 So we're going to bring the meeting to order it is 702 so welcome everybody to the town of Williston's development review board for June 11th Again, we are going to bring the meeting to order. We've got two items on the agenda for tonight We are going to we always just start off with a public forum if anybody wants to Bring anything to the attention of the board prior to the actual Items on the agenda being heard Anybody here anybody want to bring anything say anything tell a joke? No, okay so first up is HP 19-03 and AP 19-0214 Andrew and Angela come 40 You're Angela come on up and have a seat at the front desk bring your kids to if you want Might be exciting we haven't had kids sitting So we always do start these things off I having you State your name and your address, please Angela can 40 23 old-stage road Wilson Vermont zero five four nine five and the kids names are Rain Navy Ruby perfect good welcome guys Come on look up from your PDAs for one second The same thing my kids do Who's up Emily? All right This is a request for a certificate of appropriateness to convert a door to a window at 23 old-stage road Subject property is within the additional review area of the village zoning district and thus requires a Certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the DRB with advice from the hack the historic and architectural advisory committee Project history the brick Greek revival house circa 1842 has seen many changes over the years See attached photos at the end of the packet The summer kitchen was replaced in the 1980s with the wood-sided edition on the northern rear end of the home This edition created a new side door to the right of the original side door a Three-season porch used to be located on the east facade and was removed prior to the 1980s edition The applicant is converting the door to a window as part of an interior kitchen renovation hack review This project was reviewed by the hack three times The original proposal removed the side lights and replaced the door with a dual crank casement window The applicant revised their project proposal to bring it in compliance with the bylaw requirements and hack recommendations By retaining side the side lights and using a double-hung window Recommended action Staff recommends that the DRB issue a certificate for the project as recommended by the hack at their meeting of June 4th 2019 The certificate attached only includes the last recommendation about color as a condition Because the applicant's proposal already meets all the other recommendations That are listed in the table below The DRB may decide to add or modify the certificates conditions So what follows is a table the left column has the hack recommendations by date and then how the applicant responded in their revised proposal providing some additional detail The color options have printed out in black and white The darker color looks black, but it's a dark purple And the exterior color is a yellow beige trim So there are three color options The hack-preferring color option one that'll match the existing side door The first photo in your packet shows the two-store side-by-side and then you can see Color option one the next page over for comparison I will note that the side lights are changing in size They're going to be a little bit shorter to accommodate the interior kitchen counter But the side lights will line up with the double-hung window The East facade of the house has double-hung window. So it'll be matching with the six over six pattern And the applicant will be retaining as much of that original mill work as possible That can be seen in their Their proposed rendering Thank you Okay, that's it. Yeah, if you have any questions we can go into more detail So I have one major question What color option do you like? Come on. You must have Because it's all trim work below. I was leaning towards the tannish color That would be number two. That's two I don't have it so number one is the full purple number two is tan with purple trim Okay, so number three the number three is the full tan but but I have to say after I like did a little Fake photo shopping which I had to take care of myself. I Agreed with the hacks recommendation on the dark purple Um, you're not just saying that just to make the hack the hack. No, I think no, I So that would that would be option one Yeah, I think either either option one or number option number three Would appease the both of us I am struggling to see the difference in these is there a photo is there a color photo What is the purple what is the purple paint cost versus the tan paint? They're both in the basement Dependent you know depending on how long they've been down there, right? No, they may not they may not be down there I mean, I have to say I'm not crazy about the the yellow tan But I'm asking you what I'm asking is are you use a purple paint anywhere else on the house other than this This little extra size. It's on the extra all it's on all three exterior door Okay, that's all that's what whatever you want to do Uploaded on there and it has the color photos. I think Matt's pulling it up on the iPad Angela are you gonna paint are you gonna paint? All stores the same We had no we had no intention of painting the one on the right One of the things that I hate about this board is what's going on right now And that is this board weighing in on your color choices It drives me this drives me crazy when I act does this so I'm happy to go on record for that for this Yes, it would be nice if it be it would be Historically correct and that's why they're doing it, but it's your house. I mean, it's not a door, but it also like we want to Make sure that the integrity of the home is there by keeping the trim and that was in our original proposal I Don't think it's going to look like a door because it's a window And I know that the hacks recommendation by Painting it the purple color is to make it appear as though it is the original door still That's recommendation at the hack meeting last week was that either color option based on the bylaw would work That's a level of specificity that we don't quite have to go to so You could recommend option number one you could strike that recommendation and then they can pick one two or three based off of their preference Okay Either I like that one to strike it and let them do whatever they want So it will appear like a door still but be a window Did you explore the option of just converting it to a window and So original of the original thought was To maximize the light coming in that we would use a large window and we had a Double casement window That we proposed to the hack The original thought was to have a Mason come in and do a brick and just brick in the rest of The opening I mean I could certainly understand why the track shot shot that down That was never even actually And then I spoke with an architect who we've used previously in New Jersey and She said going into it that the hack that's gonna want to see as much original trim As possible, and it would probably be A nicer looking Finalized product without More Mason work as you can see maybe you can't see in the photos a lot of work has already been done on the house with bricks and patchwork so that's why We revised our original proposal right was it? To get rid of the side lights but to keep The Millwork on the sides and to maximize the lighting with a double casement window And the hacks recommendation was not to use a double casement window because there wasn't one on the other as in the rest of the house and They wanted it to Get to remain Let's close looking at it to a door as possible Back to you and let you decide what you want to do Pete I have no Thank you Okay, we're going to close we're going to close HP 19 that you don't Zero two one four for Andrew and Next up DP 19 that's zero nine Gary Howard come on up Gary Howard 697 butternut road will extend Vermont 05 495 So you smart Howard 697 butternut road will assume Vermont 05 495 Okay, Matt, I'll take this This staff report was prepared by Melinda Scott who unfortunately can't be here tonight She's attending to a family emergency. So forgive me if I stumble over And please feel free to stop me at any point as it's a little bit lengthy In terms of just going over all the elements of a rural subdivision as we do That said this is a request for discretionary permit review of a proposed five-lot residential subdivision of 121.79 acre parcel the parcel is located at 700 butternut road and the outline of it is shown in the center of your overview map on the staff report The applicants proposing to divide that single lot into four lots sized from three to twelve point three two acres As well as an open space lot Lots one and two will be both point three two and twelve acres respectively proposed for residential development at this time Lot three is the open space lot and will consist of ninety one point three five acres of open space permanently protected by designation a Lot three sorry lots four and five are proposed at three point zero six acres each and are not proposed for Development at this time, but would be reserved for future development. In other words, they're not part of the open space But also their complete design necessary to approve development is not being reviewed under the action This parcel currently has no dwelling units on it So one dwelling unit is allowed by right and the proposed residential development will add a total of three additional units to the site for a total of four and One dwelling unit in Williston is defined as any unit containing two or more bedrooms It was half a dwelling unit in this case each of the four dwelling units proposed as a whole dwelling unit two bedrooms or more The subject parcel that is south of butternut road has existed before 1990 Which means it's existed in its current state since before Williston ever did growth management There was a boundary line adjustment that altered its boundaries slightly or significantly actually But that boundary line adjustment was primarily related to the treatment of the parcel as a split parcel in other words There was one piece of land butternut road ran through it and the Williston Development by-law Allows the town to treat that as two separate pieces of land due to the the way the road divides them physically and divides their ability to be used together So