us to permit this. So my reading of the 39.9.2.1 is the relevant requirement, which is highlighted there. It does use the word must. The principle building entrances must face the street with a direct pedestrian connection. And I think it's very challenging to say that the option one does meet that requirement. Must is quite strong. So Matt, the Hamlet has a layout that is fairly similar to this and does that layout predate the current bylaw requirements? Yes, it does. So that couldn't be permitted. That design could not be permitted at this point as well, right? So Scott was asking about the project in Williston called the Hamlet. There are some residential units within the Hamlet that don't face the street. They face a central green. A central walkway similar to this. Yeah, they have a walkway. They have an indirect connection to the street. The Hamlet was originally proposed in either 2006 or 2007. That's its subdivision approval number. This bylaw was adopted in June of 2009. Okay. All right. Thank you. John, do you have anything further to add to that? No, it's not the answer I wanted, but... Okay. But, you know, I think... I'm trying to look through my notes here. It seems to me that I did have another one somewhere. Okay. Well, go ahead and look for your notes. No, I'm done. We'll take your time. Scott, any questions? No, I'm good. Paul? I'm good. Questions here? No. Okay. Members of the audience, are there any members of the audience that would like to come forth to the public table and address the board? Sir, please head over to the table, speak into the mic, and provide your name and address for the record, please. Is this on? I'm Gerry Demeray. Metal Run Road in Williston. Can I ask questions? I'm not sure how your procedure is. You asked questions through the board. Yeah, okay. And so, if you would address us, then we will direct them back. I had a question on... I'm looking at the map, and there's one large building on the left-hand side that looks like the West. I was wondering how big that building was, and it looks like there's 24 apartments in that building. So, are you looking at option one or two? I'm looking at one. Option one, okay. So, 24 units are proposed. It's two stories. Four, three. I'm sorry? We don't know yet if it's two or three stories. No, the applicant said two stories. Two stories. And so, that would be 12 units per floor. And do you have an approximate dimensions of that building? Yeah, the width is... It's either 65-foot width, which is pretty standard for a building of this type, and then I can't remember the north-south. So, I won't hazard a guess, because I don't have the dimensions in front of me. You are sticking with a two-bedroom unit as one dwelling unit. Do I see 24 dwelling units? Yes, we have 24 dwelling units, but the actual makeup in terms of one-bedroom, two-bedroom hasn't been determined. And I know that that changes. So, it'll be 24 units? 24 apartments? Or will it be... Because you can have 48 one-bedroom units. Right. Yes, and that's the part we haven't... You haven't figured that out yet. Exactly. Okay. And are these... It just came to mind. Are these rental units or first-sale units? That I'm very sure that it'll be a mix. And should it be a mix? Well, am I very sure of that? Probably not very sure. I guess I don't know the answer to that. Most... If the perpetually affordable units, I think some of which would reasonably be owned by the people who are purchasing them. There may be some that are actually rented at the appropriate price. So I don't know the answer to that, Peter. Okay. Okay, sir. Continue. So this could be absentee owners with a rent... Rent them out. He's been... Well, I don't know if I would refer to them as absentee. They would be renters. They would owner that would not have to be present. They could rent them. There could be. Oh, could the renter sublet them? Okay. Is that your question? Well, it could be a condominium and the owner rents it out to somebody else. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it could be all kinds of different possibilities. Yeah, there's no... We don't have any part of our by-law that precludes it. Yeah, we don't have any. Don't know. Okay. I was looking at the parking space. How many parking spaces are there? It looks like there's... 80. 80? That's what I remember. Is that right? Roughly? Approximately correct. Okay. Okay. Approximately 80 parking spaces. 80 parking spaces. The community center, is that going to be... be used by outside people? Question I would ask. I don't see by-spaces in other communities. So the question, Jim, is the community center... is the community center going to be for residents of the development only, or can outside users use the community building as well? That would end up being likely in the by-laws. In our minds right now, it's primarily for use by the residents of the project with their invited guests as well. So in that regard, it is available for people who live outside of the project. Is it intended to be able to be rented out for functions from the general public? That's not the idea at the moment. Which is why there's also limited parking, and there is street parking. So the idea is that a lot of the users will be internal to the site. Matt, what do our by-laws say relative to community centers such as the one being proposed and used by non-residents? Is there any limitations on renting or leasing that