 participant toolbar. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the police station and virtually on it's actually at town hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes 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 what's the first meeting in March? March 14th. March 14th? Okay. To March 14th 2023 because we don't have anything on the agenda for two weeks from now correct? Okay. Okay. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Nate. Here. Paul. President. John. Here. Scott. Here. Dave Turner is absent. The chair is president and Lisa. Here. Welcome. Welcome Lisa. Your first official act. We appreciate you raising your hand and volunteering. Okay. Next up Andrew. Zoom instructions please. Not aware of the traffic increase to come. Secondary is wondering and more than just Southridge or a summer field, but in general in this particular portion of Williston, whether CCTA is ready, willing or able to provide public transport again in this area. You know, I would rather not to see a road traffic increase per dwelling unit. One vehicle here there and so forth being an issue and public transport is near and dear to me. So it would be great to get them back in place. I know there were other committees that are related to this, but I want to find out whether they are basically ready and willing to ramp up as development occurs here and buildings are made and people move in. That is all. Thank you so much, everybody. All right. Thank you, Ian. Okay. Is there anyone else? Okay. Here. Nobody else? Okay. Hearing none. We'll segue into agenda item number two, which is the public hearing. There are three items on tonight's agenda, DP 23-08.1. That's Berlin City Kia. That's a master sign plan. DP 20-18.1. That's the Ethan Allen Homes Project, the former, that's the summer field subdivision, formally known as the Catamount Country Club. Still known as the Catamount Country Club. That's item number two. And then item number three is a continuation of DP 23-12, which is a U-Haul Moving and Storage Pre-App for Williston Road, the Rowe Bear Subdivision Law 2. I will be recusing myself from that application as my employer has a relationship with U-Haul. Mr. Hemelgarn, you will please take that one on. So, first up on the agenda is Berlin City Kia. Courtney, come on up. Are you solo? I guess so. Okay. Nobody else here from Berlin City? Okay. You would state your name and address for the record, please. I'm Courtney Bhutan with SB Signs and we are at 466 Shun Pike Road in Williston. Thank you and welcome. Emily's up next for the staff report. Yeah. So this is a request for a discretionary permit to establish a master sign plan for the Kia dealership and detail center located at 585 and 586 Marshall Ave. The DRB may recall back in December approval for an addition and facade renovation to the site and that approval was conditioned that a master sign plan be approved prior to the final plans for that other application. Tonight, staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate and issue a decision. The final plans must address some elements like lighting, directional signs, and show landscaping at the base of free standing signs. There's a couple additions in this staff report that I'm going to go over that are not in your printed copies but are on the screen shared version and uploaded online. So there was a master sign plan done in 2012 when the detail center which is on the south side of Marshall Ave when that site was being proposed as a fiat dealership. That master sign plan has since, you know, been irrelevant. The fire department commented on that prior application and this application that there be numerical lettered numbering for all the doors of the building and that the E911 number be visible. No public comments were received at the time of mail out nor by this evening. So master sign plan is required when signs are larger or more numerous than what can be allowed in the administrative table, basically larger than 24 square feet and more than one freestanding sign, more than one wall sign. There are several types of signs that are proposed wall sign, freestanding, directional, and there's some signs that are not proposed like projected signs, suspending, or banners. I do include a note about banners that they would require to be a part of the master sign plan if they're going to be used regularly. Banners that have a commercial statement or text or a logo on them. I do note that I spoke with Courtney today and the dealership might use solid banners on the light poles. Those would not be considered a sign because it's just a symbol, solid color, more of a decorative element than a sign and that the dealership isn't planning on using any other banners on the property. This property has and had many non-conforming signs, including more than one freestanding sign for point of access, multiple sandwich board, A-frame signs, the light pole banners with logos, internal illumination, and upward-facing illumination. During that prior review in December, they brought some of those signs into compliance by removing them and this master sign plan further brings the property into compliance. I do have a note here on illumination. So there were some questions about the