the DRB for this project reviewed a pre-application For sorry not for this project they reviewed a pre-application in 2013 in a discretionary permit and Then they reviewed a discretionary permit for a boundary line adjustment in April of 2018 which resulted in the boundaries Clear boundary line adjustment is something where you change the boundaries of the parcel But you do not create any new parcels or new rights to build This project was previously reviewed on December 11th 2018 as a pre-application the board made recommendations at the pre-application hearing that the applicant has Responded to including the requirement for the applicant to provide a habitat disturbance assessment which has been included with your staff report The requirement that the open space be shown as a separate platted lot and that has been done and reflected on the plan The requirement for a draft trail easement because the applicant was proposing is proposing a public trail across the property That draft easement has been submitted There was a question the board had about the nature and extent of any wetlands on the site And there's been a memo submitted stating there are no wetlands on lots One or two which are the lots proposed for residential development at this time The DRB also asked for a professionally controlled runoff and erosion control plan The applicant has not submitted that plan and request that this requirement be postponed until administrative permit applications are submitted so I'll say a little bit about that which is when I review projects Administratively if the amount of land disturbance crosses a certain threshold typically over a quarter acre I am Cued or triggered by the by-law to require some kind of runoff and erosion control plan so There's there's sort of a natural catch in there But it's up to the DRB to decide about moving forward without that plan as part of discretionary permit tonight Deferring it to administrative permit or a third choice would be to possibly defer it until final plans But not all the way until the administrative permit comes in the door That said as the administrator if the by-law requires me to get a runoff and erosion control plan before I sign a permit I don't sign the permit unless I get it. That's The way I the way I do things down at the planning office The applicant was also requested to meet with public works and fire to clarify any potential requirements and has done that So the updated plans are reflective of those conversations and have been reviewed by those departments and those departments have provided comments The other part was to at pre application It was recommended the applicant meet with the planning staff to go over the growth management scoring criteria So you may remember at pre application the DRB makes a bunch of recommendations and the motion is to move forward to an intermediate staff Called growth management, which we did Back in the second meeting in March so The applicant did go through growth management and received a ward of four dwelling units of growth management allocation on March 27th 2018 And there were some representations about the project made by the applicant as part of their growth management survey Those recommendations are binding because the award of allocation is based on fulfilling those promises. So Energy efficiency was not mentioned in the application, but it was pledged at the growth management hearing That generally plays out as a condition. I need to enforce when I review any proposed permits for houses There was no affordable housing pledged and that remains true There was an offer of a trail easement dedication and the applicant has included that draft trail easement Under design for context the applicant represented they were proposing low density rural housing and its staff's opinion that that remains the case Under open space there were no points awarded because there's no third party dedication of the open space In other words, the reason the open space Will be protected or the mechanism by which it will be protected is merely zoning Property rights by any third party and finally The score for minimizing visual impact was based on a finding that the houses proposed would be partially screened by vegetation and terrain So not completely invisible from the public right-of-way, but are not road but partially screened So the proposed use for this project is to add today two new dwelling units to the parcel Single and two family dwelling units are in allowed use in the agricultural world residential zoning district, which is where we're located in terms of potential residential density on this parcel in the Residential zoning district the maximum Which is a little less than two acres and you do have to take out your steep slopes wetlands wetland protection buffers Rivers leaving you only with the Essentially developable land to calculate your density There's a table in the staff report reflecting that calculation and based on that calculation The maximum number of allowed dwelling units on this parcel would be 39 And again the applicants proposing four There's an explanation of that calculation below the table in This zoning district you can have a minimum lot size smaller than 80,000 square feet 15,000 square feet, which is a little over a third of an acre In this case the lot sizes for dwelling units range from three to terms of setbacks and landscaping the overall subject parcel is Subject to 23 however, it's not quite as Specifically specified as it is Corners, so in ag world zoning district chapter 23 says Developments quote must provide ample buffers unquote not specifying the widths typically in this district those buffers take the shape of the leaving of existing wooded vegetation basically Not clearing right up to property What the town means when it says type one buffer leaving existing vegetation? There isn't a specific call out in the plan set or application discussing landscape buffers there has been some logging on the site and The building envelope for lot one is about 150 to 200 feet from an existing home on an adjacent lot Considering that context if the DRB wishes to require some enhancement of the landscape buffer to ensure that Development that happens on that proposed lot conforms to the 50 feet of existing vegetation or functionally conforms to that The DRB could consider requiring some additional plantings to make that happen As I mentioned there is open space set aside in a separately plated lot for this project It's ninety one point three five acres and the way that it will be kept as open space is via the zoning Structure on that or go ahead and do that it would be a zoning violation Enforced the same way the rest of the zoning bylaws enforce But that land does not have to be in public ownership does not have to have an easement over it owned by Vermont Land Trust or anybody else It's merely protected by the town having it on the map and keeping eyes on it the same way We keep an eye on zoning compliance for anything else in town The proposed open space does contain an existing Accessory structure that the staff presumes was used in support of agriculture Agriculture isn't allowed use of open space and the staff has generally reviewed Proposed structures in open space that support agriculture on a case-by-case basis where there's one existing staff would represent that It's acceptable to allow it to remain the uses of that structure would be limited to agricultural uses that are called for in protected open space As I mentioned in the introduction, there's no wetlands identified on the site plan State wetland ecologist Alan quackenbush did visit the site in April of 2019 and submitted a memo which you should have attached Stating that there's no wetlands on lot one or what lot two There are some other constrained areas Noted on the state maps There are some class to wetlands on the subject parcel as well as an unnamed stream Tributary and some steep slopes on lot four, which is not proposed for development at this time There's also significant wildlife habitat area Which triggers the requirement that the applicant submit the habitat disturbance assessment, which you should have attached to your report If this discretionary permit is approved which keep in mind is for development of two of the four potential residential lots Future development of lot four and or lot five the other two Will require a separate application to amend this discretionary permit so developing lots Not be an administrative matter. It would come back to the DRB and at that time staff would recommend a full assessment of Impacts to wetlands waterways and on the other conservation areas on those lots So we're trying to be very clear that the town's requirement to plant open space as a separate lot has generated a Demand for applicants to plant other lots that they don't necessarily develop right away and The way to kind of balance that is to know that those lots are going to be developed But not do full discretionary permit review on them. Make sure everybody's aware of that that You know, you could plant that lot today. We're not reviewing it for development potential It could be wet now. It could get wetter in the future The rules could change in the future. There are no guarantees around that other than it's not part of the open space Okay Down does have some requirements related to access Access to lots one and two are proposed by a shared driveway from butternut Access lot four will be via a 60 foot wide access easement over in a budding parcel and access 65 foot wide easement over lots one two and three in Williston our bylaw allows up to five dwellings on a shared driveway There are some additional Eight of those driveways not to exceed 10% there are also some additional That you access driveway from butternut road will require Permit from the Department of Public Works when public works is permitting a new access or curb cut to a town road They're basically looking at things like culvert sizing line of sight adequate turn radius and design standards like that Our bylaw in this zoning district also does require that any parcels Created have a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on a public or private road or drive For all new lots the proposed lot configuration appears to meet this requirement So not all lots in this district have to have frontage on