space to members who don't reside in the neighborhood? No, there's no limitations related to a community space that's created as part of a residential project being able to be used by others. We recently, as a town, made use of the community facility at Finney Crossing by renting it from the members association to hold the building. That's fairly common. Did that answer your question, sir? Sort of, yes. I had a question about sidewalks outside. If you drive down Mountain View Road, people drive fast. So if people come out this driveway to live there and they're walking, are there going to be sidewalks? I mean, because I come around that corner, people drive down there really fast. You mean sidewalks along Mountain View, right? Right. There'll be sidewalks within the development and then the intention is that they'll construct a path within their parcel. I'm talking about up Mountain View because the only way you could right now would be to walk on the edge of the road. So people, if they live right there and they're coming out, I mean, going up to the next corner, people drive through there 40 miles an hour more and there's not much room. So Simon, why don't you draw on the, and project on the screen please, what is likely to be a requirement of this development for the walking path along Mountain View? And because I think that'll address this question. It's not going to address the entirety of Mountain View. It's only the only influence that we have at this stage is to require the path along the parcel that is being reviewed tonight for this application. And so that's not going to have, I don't think it's going to completely solve your concern about safety. Well, I drive through there a lot. So, you know, it's a concern. About safety and passage along all of Mountain View. But for this, the limitations of what's in front of the board right now, we have an opportunity to influence what's shown on right there. And we will take that off. And one more question. Lot two over here. Is that another development or is that the same, a different building in this setup? I see existing property. So that's existing to stay there? Yes. Oh, okay. I didn't know it said lot two. And it was pretty good size. So this is, Simon, correct me if I have this wrong, but this is a big parcel. Lot two is an existing home. Lot two is going to be subdivided into a smaller parcel with the larger parcel is being developed into new residential housing. I'm not sure if I understood that. So lot two has one building right now. That's going to be subdivided. Lot two is, so this house right here is on this whole parcel right now. And this is being subdivided into its own lot. And then this is becoming a new lot where this new housing is proposed. Okay. It's separate, but that's going to be developed too. Lot two. No. Lot two will state, if you look on, can you see the screen there? So the green area is lot two and that just stays as it is, but it is separated off from the larger parcel. So the moment the entire parcel is outlined in red and lot two is part of that larger parcel. So lot two and lot one are separated. They develop on lot one and lot two just has the existing home with a big front yard. Right, but that's going to be developed. It's already a house. It's already developed. Okay, but that's not going to be subdivided in there? That's not being proposed to be subdivided. Okay, just leave it what it is then. That's what has been proposed. I can't promise you what will happen in the future. I can just comment on what's being proposed. Okay. And the last, these, number two, you got two large kind of like apartment buildings that look like, so you got the first proposal. The second one is two, two large apartment buildings look like with 18 or 20 in each apartment building, correct? I'd refer to them as multi-family housing. Multi-family, okay. Because we don't know, we just heard from the applicant that the decision hasn't been made as to whether or not they're all rental, all for sale, some combination. Okay. And so just consider multi-family housing at this point. Okay. Two-story multi-family housing. Okay, good. Okay, thank you. Okay. Other members of the audience, would you like to, anyone want to address the board? Any members on Zoom? I did have a question on Zoom. Janet, if you'd like to unmute yourself, I believe it's about access. You might have answered the question. I think they took care of it already. Thank you. I think it was about the sidewalk where I think in the plans, it said that... Hold on, Janet. We can't hear you yet. Just... Oh, I'm muted on my side. I'm unmuted from my side. Can you do you need to unmute me from your side? Or can you hear me? Janet, we can't hear you in the meeting room right now. If you just wait a second. Appreciate your patience. Oh, yeah. Can you hear me now? We can hear you now. Yep. Okay. It was mainly the earlier question about the sidewalks on both sides of the road. And I guess along the main road, and it seemed to say in the instructions on the... Anyway, that it was only if there were houses on that side of the road that you would have to have a sidewalk. And the plans showed that there were no houses on those segments that were highlighted. And also the guidelines said that each house or each dwelling unit had to have a direct access to the road. But if you had a sidewalk that took somebody to a road or their parking lot, it wouldn't