illumination type for the freestanding and the wall sign. Courtney clarified today that the Kia lettering uses a technique called push-through letters and this is used on the freestanding as well as I think the wall signs are similar on the wall signs? No, actually I have both types here if we want to look at them, but yeah. As I understand it, the wall signs are halo-lit, but the pylon sign has the push-through. Push-through lettering is a type of sign where the front face is opaque, the sides are a custom-molded acrylic so it's a 3D sign and the light transmits through the sides of the acrylic. In Williston, internally illuminated signs are prohibited, backlit aka halo-lit signs are allowed. So it's a decision for the DRB if that push-through channel letter is an internally illuminated sign or a backlit sign. Courtney provided these photos, keep in mind this is a much taller sign than what they're proposing here, but it's the effect of the push-through lettering. And I tried to supply some examples and Courtney has samples she can show in a moment of push-through versus that backlit. All in all, the sign area that's being proposed is in line. So can you go, can you scroll back? So the G is backlit. Halo-lit, reverse halo-lit. So that's the halo, okay and that differs from backlit. Do you want me to show you? Yeah, let's let Emily go finish and then I think a little show and tell would be helpful. So all in all with the frontage calculation, the proposed sign area complies with that maximum 8% allowance and the proposed window signage also complies. They're not proposing any public art. In this updated version I clarified the findings of fact related to lighting. There's a conclusion of law for the DRB to decide on if the lighting does or does not comply. Either way, whether it does or does not comply, condition of approval number nine that it be brought into compliance at final plan. So there's a couple clarifying aspects of the conditions of approval, clarifying the lighting, where the window signs are and if any of those directional signs are larger than four square feet or have a logo that they be included in the master sign plan, all of these elements I think can be handled at final plans. Thank you. Okay, thank you Emily. Courtney the floor is yours. Okay, do you want me to show you the lights or do you have other questions you want to start with? It's your call on the sequence. This is your time. Why don't you give why don't you go into show and tell? Okay. Yeah. Questions are going to come from you. Right. Right. I just wanted to mention this year for another project that we did in that, I'm feeling our question right now. So, table moving letters, C and L were supposed to help. We're a table bit, it's pretty fine. And the way that these work is it's a standard channel letter that has a clear back or sometimes a frosted. And the light is just reflecting off the surface. Healthy Living is a one of them recently, RAI, same idea. So, no light is emitting out the front of the sign and the light that's coming out is coming out based on how far the letter is off the wall. Sometimes they're only a little bit and they're a lot more. So, that's the reverse halo. So, there's basically spacers that keep it off the wall. It's based a little bit off the wall depending on a lot of different factors. That's where that light emanates from. Okay. So, before you continue, staff, does that meet the bylaw? Yes, backlit. And there's, there are different people called reverse halo illumination, backlit. There's a lot of different ones which have their different talents and different language, but this is what they're talking about. Okay. Yeah, what chapter 25 says, backlit signs take the form of individually illuminated channel letters. The light sources must be fully shielded so as to direct light only into the channel letters. So, that's where all that light is inside the letter. Okay. So, for large signs, big letters, intricately detailed photos, things like that, these are very easy to produce. They're very common. Where it's more limiting though is when it comes to a sign. We especially see it with high-lawned or re-standing signs. It's hard to make a can letter, a channel letter like this that's small. And especially once it gets narrow, it's hard, it's hard to manufacture a can that has the lighting in it and has the space to provide this type of lighting. So, another, this is standard facelift and more this, this is router facelift and more this. This is a push-through letter. So, this is the, the backing, backlit panel is routed out and the acrylic protrudes through that. And with an opaque face, the only light that needs is coming out the side of the letter. You see many, many different iterations of this. Some, you know, the, the, or the acrylic might be very thick. So, you get a lot of light coming out the side. Sometimes the opaque will wrap around the edge of the letter. This is the most basic. So, it's just opaque face. The light emanates out the side. It gives you a similar halo look. It's not the facelift or the frontlet. But it's easier to produce when it comes to designs that have smaller features to them. Those are smaller letters. It's doable. Okay. How does that comply or does