a road They can have frontage on an essentially an easement with a driveway in it So you don't have to create those sort of little flag poles for lots in this district You do have to provide frontage on an access Staff is noting again for emphasis the access to lot four is problematic because there's a steep ravine and tributary to cross to get there and again reminding everybody Full review of development of that lot is is not under consideration tonight, and there's no guarantees There may be some challenges or adjustments that need to be made If that lot were to be developed In terms of traffic the DRB did not require a traffic study as part of pre application In Williston, we generally assume that two additional single family dwelling units are going to produce 2.02 p.m. peak hour one vehicle in or Out times 2.02 during the busiest hour between 4 and 6 p.m. Monday to Friday Stormwater the proposed development is not anticipated to disturb any land within any of the watershed protection buffers There are steep slopes on the parcel particularly in the area proposed for an access driveway This does kick the project into our high-risk development category And that's why we have the requirement for the runoff and erosion control Plan showing compliance with the performance standards of our bylaw as it relates to watershed protection And this is the one as I mentioned the applicants requested to defer the submission of that plan until the time an administrative permit to build a house comes in understanding that when somebody is Getting a permit to build a house they're investing in lots of planning and design and all of those things and that those plans do come with a significant expense In terms of water and wastewater the applicants proposing on-site water supply and on-site wastewater systems Receptic systems and the applicant has obtained a state water and wastewater permit and shown the location of those systems and wells for the proposed lots one and two and again on the other two potential house lots The applicant is deferring any design of those systems and understands that that would have to be Reviewed under the standards at the time it comes in In terms of public comment and town departments and boards We did receive a written comment from Kevin Mizzouzin dated May 29 2019 that's in your packet We would receive review of this project by the police fire and public works departments as well as the conservation Commission The fire department did not make any comments on the project at this time They did sort of reserve the right to comment as development moves forward if there's future construction Department of Public Works noted the requirement for a right-of-way permit or what we call an access permit in the staff report and Did request a pre-construction meeting when the administrative permit happens and typically? That's to assess erosion control and any potential impacts to the town road The conservation Commission also made recommendations They made a recommendation related to working with the conservation Commission to determine an acceptable alignment for the primitive trail easement With consideration of best management practices for deer wintering areas, which means generally trying to avoid them when you develop a trail the Conservation Commission recommended a condition that future houses be cited to the degree feasible so as to maintain connectivity of a wildlife corridor in deer wintering area Locate the building envelope on lot one as far west as possible to maximize the connectivity of the forest habitat So when we're talking about deer wintering area, we're talking about the most densely forest Forage even Ear tender like contiguous blocks of that heavy forest both to stay in and to move through Conservation Commission recommended that the administrative permit application for the development of any lot be accompanied by a runoff in erosion control plan So we're we're back to that again emphasizing that And again understanding that any future development of lot four or five shall constitute an amendment to the proposed subdivision And will require an application for discretionary permit which shall be reviewed by the Conservation Commission prior to DRV review So full discretionary permit process for that further development Based on all of that the staff is recommending approval of this discretionary permit and has provided draft findings of facts conclusions of law and recommended Conditions of approval for the property I'll call out a couple of recommended conditions of approval one is to take Public works and fire department comments adopt them as conditions of approval and then We have a lot of our standard conditions However, we are calling out in condition 15 any future development of lot four lot five will require discretionary permit and DRB approval And that is it so thinking back There was some discussion of whether any additional landscape buffering might be needed. There's not a draft condition about landscape buffering in here now That was a comprehensive review Howard what would you like to add to that? Not much We covered it pretty well. We've been over it enough time so that I don't think there's anything else to add I understand The details about lots four and five they were beyond my can when I started this project there there because of the open land land that I had left over and they advised me to make them into lots At this particular point so I understand about the development review board of those The only thing the the water management part When the people that are buying the land design the driveway, I understand completely when that is that's why I'm asking to have that Talking about the erosion control, right have that be deferred until somebody comes up with an actual driveway site house plan At this point. I don't Know those details Okay All right anything else We have questions from the board I just got one question when you keep talking about you know the Barriers It's a line of sight where where's where's Kevin's house in relative to these lots one and two It's west out the actual house the actual building sites It's there already basically isolated with along the lot line with the trees and everything already there's lots of trees It'll be hard to see anything. Okay. That's all I was curious Well, it's well-treated and brushed Are they're building and envelopes designated on the subdivision plat? Yes, so is it the square with yes Because I noticed in the impact In the assessment that was done The habitat assessment or inventory that was done they made some recommendations It said keep housing on lots two and three on the eastern side as much as possible Well, my way west as possible It's far down the hill as possible. So the open space will be across the top on the on the Excuse me. Yes as far west as possible. So the open space will be on the eastern edge Well, I'm just reading right directly from the habitat inventory under impact assessment recommendations says if the Land is subdivided impact can be minimized by keeping housing on lots two and three on the eastern side as much as possible It says or better in the case of lot three in the field in the northwest corner I think lot three isn't slated for development. Correct. So that's kind of moot And then it talks again more about development on lot three being outside of the deer wintering area But I think what's relevant to me anyway is the discussion of the lot two and where the housing should be On lot two at least per their recommendations So that's not the same as what you understand because it looks like it's the building envelope isn't on the eastern side of that lot It's kind of right in the middle Kevin Kevin just hang one second. I will get Yeah, on the eastern side as much well, that's Down here you'd be in this. This is sort of the middle of that lot and this is close to the Well, this is not one so that that's not relevant I think it's just this lot that they're talking about and I don't know based on the topography or the What's on the land here whether or not this is as east as it can go Maybe Kevin can shed some light on this, but that's they can go further east of it comes back up here on the driveway Down there This lot could go further east good that was where it was shredded This is this the deer they actually cross here, right? Yeah, that in that area going up the whole slope. Yeah, all right So so keeping the property keeping the building envelope as far up as you can over here We'll keep you a corridor there. There's a driveway right there. There's this right away So it does seem like a good time Kevin you want to you want to shed your your you know some light on the sighting Sighting not so much about the sighting I mean I Let me let me enter one second say that you know we do I do have your yeah, you're lighter Yeah, and I'm at some point tonight. I was gonna ask you to run through it. Yeah So let's just keep it more to this topic until we get to this So Kevin was in 1121 on the road at the conservation Commission Meeting This jail came up there was a question and Melinda was going to reach back to quack and bush and find out for some clarification on Which direction? Because the Commission was very concerned. This is reflected in the notes. They were concerned about what direction So there's it was a ongoing conversation at the Commission meeting. I don't know if there was any Clarification I can share that The Commission then came up with a recommendation based on what they thought quack and bush meant and then when when actually Jesse read it he said he had the same question that the Commission had as well, so it just was a little wonky and there needed to be some clarification And I don't know if that clarification came through. I'm assuming it did it was not reflective in the minutes But I'm assuming that that clarification came through and the recommendation went forward Do we have a specific recommendation from the Commission with respect to that? That's the one moving in as far east as possible Okay, so that's well, that's that's the recommendation of Excuse me west as far west as possible And it should be because Part of the reason for the land being purchased is the view and the views from Up the hill you move it west down the hill and you've reduced its value The east Taught for that property is where you can