have to have the house facing the road, would it? The main thing is you want to have... The people have a way to get to their car or get to a sidewalk. So if that were provided, wouldn't that be sufficient? Otherwise, you have to have more and more roads, more and more roads coming up, more and more land to have every house be on a road. So, Matt or Simon, would you please read the excerpt from the bylaws that pertain to this question, please? Yeah, sure. So I think we're talking about WDB 39.9 here, which talks about trying to get pedestrian-friendly development. So the relevant section is here about pedestrian connections, which is all principal building entrances must face the street and there must be a direct pedestrian connection between the principal building entrance and the adjoining sidewalk or trail. So I think the layout they've shown definitely has that direct pedestrian connection. But I think we were discussing that they don't have the principal building entrance facing the street. In some cases, they're facing, well, not the street. But there would still be a direct pedestrian connection between the building and the sidewalk that gets you to that road. The layout they've shown do show direct pedestrian connections, but it's an and, not an or. That bylaw does need both of those criteria to be fulfilled. Any additional comments? Anything else, Janet? Oh, no, I'm sorry. I thought I had made myself. No, it's fine. I guess I don't know. Okay, thank you very much. Janet, what is your address for the record, please? Her address is 88 Mountain View Road. Okay, so Janet's the resident and what is proposed is Law 2? Correct. Okay, thank you. Thank you. That's helpful. Okay, so we've given the audience an opportunity to weigh in. Are there any other questions? Are there any other raised hands for people participating remotely? Okay, DRP members, questions? So Jerry brought up a question earlier about Law 2 and 1 and the multi-use path along the road. It seems that that should probably extend all the way through Law 2 if we're going to build it on Law 1, and it's only shown on Law 1 right now. I think what Simon showed on his sketch, it was continuing through to... I think that he was drawing that, but I don't think it's actually not the plan. I think that will probably be something else. That's something that we're going to talk about. I envision it being required through Law 2 as well. That's very intuitive. I agree. But we'll talk about that in deliberations. Anything else, John? No. Okay. I don't know why I'm so proposed to you. I'm sorry? I said I don't know why I'm so proposed to you. The acoustics are horrible in here. Any other questions? Anything else? No. Okay. Hearing no other questions, I'm going to close DP 24-08 at 820. Thank you very much. And as I leave, I thank each and every one of you for your volunteer time for our community. I very much appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Give us a moment here to get organized. Or at least meet a moment to get organized. Lisa, would you please state for the record your reason for recusing yourself on this one? Yes, I'm a neighbor on Better Network. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP 24-09. Would the applicant please state your name and address, please? Yep. Anna Benedetto, 1318 Butternut Road. Abby Derry, Trudeau Consulting Engineers. Okay. Staff goes next. So this is another request for a pre-application review this time on Butternut Road in the agricultural rural residential zoning district. The property currently has one home on it and they're proposing a three-lot subdivision to create two additional homes. Staff is recommending approval and that the DRB take testimony discuss a few issues and approve the pre-app. We did not receive any comment letters on this proposal. We do anticipate compliance with the dimensional standards of the bylaw, so pertaining to things like height and setbacks and lock frontage in terms of open space development because the parcel's less than 10.5 acres. It's not required to protect the open space on a separately plated lot. This means instead each home needs a lot of 1.84 acres. The parcel's defined as infill development. However, the applicant may choose to develop using an open space pattern in which case they'd only need just over a third of an acre per home which would enable them to cluster the new homes in one area of the parcel and keep more land available. But as I mentioned earlier, that is the applicant's choice. WDB 31.9 sets out various criteria for newly created lots. Many of these are dealt elsewhere in the bylaws. One thing it does do is to minimize impacts associated with new homes and screen them from public rights away. It should be noted there's no requirement for homes to be invisible and brief views are acceptable. There's existing vegetation on but not low. Roadside vegetation which does provide some screening. There are some variation in the effectiveness there and the proposal will be sort of cutting two new access drives. So the DRB may want to discuss whether it's necessary to mitigate that at all perhaps by picking up the roadside vegetation where it's there. For access, they're proposing two additional access roads onto Bundnut Road. WDB 31.2.1 does allow the DRB to acquire shared driveways to reduce the number of points of access. You're welcome to discuss that with the applicant and see what