 Welcome to the Wilson Development Review Board meeting of July 25, 2023. My name is John Hemmelgarn, vice chair of the DRB, and I'll be chairing the meeting this evening. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the town hall annex conference room and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All those taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, this meeting will be continued to August 8, 2023. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Dave Andrews is not here. Paul Christensen. Lisa. Great and tired there. Scott Riley. David Turner. Here. It's here. Kelly is not participating in the meeting. So we have five members. And therefore we have a forum. And suppose I should say that we call this meeting to order 7-11. And we have just one item on the agenda tonight in the 23-day 17. Three JT LLC requested discretionary permit to subdivide a 4.4 acre lot into three separate blocks. So the first item on our agenda is the public forum where the public has opportunity to speak on topics that are not on the agenda. Is there anything anyone in person? Oh, you know, we should do the Zoom instructions if we have anybody. Yep. So for our online attendee, you're already signed in. Please keep yourself on mute when you're not speaking camera on or off is at your discretion. If you would like to comment, you can press the raise hand button on the toolbar or let us know in the chat. So first we need to pass and no raise hands for public comment. Okay, great. So we'll move on to our public hearing of DP 23 days 17. We will call this hearing. We'll open this hearing at 714. Who is here to represent the applicant? Abby Dairy from Trudeau Consulting Engineers. Great. Address? 478 Blair Park Road. So, Emily. Yep. So this is a request for a discretionary permit to subdivide an existing parcel into three parcels. A lot one would be 2.61 acres and would contain the existing building that's present on the site. A lot two would be about 0.8 acres. It fronts along which way where we anticipate a building in the near future. And then not three. This label here is not for actually a lot three would be 1.14 acres. It would be towards the rear end of the parcel. It'll remain parking for now. This property is in the top corner zoning district. But more importantly, the form based code overlay district. So the purpose of this subdivision is to create parcels that comply with the dimensional requirements of form based code. So currently the property has a commercial use on it and existing office building. With a bank and a bank drive through. No new uses are being proposed at this time. It's merely the subdivision. And the property has access on a state highway. It was not subject to design or conservation commission review. It was not subject to design or conservation commission review. Tonight staff is recommending that you take testimony and close the hearing. Deliberate and make an approval. We're recommending approval with the addition of condition number 12. Project history. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing this subdivision. You may recall in October of 2020. A pre application review for a 7600. Sir.porafs on route to a that project never moved forward through permitting. However, this subdivision is anticipation in a building that's similar area in the future. Public works. Comments are included. They're mainly about meeting clarifying information about utilities and stormwater billing. They fire department did not have. the certificate of conformity process. No comment letters were received at the time of mail-out, July 20th, nor were any comment letters received to date. I do note that a certificate of conformity application is anticipated for lot two but it has not been filed and that's the administrative design and permitting process for buildings and site development under form-based code. The underlying tap corner zoning district does not have a minimum lot size for this district so compliance anticipated there. The proposed subdivision complies with the subdivision planning requirements and final plan requirements and then one condition is added to ensure compliance with the form-based code. What's shown on the screen is an excerpt of the regulating plan map. This roughly four and a half acre parcel has access onto Route 2A and they share a driveway with the abutting property to the north. The regulating plan envisions that shared access driveway to be redeveloped into a street shown on the regulating plan is Bruce Ave. This parcel is bisected on the north south on the up-down on this map by Polly Lane which is shown in hatching as a tier two street. So we're anticipating or requiring the construction of Polly Lane as part of this subdivision or as part of the future development of lot two. It may be required if and when lot three or lot one come in for redevelopment and the subdivision that's being proposed doesn't preclude the development of Polly Lane. The western edge of the existing parking building, excuse me, the existing office building on lot one, those partially extend into the Polly Lane right of way and that's why it's shown is that tier two street because it conflicts with an existing structure. Blocks and alleyways, the subdivision plan and boundaries comply as proposed. We are adding a condition related to an alleyway. So form-based codes to streets must be interconnected. There must be alleyways in the middle of blocks. This property shares a block or two abutting properties to the south where a bank is currently and that partially proposed all the grocery store was reviewed. Can I ask a quick question? Could you go back to Polly Lane? That is that was part of I assume that was part of the of the original mapping that you did or in advance of