see the out-of-ondacks from And if you move it the farther you move it down the hill the more you restrict the buyer's value So and I can't I don't know any reason of I can't imagine Moving it further West because that would be even That would make a wider spread then we'd have Kevin's house and another house you'd have you're building a wall there if you move it East and west You leave it up the top of the hill where it is Away from Kevin's house, right And it moves it down the hill It moves it out of the value of the property So again, what I was reading was mr. Quackenbush's recommendation and I guess I what I'm trying to find out is did the planning was it the Conservation Commission did they make a specific recommendation? East or west as the east or west they made the recommendation on Where they say locate the envelope on lot one as far west as possible Maximized connectivity force would have it as so that wasn't a wetland Recommendation yeah quackenbush isn't the one that's Tina's I forget right now her last name But the Tina's the land the wildlife management quackenbush is wetlands, you know, I Forget Sharp sharp Tina sharp. That's it was the I knew it had a weird I couldn't bring it into any focus sharp Clarification whether the recommendation was to move the house Okay, so the summary in the staff report Said locate the building envelope on lot one as far west as possible the I'm looking for the actual Conservation Commission What the impact assessment stated? This is what was prepared by Tina sharp Said this property is wooded which makes it part of core habitat given its position It also serves as a wildlife quarter if the land is subdivided impact We'll be minimized by keeping housing on lots two and three on the eastern side as much as possible Reading and on the eastern side. Let's just back up the hill the lots two and three Right, we're not no proposal to build anything on lot three No, but lot two the housing the house could eat it currently centered in the middle of the lot In the middle of the proposed lot but Could be moved could be moved according to that to the east Could be moved to the east No, nothing about lot one The paragraph I just You'll recall that as it relates to wetlands what Alan quackenbush did was looked at both lots One and two because those are the ones proposed for development under this application Any adjustment to envelopes at this point would be about something other than wetlands whether it was wildlife habitat or Viewshed et cetera. I thought the rock outcrop was on lot one I What outcrop sir she she says the author found one rock outcrop on lot two for some reason I thought When you were talking about the original lot one way it was designed the way it was was because there was a rock No, I think the I think what she's just referring to as ledge, you know just ledge leg I cut that hole that whole thing is ledge. I mean it's it's ledge You go up farther up the top of the hill and it's bare ledge and as it works down there The trees have rotted and covered it and filled it in but it's it's pretty much Ledge, they're not gonna dig basements. They'll go through a few teeth on their back hose I promise you that all right, so I think we kind of hammered we hammered out or under at least I understand the Sighting of lot two nothing on lot three anybody on the anybody here right on the board have any questions I guess I feel like we discussed it, but I still don't feel like there's a resolution No, I don't think there's no, I wasn't sure if you had found no, no, no No, I don't have a I don't have no I haven't come up with a resolution I haven't proposed or anything. I just think we've discussed it and I think the board can talk about what maybe the resolution would be in deliberation At this point other questions from the board Either specifically or in general Well, I was gonna let Kevin Mazzuz and have the floor Okay, Kevin My house is yeah, my house is about a hundred and fifty to two hundred feet away from the building site a lot Kevin just for just measured that Kevin is that in the same direction as Your boundary line which extends your lawn Sorry, I'm sorry, so you're so you're further into the but you're further into the box of that lot I'll be the corner. Okay. How about Kevin once you come on up and locate your house on Dave pulled out the photo which is so you're so you're right here in this corner, right? Okay, so you're the guy then to answer the question about whether or not you need a Buffer Going through the staff report Could you could you go back on page five paragraph four? Yeah, I do I wanted to bring that up I I missed that paragraph and I can review that for the board because you'll find this is discussion Both for the board and the butters so There is Adjacent to the subject parcel. There are other parcels of the land not part of this proposal that have protected open space on them and There there are two parcels if you were to look on the right side of the plaid it's it's Bruce and Isham family farm so These are lands that have been protected under a combination of conservation easement or or designation under prior actions with the town and We have a standard in our bylaw in chapter 31 31 7 That says when the DRB is reviewing Development that will be open space development like the Howard project We want open space to line up or be contiguous to other protected open space Because you know open space is better when there's more of it Consolidated and that that's part of the consideration of the board so this is chapter 31 31 7 and What we say Must the protected open space be contiguous? Yes The protected open space must be contiguous except as provided here. So yes, but It must also be contiguous with any open space on adjoining lots or parcels that is currently protected or is identified for protection of the town plan So the first question is must to be contiguous within the subject parcel You have to put one chunk of open space on the table. That's yours to control The second part is does that have to be contiguous to other adjacent open space and the answer is Yes, and then the DRB may allow exceptions where Either a small area that is isolated from the rest of the open space on the site Watershed protection buffer or The only home sites that comply with the standard of this chapter are adjacent to protected open space on an adjoining lot or parcel How is contiguity defined contiguous open space is generally defined as an area of forest and or other natural community that is Unfragmented by development remains in a natural state in establishing standards for contiguity the conservation commission and DRB will consider the context of the proposed Development including the type and relative value of resources as identified in chapters 27 28 and 29 to protected To be protected and the configuration of open space that will best ensure the protection of those resources. So Michael Bruce's land is conserved. It cannot be developed It is agricultural land Michael Bruce's land is not contiguous to the proposed open space in the Howard subdivision It is contiguous to proposed lot one which is proposed for development It's It's contiguous to the part of lot one that is not proposed to have a house on it But lot one is not part of the protected open space, which is the standard for 31 7 the open space lot and Howard is contiguous to the Isham family farm parcel, which is also conserved and So the Way for the board I think to navigate this is using that language of the bylaw Has the requirement for contiguity as it stated in 31 7 Been met by what is proposed in the Howard subdivision And Heinz and Livingston is not conserved correct Is all of Michael Bruce's lot conserved so everything that that we can Visually see from this everything everything you can see on this plat that's Bruce's is conserved. So there's about a hundred It might only be 90 acres on that side. It's the corner of Oak Hill Road and butternut road There was a 12-acre in holding subdivided out of it where there's a house today. The rest of it is conserved There's other Bruce lands across Oak Hill Road. They're also conserved And is that also true of the Isham family farm protected land? Everything you can see here on this plat is conserved land for Isham family farm and it's you know the parcel goes all the way down to Oak Hill Road covers the Sugar house and everything got the Heinz sitting right between both parcels blocking it the Heinz parcels in between That's the former set of farm that Has not come in for any kind of protection There is it's it's actually it's about here There's a meadow back in here with nothing in it yet Okay, look go ahead. So the Isham family farm and the Bruce farm are farms of local importance So they're in the conservation under that criteria. They're also in The conservation area because of the criteria for habitat as well as wildlife corridor So if you go back to the town of Williston Chapter 13 plan It talks about Maintaining forest land maintaining contiguity not fragmenting forest Kevin I want to make I do want to make a point of clarification And I and I point of clarification Goes back to something you just said and that is that why the Isham family farms and the Bruce farms have Have been conserved the reason they have been conserved is because those two families came and wanted something from the town To do something with their property So let's just be clear that if they hadn't come before the board to request something some use of their property They wouldn't be conserved most likely. I mean they could have gone to they could have gone to you know One of the conservation groups and sold off the development rights, and it would not have occurred in front of this board, but chances are I Guess Matt you could you could probably agree with you to confirm this that both of them came before the board They wished to do something. I know Bruce did because it wasn't that long ago and So they did get something they did get something from the town In order to develop their property and in turn Protected their open space go ahead And it would have had to go before a wildlife disturbance assessment and it would have been identified as Corridor and Habitat so Like I said, I needed to make sure that I made my point be absolutely but my point is that there's there's criteria that it that it meets and Matt