their views are. We did ask DPW whether they have any preference for consolidation and they do not. In terms of on-site infrastructure, this is fairly standard but we do require all utilities to be placed underground and we require the discretion and permit to come with documentation from the remote Department of Conservation that they've got a suitable wastewater disposal system and sufficient groundwater to support the development. Density is generally fine. They are below the density, the allowed density for the property so they could get up to four units on there and they're proposing three including the existing dwellings so they are below that. Landscaping is compliant as well. They're proposing the required setbacks and then lastly, well, conservation areas. They are within a view shared. Have we to discuss this conservation commission? The review is over a mile away and so the commission is confident there'll be no impact there. The property does contain some significant wildlife habitat area however that is all within the existing home lots so there won't actually be any development in that area so we're not requiring a habitat disturbance assessment in this case. And then lastly, we've made the standard recommendation on erosion control. They have delineated some wetlands in the parcel. We know from experience that on occasion home placement where it's too close to the wetland buffer grant can create challenges for future homeowners to accommodate their sort of backyard, decks and pools and so on. So we might want to explore minor alterations to that home site to try and future proof that for the eventual home owner. So then what follows is a recommendation to approve a series of recommendations set out there for the DRP. Okay, thank you Simon. Okay, walk us through the application please. Hi, I'm Anna. Essentially the property is a lot for me to manage. I do everything by myself and this is kind of just giving an opportunity to do a lot of fixing the place that needs done and kind of make an investment at the same time. So Anna came to us and asked what the parcel could support. She wasn't interested in maximizing the density. So we did our environmental studies, looked at the wetlands, done sort of test pits to see what kind of onsite subject could be accommodated and came up with this three lot subdivision. So the homes shown in the plan are just illustrator at this point. We're hoping to just create building envelopes. So someone who would purchase the property could build wherever they needed to within that envelope. And that is, that's the application. Three lot subdivision. Okay. And one of the, let me just find it here, and a recommendation is that number two C shared driveway comments on that place. That's reasonable. That's fine. I mean, initially we, it is sometimes an easier sale to market an individual lot as just a selling point so that the owners don't have to be burdened by somebody else's driveway. But if that's the way the board wants to go to recommend it's something that we can live with. Okay. Have you read the rest of the proposed recommendations? I have. Any concerns? Yeah, no concerns other than the homesite shown not being, we don't want to be locked into where the homesite is shown on this plan. I'd rather just propose a building envelope when we go to discretionary and have that be acceptable for somebody to build anywhere within that envelope. DRB members, questions? Yeah, I was just kind of, I mean, this is a pre-application. So you're looking for feedback from us before we make your review of this presentation on that application. So I think that obviously you will be putting those on there. Anything that we would comment on that tonight is a recommendation. I think it's important to clarify your thinking as you've been able to develop these further. I would even suggest that the single versus shared driveway would fall into that category. I don't see it as a huge feeling the way on this road. I was just getting the applicant's feedback. So anyway, I guess that's at least one opinion here and we'll discuss this and there'll be that. The question I had was did you understand the difference here about the open space versus the infill versus I forget the other term. We were using the infill development versus open space in that my understanding is that that might allow you to put these as second homes on a smaller parcel but we're constrained a little bit by where we can put the septic and where the wealth can be placed. We don't want to do a shared septic system. We just want each lot to be independent of the other. Any other questions, John? No, just that. I like the idea of these houses being a little closer to the road and more of that. No, that was a good recommendation to see what we can do to relook at the moment. Yeah. Okay, Scott? Paul? Nate? Is Butternut a town maintained road or is it a private road? No, it's not a town maintained road. No, it is. That's all I got. Members of the audience, any questions? Sir, if you come up to the table and state your name and address for the record, please. Yes, I'm Richard Hart and this is my wife in-part. We've lived on Butternut Road for 45 years and watched the change and we have some comments that we would like to leave with you. Our understanding was we're making seven numbers and we made seven copies in one first half. Sorry if I got the math wrong, but I can assure you