not comply with the bylaws? That's the question for you guys. I think it's, this is like really right on the line. Where I think internally illumination is geared towards where it is projecting out the face throughout the whole sign. But it is a three dimensional object. So light is illuminating out through the sides and the top and bottom. I think the main intent of the bylaw is we're not shining light up. We're not shining bright light out that it's subtle, softer, you know, downward facing or that halo lit where it's a more subtle, less intrusive, less intrusive light pollution. And what we see with a lot of other municipalities is that exact, you know, the bylaws are written sometimes really broadly that just say no facelift, but you can have anything else and other times they're very specific. But usually the intent in the way that they're written is that it's no face lighting and it's all that more diffuse light. Are there any lights like that in Williston? There might be. There was a similar sign permit on Industrial Ave. That was a more simple graphic in the application form and just had a note next to it halo lit from that application. It wasn't quite clear if it was halo or this push through style. Yeah, I can also say in the distant past in Williston where we had some of the old style internally illuminated box signs. Sometimes an evolution of that sign would be permitted where an opaque face would be placed on it such that only a narrow halo around the letters or logo allowed light to come through to basically take, you know, to retrofit a sign and try to create the same halo effect. And depending on the depth of that push through, it can be very close to a halo effect. And I think it is to some degree the depth of that. Another example is kind of a bad example because the acrylic is actually more extensive than the metal cover is the maple tree place signs. So the wood on the tree logo is metal. The lights shine back and then bounce through this great big acrylic foliage. And then at that point, the push through is so extensive, it's not even push through, it's beyond that, really we found once those were installed had the effect of being like an internally illuminated side and the fact that sometimes they go haywire and the colors change every second only exacerbates it. So there's a line here as Emily said and an interpretation to make I think the depth of that push through and the extent to which that acrylic piece creates the halo versus becomes a 3D internally lit surface really makes the difference here. As does when you're talking about the reverse halo lit that are allowed currently with a lot of spacer and bright lighting, which isn't technically, as I understand it, that's not regulated by current codes. No. Yeah, so if you have really bright lights and you're 12 inches out of the building, you're going to have a really bright sign. I mean the standard isn't to do that, but a halo, a small push through letter is not going to be any brighter and might be less bright than an existing reverse halo lit. Okay. DRB members, questions. Which signs are you proposing to be the push through? The monument sign. The big one. Yeah. So the one that we have proposed is significantly smaller than the one in the picture that you saw. They have it as just a 4 by 10 sign. And so the letters themselves are 7 inches as opposed to what you saw. The Kia logo. Yeah. The Kia logo is the only thing. So 7 inches high. Yeah. So probably 4 or 5 and then a narrower object. Yeah. So how long is that whole work? It is 2 feet 8 and 15, 16. So 2 feet 9 inches by 7. By 7? Yeah. So not much bigger than the C that's there. I would guess that's probably a 4 or 5 inch. So it's not, you know, they're not this tall. And then the sign also has that same acrylic side light. So if you look, it's on. Do you have it? Do you have the renderings in front of you? Excuse me again? Yeah. Exactly. The side profile. So the letters themselves are pushed through that push through style. And then if you look at the side profile, that 2 foot depth, they're halo illuminating the black so that the clear in that side profile is also an illuminated acrylic. So you would see, can you pull up that picture again? So there's sort of a halo around the black. And then how far does the logo protrude out from the black? I'm going to have to get you that. I don't have the full production drawings. So. I want to say, might say in those specifications. Yeah, I'm like, I don't see. And I apologize for not reading the application that closely. So I do, here we go. Was it two inches? I'm going to be on the next page. No, that's the building sign. So I don't know. I will have to get that for you. I'm asking a question. I honestly don't know if it makes a different shadow. On the, on the depth of the letter. Yeah. Well, it was coming out this far. Then it's different than if it's only. No, I wouldn't. I would expect it that size. It would, it wouldn't look good if it was too thick because it would, it would have a weird depth during the day. You know, so you wouldn't have it more than. You know, an inch thick maybe, but I still, you know, don't put me on that. Yeah, but that's the, that's the wall. So I'm just going to be ignorant for