was describing chapter 31, but if you dive a real deep into chapter 27 conservation areas It really gets very specific about the type of land that is being conserved and the requirements around it. I know that there is a an exception to build that because there has been a Wildlife disturbance assessment that's documented saying that there can be some some mitigating factors there We can go ahead and build there But it does not address the fact that It's not contiguous with the other open spaces and By allowing for development to go into that area It would not be compliant with the bylaw 31 and 27 in regards to the erosion control plan At pre-application we identified that this was a high risk Development based on the slopes The DVR's recommendation was to make sure that an erosion control plan was put forth for discretionary permit We're here, and we're now being asked to move that to the next step final plans and or Administrative permit I Think that now would be a good time to have that Available to us because there is a phase one in the phase two of this and there appears to be a lot of unanswered questions in regards to What the impacts of this will have on the wildlife corridor on the The issues on butternut road as far as erosion is concerned Constantly There's been issues on butternut road with that So let's just let's talk about that for a second. I Think I understood The howards to say that they would like to defer the erosion control plan not not do it but defer it Because that because you don't know exactly where the driveways will be placed. Is that correct? Is that what I heard? So In a detailed plan that you're going to approve tonight It's required that we know where the driveways are going to be we need to know where the curb cut is going to be We need to know where the utilities are going to be we need to know where all of these things are going to be in order to Approve based on the criteria in the checklist and the bylaws You think that the people are going to build a house would have something to say to where they want to put you're developing the land You're not you're not selling lots. You're you're you're submitting a plan for a subdivision. So let me ask so Matt do you want to weigh in on that? Which part? The part about fixing the about the part Kevin's point about fixing the Fixing the point of access and the roads on the flat sure At this stage at this stage So there there are a number of things the DRB Is supposed to know about access? Before And and name ones are compliance of the access chapter how long are the driveways going to be are they going to traverse any steep slopes? Is is there an easement of adequate width that that? driveway is going to live on top of and It is of a certain length Does it does it meet the requirements for the exceptions in the access chapter you've been through this with a couple of projects? and in terms of the exact design Where it gets a little bit stickier is when you build a driveway And if you're on a high-risk site the way you're going to manage the runoff from that driveway is it's part of your runoff and erosion control plan So you're typically going to show Where your ditches are going to go on the side of the driveway you you may show that the ditches are going to be Stoned line with stone of a certain size or that you're going to have check dams every so many feet What the requirement is on a high-risk site for runoff and erosion control this is chapter 29 29.4 and It says you know you have to submit a runoff and erosion control plan How you showing how you'll meet the performance standards of chapter 29 which are included below this prior to getting a permit What must be included you have to be basing it on a grading plan of the site and its immediate environment showing existing and proposed Contours at intervals of no more than two feet all information required by the erosion control plan checklist You don't have to do detailed contour mapping for proportions of the site. You're not going to disturb and Then you're showing that you're meeting these standards So you're showing that you're avoiding steep slopes in excess of 15% you're showing that your forms are going to fit the terrain in other words You're not doing a massive You know bulldozing of the site to create something that's really not matching the slope that's there You're showing that you're going to phase your construction So if you have a big construction site You're not going to go in and open the whole thing up at once and expose it all To generating potential runoff you're going to do it in phases You're going to minimize impervious surfaces So it says the extent of paving and other impervious surfaces should be minimized by thoughtful site planning keeping roads as narrow and as short as possible Keeping surface parking areas small Marking limits of disturbance, so you actually go out On the site prior to construction this is again DPW requesting that pre-construction meeting and you flag Where are we going to break into the earth and where are we going to stay away from and that gets a head nod from the public works? Department before you go and actually start moving dirt All of those things are part of a runoff and erosion control plan I can you know, so you're telling me about the internal workings of the erosion and control plan, but how about how about Kevin's point about It being fixed at this hearing point now as opposed to Being performed at a later date. Hey, so what the by-law says when must a runoff and erosion control plan be submitted now remember you Noted at pre-app that one is required for development on the site All applications for permits for developments that are not exempt or defined as low risk and paraphrasing Shall be accompanied by a professionally prepared runoff and erosion control plan that shows how compliance with the performance standards of 29.5 below Will be attained both during construction of the proposed development and the continuing use of the site And then we get into some of them all the mechanics I was reading back you know all the things you have to do to make sure you're preventing runoff off the site Yeah That's a fine. Is it I what the by-law says is Applications for permits for developments that are not exempt shall be accompanied by this plan What I always tell people is until I issue an administrative permit and that Z sign has been up for 15 days unappealed You don't have anything at all So people often refer to different stages of review as my permit or the permit and even state environmental court will do this with a Discretionary permit appeal. They'll say well, this is the permit and it always kind of throws me for a loop because We tell people all day long Nothing happens in Williston without the issuance of that administrative permit I mean that needs to be taken into consideration Much like the Howard's Have every right to do everything they they want to develop in their land. I understand that But making sure that we're applying all of the bylaws Fairly across this subdivision is a big concern of mine having watched the folks in action with other similar projects And the amount of detail especially at this point That's been very clear With me and Jesse and the staff has been wonderful in in saying this is a methodical process It's there for a reason to make sure that we're that we're doing this right So we so I you know, I'm gonna I would like to state that We're here to allow the howards to exercise their rights And we're here to have you exercise yours. Yeah, right So I think the entire board and the staff recognizes that and We're happy to go through we're happy to go through point by point, you know of your concerns I want to make sure that they are Taken into account. Thank you. I appreciate that One follow up question a minute If we did agree that at the time that they pull the permit that the erosion control plan Let's do at that point would Kevin or any other abutters be given the opportunity to weigh in at that point or Or no, so once you're at the administrative permit stage If I issue the permit The notice of my issuance of the permit is posted and there's a 15 day appeal period So The opportunity for participation is still there, but it's it's it's very different from the opportunity to come to a public hearing And talk over something So I don't want to pretend that they're the same And we often hear from people. Well, gosh, I was out of town and I didn't see the z-card and I didn't realize My neighbor had a permit for anything at all and I'm you know, I'm really surprised at what they ended up doing So As you're thinking about What level of process you as a board want to require I think it's worth informing that with understanding that You know saying You know what I really want to see that runoff and erosion control plan You know complimenting the driveway design Before we sign final plans because you know somebody on this board is going to have to come in and Write their signature on on a plat for this subdivision In in consideration of it and all the supporting materials that come in and if if it's saying We trust the process and the staff to require an adequate runoff and erosion control plan and administrative permit that's That's fine if this board said You know, we we we know it says at the time of the permit we want it sooner Because we want to make sure that it's fully discussed and aired and and that we can So if I see that plan and I think I'm not so sure I agree with it and I need to then decide to retain Professional help to look at that plan. That's all kind of on me to decide Sometimes with a fairly excited Would be house builder sort of calling me every 20 minutes. Why am I going to get my permit? So, you know, there's a lot of this for the board to think about that's just about like how does this process work When do you have more public participation? When do you have less public participation? um tonight there's there's Five heads in the room and three staff members talking about this But at some point it might be me You know, in the end it's me looking at a permit application How much you say no, I want to see that I want that to be part of the signed off final plans Is is really up to the board to decide Question is there a possibility That the guys would come out to do the plan and suddenly say you can't do it Can't do Can't