that this will be more organized in my comments. Okay, start from the top, please, Richard. Well, the first a single lot of six plus four acres would be significantly more consistent with the character of the neighborhood than what is being proposed. Second, the driveway's lot to our concern in the driveway faces right into our kitchen and family room which is shown in the picture on page two of what we handed out. So that's problem one. But secondly the lot being proposed lot, what's called lot three is a poster child for what doesn't work on Butternut Road or most of Vermont. It is a long, long driveway with an 8% grade and even the neighbors, the Ossles who sold their property to the current resident had a attempt at that originally and it created great risks to them passengers, bikers, walkers, horse deliverers and receivers, et cetera and they had to eventually curve their approach to Butternut Road so that it wasn't a straight shot as lot three proposes. What happens and I'm sure I don't need to lecture you on Vermont winners but even if you create a crown in the driveway the snowplow can take off some of that crown but more importantly two banks of what hard frozen snow get created on each side of the driveway and you basically create a screen and it has a great impact on both the residents but also us personally the town and the state who have spent way more time and money than they want to on repairing Butternut Road I don't know how many of you have traveled it but I know the town public works department travels it often and it is because there's more water going down the road than it can handle and it creates washout in our properties washouts downstream and safety hazards and I'd love to have you come visit us sometime on that. Another issue is that the proposal cites a well on our property which is west of the proposed development property where our well is not correctly located our well is actually sorry to the south and east of our home and if you correctly located our well and then modified the setbacks and whatnot that are required for a well setback you would find that the site design would go from stretched to very strained to put two properties on this remaining part of the parcel and I don't do that I don't own that technology but just make sure that the applicant has our well properly cited to be closer to the road and further south than it is on this proposed site plant so I've covered a lot in our submission and I would actually say in finality that when you do all those things you will find I think that a six acre and four acre subdivision is both much more in keeping with the neighborhood and also makes resolution of technical driveway and driveway cuts and drainages and potable water compliance more reasonable and better in the spirit in compliance of our laws and regulations and I ask my wife to add you've said it all well there's a change I want that recorded happy to ask questions any questions for this member of the public that's coming no other than I think it's well written and clear and concise so I think the applicant should pay attention to it and I did send this to the applicant this afternoon when we put it together okay yeah this is well done thank you I have a couple extra copies I sounds like they already have it I got it any questions okay thank you any other members of the audience that would like to weigh in on this application any members of the public participating remotely okay Abby and Anna any thoughts on what was just introduced do you prefer to not comment I appreciate the notes we will review them and incorporate them into the final design okay okay just out of curiosity what is your well how deep is it what are you producing how many gallons from in there are you getting I'm sorry first my hearing isn't good just what's the current performance of our well depth of well and gallons per minute he I run great risk of I don't know and would be happy to email that to your staff or you it's not necessary I was just curious to know when you start punching more wells in an area well this is integrity it's not good it's so if I may interject so so the Wilson DRB doesn't doesn't deal with wells and that's a state controlled item and and so I prefer not to talk about wells understood I will only share that data with you if I get a request thank you DRB members any other questions any final comments okay it's 842 we're going to close DP24-09 thank you next up is DP24-10 this is a pre-app for North Williston Cattle Company at 347 Fay Lane this is a proposed three lot subdivision welcome if you would please state your name and address for the record please Mary Woodcombe 347 Fay Lane I'm sorry they're shuffling out of the papers I didn't hear what you said Lorenzo Woodcombe 347 thank you welcome okay staff goes next so this is the subdivision the intention here is to create lots around existing homes they're not proposing any new homes or any new development so the parcel is currently occupied by three homes so they will be drawing a lot around 347 and then a further lot around 151 and 221 so there'll be two homes on that lot and then also providing a couple of open space lots the bylaw is silent on whether you can have two homes on a lot so that is fine they just need to meet the minimum lot sizes we're recommending approval with recommendations as drafted the applicant can so should they choose designate a lot around