form-based code. Yes it was it was added to the map or adopted as part of the form-based code. So why would the right-of-way of Polly Lane extend into the existing building if you knew the building was there? Why would why wouldn't you have moved it to the side so it didn't conflict with it? So in a few places in tap corners we had blocks that were overly long based on the principles. The office building block is overly long? Correct. So this block without something dividing it is long and if you put that street Polly Lane completely out of the building or start to try to move it reasonably away from it you create an overly long block in a short walk. So the solution we came up with was that sometimes we would put streets on the regulating plan that intersected with an existing building and we didn't want to give those the same force in the review process as streets that were over an existing driveway or just over undeveloped land. So that hatching the designation as a level two street or a tier two street says this is a street that's required if the building that's in the way of it is demolished and redeveloped essentially. So then okay one so take that one step further than you said as part of your analysis that they're required to build it. No, they're not required. They're not required. They're not required to build it. They would only be required to build it if they were redeveloping a lot of that building on it. If the lot is rear with the parking lot. They weren't building down but they wouldn't be required to tear the building down but if they didn't tear the building down right they could not rebuild up to the same point that it was at. Right they would they would need to accommodate. Another example of this if anybody's familiar with where actually furniture is in where part there's a level two street that runs straight through the Ashley furniture building to come out and connect to route two that would only be required if that entire site was redeveloped in the building demolished. Another example runs down the backside of the Taft Corner Shopping Center right behind the Hilton storm water pond only if that entire site was redeveloped would that street be required as part of development pattern there. Okay so there's just there's just places where come up with the block pattern pattern we needed to draw a street but it was in conflict with existing development where you didn't want to require and was essentially the lot was being scraped and started from scratch. And that's what you're going to or to the street. Yes. So the subject parcel highlighted in blue it shares this overall block with two abutting parcels to the south. So this overall block is bounded by route two a on the east right avenue on the south inter-trader lane along the west and then Bruce Avenue along the north. In order for this to comply with floor based code there needs to be an internal alleyway that runs either north south or east west along this property boundary and then if the neighboring properties ever come in to develop they would build their portion and connect into the alleyway system. So that's what condition number 12 is saying that the plat needs to show the alleyway on on the plan. I'm sorry and where would that where would that alleyway be? So the way I have condition number 12 worded and then I'll jump back to the map. Does it need an alleyway or at minimum half an alleyway along the property line between proposed lots one and two and the abutting properties to the cell. So it would be along here. It would come out and have frontage along route two a however we're not requiring them to connect through to route two a when that building is developed we know that the state is going to say no you can't have something coming out on the state highway so that alley would probably you know dead end before it gets to the right of way of the state. This won't affect the new building they're talking about putting on lot two. Are you going to have an alley go right through the middle of that? It's going right through the the existing office building too right. All right so you're expecting to have an application at some point in time for a building that's going to front route two right and if you go back to that you're showing an alley you're showing an alley right through the middle of that parcel. Because I'm right in my so we're down here. Are you down there? Yeah so we're between Bitsbott and Northfield Savings Bank to the um okay all right so I'm looking I guess I'm looking at it through that little building. So the idea is this subdivision would would designate basically half an alley along its property line such that um if we're you know as redevelopment proceeds an alley included benzo would be created that comes out of T2. So it would be the southern line of the blue line. Yeah the bottom of the blue line. Yeah all right you got it. Yeah so that blue line is this line and on the flat it shows 25 foot easement to NET so that dashed line and alley would run somewhere along the way. Okay welcome to the farm base code. Well the the the thing about it is that there are a lot of these infrastructure pieces that happen in small steps first plan for it accommodate it more redevelopment happens eventually it becomes necessary to build it to either provide access or make properties work together so we're at those very early stages where you're going to see plots that identify things that don't really do anything for the developer get built out they just get identified in anticipation of future redevelopment and shared access between properties. So if the adjacent property doesn't redevelop for 20 years that line just sort of sits there on paper and fill that time. And we also know that in the case where an alley is designated