build the driveway on that. Can't build the driveway without Without, you know, without, you know, literally you know huge experience so so so the risk associated with varying levels of design that the board requires Is somebody can say, you know, I'm not going to design that until I get to administrative permit And then they come to do it. They say, you know that thing the drb approved There's no way I can meet those conditions There's no way I can do it the way they approved it And they look at me and say you got to let me change this and I have a set of criteria in in my bylaw about how much Administratively I'm allowed to let somebody change something From what the drb approved and my ability to allow change is Really small The bylaw talks about moving You know the ramp on a sidewalk a few feet So We often have conversations with applicants when they come in and they want to change something and we say, you know That's coming. That's going to go back to the board So in this case You know, you can't submit a runoff and erosion control plan that meets all of those interests of 295 You know, which talks about like don't create big contours follow the terrain Slow down runoff. You say, you know, I can't do all that. That's really expensive Well, my answer is administrators going to be well, you you can file for an amendment with the drb and have that review it Because I'm out of my allowed flexibility under the bylaw You have a proposed condition that relates to the runoff and erosion control plan Don't think we do So one way or the other we need to add a condition either but It can happen it needs to happen There may be a boilerplate one. Um, well, let's mention that page seven We already Okay, so that's over I think we're The moment I think we're all clear on the discussion points on the erosion control. Okay, great Matt on page six also Utilities Yes page six utilities safe plan does not Yeah, I think that the erosion control plan and the the driveway and the utilities Really go hand in hand when we're going to be talking about how this is going to be developed A proposed driveway doesn't make sense to put it in one area and then Put in a proposed corridor to put in your underground Utilities in another area It's my understanding that the site plan has to provide that information At this state a detailed site plan is Gary's your plan for the utilities to follow the driveway. Yes Matt does the bylaw require a utility plan so the requirement to show utilities Comes from the administrator adopted checklists that we use when we take in discretionary permit applications and those are Universal checklists with varying degrees of applicability depending on What kind of project is proposed. So, you know, we use the same discretionary permit checklist for Um, you know a 60 room hotel at Finney crossing as we do for a five-lot residential subdivision in rural Williston The other issue is that what exact utilities we're only talking about Electric and gas, right? No Communication and electrical and um, I will say that the board's general practice Other than noting the requirement that utilities be underground because we do have home builders who come in and Want to save money by being overhead and Williston has prohibited that for some time The utilities that the things I would characterize as utilities that in it's time that I've been with them The board has required more detail on have been Especially when somebody was going a very long distance with their water supply or wastewater We've had some people who had to do a horizontal bore under a stream to go from their house to their septic system Sometimes even a partial force main So, you know as much as the board doesn't involve itself in wastewater system design Water supply design there are times when those get complicated enough the boards as we really want to see more about those The the specification for burying electrical and communication is typically You know, it's it's in a trench. It's usually in the driveway I will say we have had a couple of residential subdivisions where the utilities didn't run in the driveway because The driveway needed to go back and forth up a slope and the utilities were able to go straight It happens either way the I think the bylaw requirement around Electrical and overhead utilities has been to get them in the ground primarily for aesthetic reasons and if a buyer or a new owner wanted to Move the driveway in order to accommodate putting their utilities in because the driveway is not coming in from where the utilities are Across the street currently on this site plan. What would that process be? Can they come in and change? Disapproved site plan So in reading this subdivision plat, which is you know for the for the most part We have We have a plat here It it's really not a site plan in the sense of everything we would get, you know Again, if somebody was doing the more urban development This shows an easement 65 feet wide It shows a driveway meeting the town's driveway with requirement somewhere in those 65 feet If somebody came in and said well, it's going to be inside that 65 foot easement, you know, more or less Or rather it's going to be in that easement somewhere Where it needs to be I can't move the easement and I wouldn't want to approve a plan where somebody was building a driveway over someone Else's land and not in the easement because I would be signing off on something that they didn't really have a legal right to um I will say, you know When you look at a plan like this outside of that 65 foot easement when you get on to each of the subject parcels And there's a driveway drawn in to driveways get built exactly like that on subdivision flights. No, they don't People always they run into constraints. They run into grade challenges. They decide they want to turn around Um It's it's messier than that And and we do get some variants Once people get on to their properties But if somebody came in and said I really need to be somewhere else than where my easement is You're you're you're coming back here to amend the subdivision plat to adjust that easement. Um One other thing is these aren't really uh drive, you know plain old driveways per se because they have to support a fire engine You know, this is not like, you know, the normal Develop where you come the fire engine comes down and you know the the main street And they can string hose from there up to where the house is Some of these houses are in far enough that the driveway has got to basically support a large vehicle Yeah, so our driveway standard is 12 feet wide four feet clear on either side of that So essentially a 20 foot wide cleared area with a 12 foot wide hardened surface in the middle of it And what we often get for fire department comments and and we often solicit comments and rural projects is Once we get that house plan is Is this turnaround going to be okay for you guys? If you have to go up here, are you going to be able to get back out? And we've done that across the road on shag bark lane with a with a unit And in other places in town But it's I would say more often than not once somebody gets building that driveway and grading out that home site They start to want to shift things a little bit because they you know, they run into a big boulder they Something changes a little bit and that does happen Chapter three landscaping ample offers typically 50 foot mat as you indicated. Yes. It's something that's been discussed and implemented in other subdivisions and a 50 foot buffer around the entire subdivision Is something that I'd like to see happen You know so your Your house is tucked in the corner the proposed the proposed Building envelope from bottom line. The is south West And it's approximately how much the distance from here So Yeah, it almost appears as though they're how much clearing is going to be done in connection with 250 feet I'd say it's about 150 200 feet from from my property The wastewater is going to be 50 feet away from the The leach field is going to be 50 feet away from my Property line and the proposed driveway will people will turn drive up butternut And they will turn on to this proposed driveway and be facing my living room A 50 foot buffer is not going to do much, but it's going to be something A 50 foot buffer if we don't Have this be compliant with 27 and 31 in regards to open space a 50 foot buffer will at least give The habitat corridor and the wildlife Are you talking about the 50 foot buffer between the driveway and your the incoming driveway off of butter done And your property line There is a right of way on my property, but it's not being proposed being used The right of way is being proposed or the driveway is being proposed coming In just north of my property So there's a little pie there. That's where the driveway is going to come in I'm touched by this development on three sides One will be a driveway The other two will be a house And a leach field Will your driveway parallel to the new driveway? My driveway my driveway kind of goes up diagonally and Okay Is the right way that it's on your property? Is that mr. Howard's right away too? It is he has a right away on my property. I have a right away on his property for my driveway. It's a mess Would the 50 if let's say we were to impose a 50 foot buffer requirement wouldn't that Impact the proposed septic field on lot one probably Are there Are there certain restrictions on Placement of Anything within certain radiuses from the septic field so I'll flip it around and say when you impose a setback to a property line The zoning district is going to list. What can you do in that setback? It's generally very limited And I'll tell you What it says So in the ag world district once you have a setback You can Must it be setback from property lines? What uses are permitted in required setbacks required setbacks must be landscaped as type 1 3 or 4 buffer Access drives roads pedestrian ways underground utility lines and where such lines are permitted overhead utility lines May cross required setbacks at a right angle plus or minus 10 degrees Pedestrian ways may also run parallel to and within a required setback Parking and loading areas may not be placed within required setbacks. So what I would say is If the board Wanted to require a 50 foot setback To be provided on the subject parcel More or less in the location Where