another couple of minutes. So you've got the panel in the back and then you've got this black panel that's forward to that by with the inch. Or something space in that, or, well, I don't know, three or four inches maybe. So this, if you're looking at the side profile, there's the silver is the sign cabinet. Right. And then there's the, the acrylic layer. And then there's the black upon which the silver letters are. I can. Those are silver letters and the silver pieces are the ones that are pushed through. Yeah. And there's, and then there's a, there's kind of an acrylic on the side of that silver. Yeah. So is it? Yeah. So, so those letters are really going to, they're going to look black on black almost. No, they're going to, they're. It's going to be like that right there on the left. At night. Yeah. At night. Yeah. Here like that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But at night it would just, you're just going to see the halo essentially. At night it's now going to be, the tablet is a lighter color. That's going to be lit up from the internally. Exactly. Illuminated piece. Yeah. Then you have the black which is going to be black all the time. Yep. And the letters pushed through with a little bleed through light on the sides with what's going to now be a silhouette of a letter. Right. In front of it. Yeah. Because there's no front illumination on there at all. And there's no doubt, you know, there's no lighting from the round or from above shining on it. So it's actually, it'll be different than this. When I'm seeing here in the picture, it's going to look to. The night view. Yeah. You go back to the picture one more time. I'm sorry. That's what you're going to see at night. Yeah. I mean, same idea. Right. Right. But a lot smaller. A lot smaller. Yeah. Okay. Good. I understand. Okay. Anyone else? Service sign and the Berlin city or else could be eliminated, right? Yes. No. No. Service is. Yes. I'm sorry. Yes. It is also L.A. dealing with. In other words, basically, what I'm looking at is that you already saw the list of N numbers. Mm-hmm. Almost all the N signs are illuminating. Right. So freestanding N01 and then two, three, four, five, and six are all going to be illuminating. Yes. Okay. Yeah. And what kind of time frame are we looking at when they go off at night? I believe the regs in Williston are one hour after the close of business and one hour before the business opens. So. Okay. It looks like, is the color temperature listed here at 7100? Is that what I'm looking at? And that's extremely white light, which I understand is the point of this, but do you have any information on how color temperature, how light travels differently if it's a lower temp versus a higher temp, anything like that? Because I know like an incandescent, for example, would probably be more in the 2000 range. We're talking very, very white, bright white here. I cannot give you that detailed information about the light itself. No. I can tell you that this is pretty standard for, for LED lights in, it's a standard LED module for Williston signs that we do. So, yeah. I think, you know, the, the effect that they're always looking for is like that clean, bright white. Any other questions? Nate, you're good. Yeah. I mean, I'm good. I'd like to know more about the, the color temperatures, I think, because it is LEDs have just come so far, so quickly. And I don't know that our, I don't know that the laws really address any of that. No. So our bylaws silent on light color for sign lighting. For comparison, like a natural white would be around 3,500 K and sky blue would be 10,000 K. And so this is like a cool white at 7,100 K. Okay, so if the, if the regulation is silent on it, we were silent on it. Yeah. Okay. Anything else from the board? Courtney, anything else that? I don't think so. Emily, you did mention. I know Matt, you and I had spoken about the light pole banners. Yeah. And you said solid color. I just want to clarify that we had said not necessarily solid color, but no branding. So like if they, like a design element or something like that, but the intention with your intention with the master sign plan for the banner, for the light pole banners is just no advertising. So it would be no branding, no messaging, nothing. If they were to put them up, they could, they could have say like the, like a logo color or something like that. That wouldn't be a conflict, but just for decoration. So they wouldn't be counted as part of the signage. Okay. But I think was that. Yeah. And also like if there was a banner, like a seasonal sale banner that would be hung on the building that's on a regular basis that would need to be either in the master sign plan approved as part of a special event. So we did the only temporary signage that we did based on their history is that we asked for one temporary A frame sign, like a standard sandwich board on either side of the road. So that would limit them to this is what you're allowed to have. And I think you would specify near the entrance or in a consistent area. And again, per regs, those come down at the end of every day. So if you're putting out a, you know, 0% financing or something, you put that out in the morning when you open and you take it down at