that comes out to state highway we're not going to see a connection to that unless the town in the distant future takes over jurisdiction over that state highway. We've been told that since we flattened by v-transmit so we accept that. We have we have functional access from the existing drive that would begin to be built as a street. We're fine that way but we're fine. After what follows are findings of facts conclusions of law and conditions of approval all are boilerplate except the addition of condition number 12 and a motion for approval. Great thank you. So Abby do you have these conditions? Yes. So is there anything else you'd like to add? I will only add that the subdivision is based on future development of block 2 and that working with the proposal that will be coming into the town and the the northern east-west future Bruce at right-of-way was developed based on that future Bruce at right-of-way the other regulating plan. And that is all I really have to add the the conditions of approval are acceptable and I don't have any problems with any of them except number seven. I'm wondering about the obtaining necessary sewer allocation or if that carries with the development of the lot versus the subdivision. Yeah that's a boilerplate one that we could have struck but it will be NA because it's just a subdivision. So if the DRB wanted they could strike that condition. Yeah it just as prior to obtaining any administrative permit so it would be before you get a permit to build a building you've got to have a sewer allocation. Yeah I just wanted to clarify I didn't need allocation for it because you get a lot. Nope. All right I'll open this up to the board for any questions. I was wondering about the bank parking requirements and whether or not splitting up that other fly is a problem at all and there's plenty of parking from passing by there but what are the rules around parking for the bank? The form-based code does have some parking requirements that we'll look at when a building is proposed. The one thing in sort of talking with the applicant about future development on this parcel that I did say is there's a lot of parking on this lot there's a small amount of it that's in what will become the setback to the new street Bruce Avenue and that we didn't want to count that parking since it's not conforming towards the necessary parking on the site but the code allows for a fairly minimal amount of parking and lets the applicant kind of work up from there depending on what they think their needs are. So for this for the development that this subdivision might create there's plenty of parking within the code and functionally we have to keep you know every time something new is proposed out there we would have to go back and look at shared parking and how it's all being managed. We have we have commercial and residential and shared and reserved parking requirements for this district that all kind of interact with one another and we just look at it each time something's proposed. That the bank's good for now. Oh yeah you're hot. So what's locked to is literally going to have all shared parking with somebody else. There isn't not a lot of spaces on point A, B, there's well so the code strongly encourages folks to park underneath buildings. So you'll likely see some structured parking with a lot of new proposals out there and for any residential use there's some minimum reserved parking in other words there needs to be parking this reserve for the residential use and then some can spill over and just share it if there's an excuse building with with commercial. And it's okay if it's on an adjacent plot I guess is we're looking at a subdivision there's nothing about subdividing a parking lot that says you can't share across lot lines you absolutely can. That was it. So I guess open up anybody in the audience who would have a question. 100% I don't know. And if you're on zoom and you'd like to comment you can let us know in the chat or press the raise hand button or online attendee has done neither. Okay so anyone last chance anybody here to comment if so then I am going to close this hearing at 731. Yeah thank you. Thank you. I'm gonna ask our members whether you feel there's the need to go into deliberative session here. Anybody if any one person does we will. So if that is the case I would ask if anybody has more. If you are on video you know I don't know okay. Right there. I'll just move. Thank you. Okay as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 I'm Scott Riley moved that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board required a comment on its application by the Williston Development bylaw and having heard and who considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of July 25, 2023, except the finding the fact that the group of law for DP 23-17 and approved this discretionary permit subject to the condition of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you. We'll have a second. I'll second. David Turner seconds. So before we vote is there any further discussion on this? All right I'm going to go call the vote. Paul Christensen. Hi. Lisa Brayden-Harder. Hi. Scott Riley. Hi. David Turner. Hi. The chair is the I. So we have five I's, zero no's, motion passes. Thank you. Don't believe there's any communication final plan during the business tonight? So the best. A minute. We need to approve the minutes. Thank you. I have a motion for that. I'll make a motion and we approve the minutes of Tuesday, June 27, 2023. That's right. Thank you, David. We have a second. Second. Second. Paul seconds that. Let's go to the votes there. Oh, I should say any discussion on that. Paul. Hi. Lisa. Hi. Scott. Hi. David. Hi. David and I, again, five, zero. Thank you all. We're going to move.