that's 65 foot wide driveway easement Along the north edge of the mizuzan's property If you were to require that to be 50 feet wide I would recommend you also require A shifting of the driveway easement and driveway so that it's not In conflict with that setback because you can't run in the setback. You can run across it if you need to so If you want to require a buffer there it would necessitate moving that driveway Move the easement 50 feet Um, you said that you have a you have a right of way on the howards property And you have a right of way on his property It's the same It's so part of it's on yours and part of it. It's all on his But you're but you're proposing the driveway the the driveway right away on your property. Yes. Okay, fine. I get all right Okay, fine You don't you don't have a right of way on the howards property I do Okay, so you're way up by your way up by the corner of our Okay, yep, he does He does Okay, all right, I get it. I get it. Yeah, it's right. Try and explain that one Two different people on land. Yeah Yeah I've I've read your letter. I have to have a quick question. What's your What's your objective you I think My sense from hearing from you at this meeting and prior meetings is that you don't object to the development but that you Would love to see that it be very thoughtful and I just I wonder Is it are you do you object to the placement of that building envelope on lot one? and do you have a Have you explored alternatives? That might satisfy you in terms of with mr. Howard or mr. Mrs. Howard I thank you jill for for asking the question Jesse and I discussed this at length a lot and We've come up with with with some very achievable goals number one the success for mr. Mrs. Howard To achieve their goal of paying their back to selling this land to pay their back taxes. They've been very consistent from the get-go That can be resolved We can we can protect the Core habitat and we can protect the wildlife corridor. We can also not disrupt the entire Slope up there by thoughtfully approaching this and we actually came up with another plan That took into consideration all of those goals being achieved Mr. Howard's wants and the town's requirements Mr. Howard's wanted achieved school, but uh, mr. Mr. Howard want and what the town I did hear excuse you have a plan Graphically that you can share with us I did hear Matt in the very beginning of this saying that I had somewhere around These land to build 30 homes 39 I'd like to build I don't want to build them. I'd like to sell the property for two I've lived here a long time. I understand deer habitat. I understand slope I understand sewage I've been doing this I am more than willing to do whatever I have to do But starting over now redrawing lines for The benefit of One person's view Is more than I think I want to do I'm to the point of saying to somebody Here build 30 houses And I'll move so we're here. We are here to keep me from doing that No, no, no, I understand I just dance god and I know I know exactly what you're doing. We're actually the reed. No, we're here. No, believe it or not We're not here to do that. Okay, because if somebody came here and Proposed 39 25 home. We wouldn't do that, but we would certainly listen to 39 and We would be we would we would have to because that would be that person's right They could propose 39 homes based on his math And I mean we would be having the same conversation with with kevin, but that But that proposal would get a fair here. And so what but what's going on right now is You're getting a fair here and there is a and there is a you know There's another party in the room that has points to make and concerns and so they're getting a fair here and These hearings can be frustrating for the applicant for the abutters For the board members But you know, this is kind of what we sign on to and this is what you get to sign on to when you know when you Are so when you open yourself up to this type of scrutiny Um, so I would argue or I would Consol you Let's don't get frustrated. I try let the board let the board listen Yeah, I am sorry. It's been a long And perhaps what we may hear we don't know what we're going to hear But perhaps it doesn't involve redrawing the lines. Perhaps it involves them giving you A right of way over their land and put a house somewhere else on that one I don't know. I don't know. Don't let us let's let's let's work through the points. Okay, and uh, um That's why susan's sitting here She's black and blueing my leg Is she she you've watched her kick me. I know you have That's why she's sitting up here with me sir. So I think I'd like to see the plan Don't get frustrated Oh Right here and uh if you can get one to the camera crew This is kevin's house right here. This was the old law One this is law two now. They've made that law one long and narrow So one of the things that jesse and I Did was we drew the orange line as the driveway That orange line is directly across the street from where the varied utilities are located That's also the area that's already wide open because it's where the logging took place and it's Far enough away from the corner That it will allow for a curb cut to be put on the road and meet all requirements Um that the town is going to require in regards to safety concerns So site lines, set lines. Yes the uh visual triangle It doesn't move the lock one building envelope. It does move the lock excuse me lock two. It does move a lock one building envelope It allows for the utilities and the road to all be in one area It also took into consideration the disaster or excuse me I work with right cross It takes into consideration the wildlife disturbance by locating those two parcels In a way that it will be less of an impact on the corridor and the habitat It allows for access to lot five on that same driveway to not have to run through Lot three the open space right. Yes, so it's not going through lots three the open space It still allows lot five to have ample open space around it and then it's also compliant with 27 and 31 as far as contiguity with our additional open space which again Really protects that unfragmented forest Which is quite unique to that area Now if you if you were to look at your orange line you put is that down the crest of the hallways Yeah, what are you proposing for their driveways that that isn't On a level road. Is it there? So there's so where that orange is there is an existing Woods road or foggy road. Yeah That the loggers been using We also tried to make sure that we kept the the wastewater system on lot One and two in lot one and two Yeah, couple One of the reasons the driveway was where it was is so that We don't take off a third of lot two's property to service Two other building sites. We kept it close to the boundary line. We kept it close to the border Um, so we didn't cut off The third of his lot They're both the same Just it just changes this you know the angles Um, the other thing is the driveway then runs Right through the middle of lot one Right through the middle But you run it down the property line between the one and two No, it's over the hill, you notice this Topo map I mean, there's some existing woods roads there and there's some additional paths now From the skidder. So, I mean, we just drew a line just to Right, this is not this is a conceptual plan. It's conceptual and and gary If this were lot one this whole thing It would it would go along the property line here and then come right out to this parcel But what I'm saying is is it This is part of lot one. Yeah, this is all Okay, miss that this is all out. Then it goes down the boundary line along the property line Oh, I know it. It's I know it is Kevin. I've got no problem with that. I just wonder who's going to pay for this Yeah Susan we'll talk. Well, I see that's that's my that's my issue, you know, I have thousands of dollars in Already and I can't turn around now and listen pay another four thousand for the septic systems and the designs I'm just too far ahead and and and and we wouldn't have to because the That one will be acceptable. How about this one down here? Does this cut into it? No, because it's right there Okay So that's still doable and in regards to actually meeting with the man that's going to do this for you But what I see I've always like I have a contract on this code I think that if you propose this to the and we know that as soon as that went Out of contract it went right back into. Yeah, I did. I don't but I don't know how I'm going to deal with that. I got Do you hear? I mean Okay, I think you know Kevin I stay here. Don't go away. Don't go away I have no problem With that I have no problem My issue is I have I want to I'm trying to get out of this. I have pieces You know that say july kevin. I want to get this done. I mean I I can't I mean, it's it's it's it's going to be up to the board. Yeah, it's not really I know I I don't brought up gary brought up some concerns. Yeah I think they're valid concerns and this is going to achieve all of these goals. It will it will I mean I get you know, I laugh I laugh at the habitat. You know that, you know that's what it's like. I don't know But I'm sorry Your turn No, actually what I what do you what do you say about? 