each dwelling so three house lots and the open space lots or continuous proposed with just two home lots we didn't receive any public comment these these homes were created in the 1990s under a previous situation of the bylaws the lot sizes conforming however they do not have the open the ARZD open space standards we're recommending that at discretionary permit they include a draft with some updates to the labeling really that's just to turn it into standard toning terminology using open space lots and local land and housing lots sorry lot one and two for the house lots one thing to note is that this 11 acre parcel is actually part of a much larger parcel that incorporates the farm but because it's split by a road right of way our bylaw does treat them as two parcels after discretionary permit they'll be asked to continue to meet the standards of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation for wastewater and well just to make sure that the SOD division doesn't create any ownership or maintenance problems they meet the density requirements as I mentioned earlier if they do keep two units on the same lot they just need to make sure that the lot sizes are appropriate and meet the 0.7 acre requirement the site plan they've shown does show that but for dimensional standards we can ask them to put the setbacks on their site plan so 50 front yard setback and 15 foot side yard setbacks because this is all existing development it would be acceptable if any of the existing structures are in the front yard setback we are requesting that the new lots are drawn so that we don't create any new non-continuities with side and rear setbacks at discretionary permit they will be required to provide 75% open space you may have noticed in the intro there was a little small discrepancy between what's shown on the plan and the assessors' guard so as part of developing their discretionary permit they will get a survey done which will establish exactly how much land needs to be set aside to meet that 75% requirement and then lastly because it's a forested site they'll be asked to set aside home sites and normally those are half acre but where the existing structures and sheds and pools and so on exceed half acre they may be able to rely on non-conforming standards to have a larger envelope so that's it what follows is a recommendation to approve with detailed recommendations as set out in report thank you Simon anything to add this is a plan that we're working on transferring ownership of the farm to my nephew and keep the farm viable we want to separate our home to make the farm more affordable for my nephew and to provide an ongoing home for my wife and myself yep that's what I figured you were doing not that that matters but it's your title to do this any questions from the DRB just like a little clarification on the map I see on the front page of the staff there are three different addresses but you're saying that two of those buildings are actually on a single plot yes right now all three of them are on all three of them are on a single plot you're subdividing this into two yeah and the undevelopable land is included where this is really confusing what we were given it's not clear what you're trying to do we all understand what you're trying to do I can explain well there's a one acre lot around 347 failing at our house and then there's another acre on the back side of that that's undeveloped and are you attaching that extra acre to 347 yes so 347 will have two acres we could survey it out in two laws because they want us to delineate the undeveloped land the undeveloped land but it's all just going to be one lot a two acre lot for your house and then the other house shows 2.4 acres but you're adding 7.25 acres to that there's two houses there's two houses there's a house and a trailer house and a trailer yes you can't put your mobile home on that aerial shot but they're they're ringed in green there you can just about make out mobile home there it's close to the road so what would happen is here is they'd have to plot all the open spaces a separate lot but they can have two two open space lots and keep one with 347 and one with the other ones so essentially you would own one lot you would own two lots one of which is open space and then someone else would own two lots one of which is open space so it's all said and done there's 75% of the land there's so many of it what is the development going to see whatever the direction that is east of your house of 2.1 there's a big parking lot yeah that's an old bunker silo that you don't know it's basically a black top parking lot yeah I'm done with that and I'm just trying to read how that it's being undevelopable it seems like it's developed because it's farm it's agricultural we're not going to regulate that nobody's going to live in a bunker silo everybody good any last comments okay okay we're going to close dp 24-10 at 8.52 thank you okay we're going to go into deliberative session okay welcome back to the town of Williston Development review board for Tuesday December 12th 2023 the board is out of deliberative session is there a motion for dp 11-08.1 yes as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 I Nathan Anders moved to the Williston Development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendation of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of December 12th 2023 