10,000 What do you say about us? You know recessing this for two weeks and letting you to letting you to talk face out I would do that. I I get like I told Kevin I owe the town a hundred thousand dollars It goes up every month by 1.8 percent so Any time that I spend going back and forth Okay, that's where I am. That's where I am. I I have no Yeah, I have no vested interest in where taxes as long as I can do it. Well Okay, so I don't want to barter the land. What's that will listen and want the land No, I try don't they don't come on land trust doesn't want it. They don't want it Even though it's hooked up to um other you know, they didn't want it Well, they didn't they they just spent it all it was pretty enough. It was what miss angioletti told me But that's beside who's the gentleman in the back. That's my realtor Nick He's harmless. Uh, he's a nice man. I was curious. I was more curious if that was if that was your that was your engineer But no, um, it's not you have other points You would like to make about this this this hearing who amenable to Not that you have any really saying this but are you amenable to us continuing this for two weeks So that you have time to talk with the howards to see if this has some Value to them And if it does then come back in front of the board and if you do work out a deal will you drop your Issues Matt do you see anything anything wrong with what I'm proposing here So the only thing uh for the board to consider is the logistics of two weeks is a tight turnaround. So maybe four Well, it's and it's killing him. Yeah, I know That's the thing is I I do think that it's There's a I don't know that may be unfair to the applicant as well to be asked to redesign So what I would what I would say that would be something that that Sorry, man. Oh, no, go ahead. That would be something that at least from my perspective That the the two parties would have to work out in terms of Share the cost of They would have to work that out. Where does it put me in this process? Okay So we're in the discretionary permit process if you continue for two weeks You're still in the discretionary permit process the close of that process Should there be an approval is an authorization to file final plans Which you get once the minutes from whatever meeting it's approved at Get approved. So if we come back I would like to make one point And that is that if say let's say this has continued for two weeks And you are unable to reach an agreement between the two of you You still have a hearing and you still have Um your submission in front of the board Correct So you're not waving you're not waving any rights You're you're delaying it by two weeks But you're not waving any any rights based on the submission that we are sitting here ready to deliberate on now Other than this may have value to the both of you That that may be the two of you can work out your differences Just one point of clarification as well is if they let's say they are able to work it out and And we see something similar to this revised plan Does that need to go back for any prior review? Or can we Not necessarily so We you know as the staff what we would do is we would be willing to Take a look at anything that you know collectively you folks come up with over the next say week and a half And call out any issues so for example What's shown here that um kevin mezuzan submitted to the board tonight Appears at first glance under the rules of the town to be another approval way That um you know as you've discussed limits the You know addresses the contiguity of open space issue and and then does some other things So we can kind of do that we can look at a plan What I would say to the board is you know, what is the board's comfort level if you saw something at you know about this level of detail And said okay We're going to authorize you to file a final plan that that does this because that's the next step so My position As an individual board member, but also as the chair would be I'm going to kick it right back at you and go if the if the staff Believes that it does check all the boxes necessary Then I think the staff should say that and then if it does not you need to say that too And then the board can take it from there. Yeah, so to pass some kind of the board I'm speaking for all of you so feel free to weigh in the way I look at it is what has been presented here As an alternative plan does not really deviate in terms of level of detail dramatically from what was submitted as as the application so But out there that I I'm not seeing I'm not seeing a barrier And the only thing was submitted right the only concern I would have would be um bruce's concern about the Entrance to the driveway in that location from the town In which location and the proposal and um cabins proposed location your location, right? It's quite a ways down from the corner. I mean the the other one was up on the corner, but you still had the Yeah You know there's a couple hundred feet in both directions. That's all this puts it at least so that the sight lines both You got you got you actually got better. You got better sight west better sight. Yeah It also takes into consideration Susan Elliott across the street because she had a concern about where the driver Yeah, he's all aware of this because we actually supposed to he's not here. So what's not right? Yeah, I spoke I spoke to bruce about Provided bruce is not on vacation next week, which I very much doubt Um, we can we can wave something in front of us. I as a staff we we would need to see something Um, say by the end of the day Wednesday or Thursday next week. What do you want to see an engineer? Nope, I think a sketch At this level of if if there's a a compromise or an agreed upon way forward Some drawing that reflects that that this board can understand And that they could look at and say we're going to act on this revised submission and say yep Go tell your surveyor to put this one on mylar. Make this the subdivision plan That's what we have to do So if if it's I mean tell me if I'm wrong board, but if you saw something about like this To me I could tell you you could say yeah, go turn that into a final plan. Yep. That's the next step. Definitely I um, so we're not talking about necessarily You know, it's reasonably to scale Reflects the clearances the setbacks the general layout of those lot lines and the board says You know after some discussion And conditions. Yeah, go ahead and file a final plan based on that So I would I would reiterate that I think the two of you both parties should sit down and push and pull Based on you know based on where you you know, you feel you need the road or you feel you need the boundary line Or you what have you and then see if you can come to an agreement if you can come to an agreement Get your surveyor or your engineer He's gonna The only other question I've got is Markings for the wells has uh has a has a driller been out there or those just so those are just Imaginary places because yeah, yes, the yes, mr. Krakenbush walked around but he didn't make any assessment He just he says he's just so you haven't had one you haven't had one of the well companies come out Okay That's gonna say they may come out and suddenly say your well head is going to be some place completely different I know The only other thing I would know is that when you had the wetlands delineated they delineated lots one and two as originally proposed so There are some Right, so some of some of the Open space lot on lot three right has been absorbed by this. It's even higher and drier It's higher and drier. Yeah, it goes up the cliff, but it works up the finals. I know that's a good point Yeah, but you I think you're right to point out that the board would want confirmation that Any change to this wasn't going to do that So, you know, we can show you what the state map says about where the it thinks wetlands are on the site We know that understates their extent, but also informed by topography and however else you want to do it Or you ask for another piece of information to show up with that final plan set that just confirms it We know what about the conservation commission you do Yeah, I've talked to kevin Yeah, but do we need to talk to the other people do we have to talk to a wetland? Call Emily tomorrow Come by the office tomorrow. So We'll go through everything. I was going to The next hearing is the 25th Right of june a staff will need this to them by next wednesday If you want it in paper form in the mail to you, we need it by wednesday If you're comfortable getting, you know, one image electronically What does it look like friday? I am comfortable with getting an electronic image on friday and you can have something for us and have something printed at the hearing So you then that would be thursday You're not going to get a big revised write-up of whatever we get your but you would might it would nice It would be nice to get just a quick synopsis So next wednesday if we get next thursday, we'll just keep these okay Yeah, we'll keep people. You're passing So the hearing No, we are going to based on this discussion. You're not getting anything writing and writing from the board We are here. We're going to continue this hearing until the 25th At which time we will we would expect to see you both back here again If uh, if I if I could just add This was a great process This is the vermont way So kudos to both of you to all of you We didn't go up behind the woodshed Thank you, nice job. Thank you next time next time come forward sooner Thank you Okay, um the wilson development review board is out of deliberation at 904 For tuesday june 11th Do I have a motion for hp 19-03 slash ap 19-0214 andrew and angela conforty? Yes as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 Hi david turner moved the wilson development re-award Having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the towns staff and advisory boards Required to comment on this application by the wilson development by-law And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of june 11th 2019 Accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by the staff and approve hp 19-03 For proposed door to window conversion This approval authorizes the applicant to seek administrative permit for the proposed development Which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based We will be adding one condition. Um the condition is the applicant Has the discretion to use one of the three color options proposed to the drb Great, thank you. Any further? Do I have a second? I'll second it pete seconded any further discussion All in favor Five i's no nays motion carries Uh dp 19-09 gary howard has been continued to the next hearing of june 25th I have a motion to approve the minutes Of may 28th point Was I here or was I not here You were not here Just asking Since it says on both presents So uh, so brad, why don't you walk us through the proposed amendments to the minutes? Sure. So the minutes should read that I wasn't here last week. My understanding is that mr. Kelly mr. Riley and mr. christensen were not present For the hearing That's correct. And then so also mr. Christiansen's name should not be Should be posted where it's not present and removed from Is that your only are those that are only proposed changes? Um, yes, all that came to my attention I make a motion to approve the minutes as amended by brad I'll second it Jill seconds it any further discussion All in favor I To adjourn Six so moved