except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for dp 11-08.1 and approved this discretionary permit for a master sign plan subject to the conditions of approval above this approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek administrative sign permits which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based thank you Nate is there a second I'll second it Scott Riley seconds it any discussion yay or nay Nate yay Paul Lisa Scott the chair is a yay six in favor not opposed motion carries is there a motion for dp 24-08 yes as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 I John Hemmelgarn moved at the Williston Development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required by law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of December 12 2023 accept the recommendations for dp 24-08 and authorized this application to move forward to growth management and or discretionary permit review we are going to adjust a couple of the recommendations specifically to F we will strike the first sentence in there that says a sidewalk should be provided along the east side of the road for both options the resulting recommendations shall read a sidewalk should be provided along the east side of the road for option one and on the east side of the road between the community center and Mountain View Road for option two per WDB 15.3 second recommendation to modify is 2L that will read in its entirety construction of the multi-use path the Mountain View Road frontage of the entire parcel to include both lot 1 and lot 2 along with an irrevocable offer of dedication to the town per WDB 1 152 15.2 15.2 and 30.0 30.0 yep good okay thank you John is there a second Paul seconds it any discussion yay or nay Nate Paul Lisa Scott John is there a motion for DP24-09 yes as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all of the accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards are required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of December 12, 2023 accept the recommendations for DP24-09 and authorize this application to move forward to discretionary permit review we are adding to the recommendations we are adding number 5 and that will read the Board recognizes the concerns of the neighbor Mr. Richard Park whose address and location is 1259 Butterwood Road and requests that the application considers the relevant portions of his comment letter great is there a second I'll second thank you is there any discussion Nate seconds at any discussion okay your name Paul Lisa has abstained on this one Scott Riley John the chair is a 5 and favor not opposed one abstention is there a motion for DP24-10 as authorized by the committee the 6.3 I call the abstention move and the Williston Development review board and review the application submitted in all of the signatures including recommendations and the advisory board commented on this application by the Williston Development and having her truly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of December 12, 2023 except the recommendations for DP24-10 and authorize this application forward to discretionary permit review thank you Paul is there a second is there any discussion your name Paul Lisa John the chair is a 6 in favor not opposed is there a motion to approve the minutes of November 28 I would like to make a motion to approve minutes of November 28 as written with one modification which would be recommendation 2E for application 24-07 DP24-07 can you reference the page number please page 14 of 16 on the minutes and that it should read that WDB 16 a snow storage plan in compliance with 16.6 a solid waste plan in compliance with WDB 16.7 the requirement for a supplemental screening hedge around the dumpsters is not required in addition to the fence and wall thank you John is there a second Scott Riley seconds it is there any further discussion your name Paul Lisa Scott John the chair is a 6 in favor none opposed is there any other business to bring forth tonight there was item number 3 on the agenda which was an update I think on the form-based code projects yep correct I didn't know if Matt had anything you wanted to say there is there anything to the staff would like to comment on yeah so you have a couple of projects you have a big story residential in St. George related to the luncheon staff position that you all saw a few months ago that's kind of a project to be meeting on Friday any single story retail commercial building on the market street under review about their hotels that was the first one right yes so they had a groundbreaking ceremony last week that was the very first thing reviewed under the code we've obviously muddled through some other small administrative minor permits for things that are happening in the overlay district but where the code doesn't play a big role but we do have a few projects going we expect a few more in the near future great and those are open to the public if anyone wanted to come in you can come to our conference room where you can zoom in and we do record the proceedings of those meetings and publish them on our form-based code review project review committee page on the website so they have a page just like the DRV page in all the application materials and staff reports and links to recordings of the meetings go there right ok anything else Matt is there a motion to adjourn is there a second second all in favor aye any opposed thank you all