night. Right. And the other one falls over category of public service by that year. What month you got to get your car into the service. Right. And, but that's also considered that would be their sandwich board. I'm assuming by. Yep. Yep. So on, on the light pole banners, many of the DRB members are probably familiar with a number of different conversations we've had about different sites, whether it was banners or awnings or things like that or gas pump islands, coordinating colors generally thought of as okay and not carrying a commercial message, even if they reflect the logo colors, but no graphic that reflects the company logo or a piece thereof that's recognizable, et cetera. So the, the Panera test was the shaft of wheat versus just using the Panera colors on, on the awnings. Sonoco was, you can have the Sonoco, you know, blue, red, yellow, but not the checker flag. So that's kind of where the board's drawn the line. The healthy living apple. The healthy living apple was a good one. Use the healthy living colors, use decorative elements that look like food, but not something that communicated the branding of the store inside. Same idea here. Okay. So one question I have for you on speaking of window graphics, we only proposed in here basically what they have existing for window graphics. They don't, you know, per the regulations they're allowed, I think significantly more based on the window frontage that they have. Would you recommend that we ask for the maximum as a part of the MSP? So it's on the books or should it stay as it is? So they have 1200 square feet of glass facing the public way and the allowed coverage would be 20%. So, and that would be measured as, you know, if you had, you couldn't consolidate all of that sign into one window and max out one window. Like a sign band or, you know, like a graphic band or something. Right. And it was, that was not, that was not part of sort of the scope for this proposed signage. So it sort of got pushed to the side. But if you, you know, if we're going to do this, I might as well do it once. Yeah. Yeah. I would, I would recommend planning for, you know, the use of 20% of most of the street facing windows. Assuming the board feels that a master sign plan otherwise is approval in the context of allowing that. So that's part of the balancing test here. As you're allowing something different than what the baseline zoning would allow for a normal single tenant. So when you're looking at, you know, your wall signs and everything else, if you think, you know, seeing 20% of each of those windows with some kind of application of the glass is okay, go ahead and recommend the applicant include that in their final plans. If it meets the 8%, it meets the maximum signage on the site. Up to the board a little bit in that you do have, which of the signs are larger than the, than the baseline? I think most. Wall and freestanding. Yeah, it varies. Some of the wall signs are less than 24 square feet. Some of them are larger and then they're proposing more than one wall sign. So my point being that the DRB is able to, you know, not go above that 8% limit. You can look at that facade and use a little bit of a balancing test with the wall signs and the freestanding signs as they are. Are you comfortable saying, yeah, go ahead and file final plans for more window signs? Or do you want to recommend that be dialed back a bit in the context of everything else that's going on, on the building? Okay. And they haven't, they haven't specifically asked for it. I'm just, again, you know, trying to save them having to come back for an amendment. Sure. Six months if they want it. But if you, you know, if you say, this is the most you're allowed period, then that's easier to. Okay. Members of the public, any comments? No chats or raised hands. Okay. Anything else before we close? The window signs, basically, they're basically, you know, like not making a standard like they were going to do with the Apple. If they're going to be basically throwing them a, you know, a sign saying, you know, some kind of relative to that sale, you know, that, that's a little different than I think just some, some months there might not be anything in those windows and sometimes it might be quite bit in the window, right? And to, as far as I know, to date, unless there's something that I was unaware of previously, they, they only just have their hours up right now, as far as I'm aware. So it's not something that they've, they're proposing as part of this. They're not particularly close to the road. They might not, but just for future. No, I'm trying to say that was, that's almost like a norm for ownership. They always have something in a window. That's how you can kind of know that the dealerships that can exist is when there's no cars in there because they don't have any cars. Yep. So, okay. Anything else? Okay. We are going to close DP 23-08.1 at 736. Thank you. Next up is DP 20-18.1, Ethan Allen Holmes. Mr. Himmelgarn, you're recusing yourself? Yes. I am recusing myself as I am in a budding landowner and I've recused myself on this hearing every single time it's going to close. Great. Thank you. Okay. The applicant will come forward, please. Gentlemen, welcome. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Ken Belevo, 683 Maple Street, Watterbury Center, Vermont, 05677. I'm here representing the applicant, Ethan Allen Holmes. Brian Currier, O'Leary Burke, 13 Corporate Drive, representing Ethan Allen Holmes. Great. Welcome. Emily, you're up next. All right. This is a request for discretionary permit to make some amendments to DP 20-18 summer field subdivision. This property is located at 1400 Mountain View Road in the residential zoning district. There's two main components to this application. One is to designate the March 2022 growth management allocation on their phasing schedule, a total of 16 DUE, and two, to change the overall dwelling unit type and mix. They are increasing from 138 to 141 dwelling units, but overall, they're still staying at 122 DUE. The property is currently a commercial use, the golf course, and they're proposing residential. Tonight, we are recommending that you take testimony and close, deliberate, and approve the application with conditions as drafted. A specific condition number 22 has been added to recognize that there are many combinations of unit types. A studio or one bedroom is half a dwelling unit equivalent. A unit with two or more bedrooms is a whole dwelling unit equivalent. So there's many combinations of that that can achieve the 12-point growth management score for affordable housing and the density bonus. I can get to this in more detail. So this project history is summarized here. The DRB may recall that the discretionary permit was approved last April for the overall site design, overall layout in terms of streets, stormwater, utilities where the buildings are going to go. None of the major elements are changing here in terms of the overall subdivision design, its overall amenities, et cetera. The hack was not required to comment and the conservation commission comments were included at discretionary permit. They're not changing any configuration related to open space or wetlands. Public works and fire comments are included. These comments were also included at that original discretionary permit. No public comment letters were received at the time of mail-out, nor have any been received to date. So this project is located in the residential zoning district. Overall, everything complies. They're not changing any open space, any overall layout. They are moving a couple building footprints around. For example, where there was once a floorplex, now there's a six-plex housing choice. Housing choice complies as proposed. The density bonus is upheld. There's a requirement in the bylaw that if you're going to achieve the density bonus, which is five dwelling unit equivalents per acre, that 30% of the actual units are affordable. So not calculated out of the dwelling unit equivalents, calculated out of the DU, the dwelling equivalents. So that's how we get to 43. Growth management. So in Williston, a dwelling unit equivalent is used for the purposes of growth management and the densities units per acre. March 2023 will be the third time that Summerfield will compete in growth management. To date, they have 60 DUE allocated, 13 as affordable, 14 as market. And they're expected to participate in March 2023 this year to get more of their remaining allocation. They achieved a score of 71 points, including 12 points for the affordable housing criteria. This 12-point requirement has requirements that some units be affordable at 80%, some at 100%. There is a threshold for 120%. However, they're proposing to meet those at the 100% level in order to concurrently meet the density bonus and growth management. So density bonus only looks at units that are affordable at or below 100% the area median income, whereas the density bonus also looks at that 120% level. Housing choice. Compliance is also anticipated here to uphold their score of 20 out of 20 points. They're moving a couple unit types around. Overall, 38 units will be one bedrooms. This will be an increase from 32 units. That's how they're able to maintain that 122 DUE, but still increase the overall number of units because there's more one bedrooms. And this is the first subdivision ever in the residential zoning district to propose one bedroom units. Here's a summary of their growth management scores, how they're proposing to meet it. Overall, staff finds that this amendment upholds their score as well as density. That density bonus is also upheld. What follows is findings of fact and conclusions of law. I do note here that the findings of fact are worded in a way of moving more unit types around than that would have to go back for an amendment but just designated how many ones and two bedrooms are affordable can happen at final plans as long as they're upholding growth management and density. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Ken and Brian, your turn. Thank you, Pete. Emily has covered a lot of ground there. Just a couple of points that I would want to make. One is just to make one point that Emily made really clear is that the way you see these two different terms, dwelling units and dwelling unit equivalents get thrown around. It's somewhat unique to Wilson and ultimately density is calculated in terms of the number dwelling unit equivalents. A dwelling unit equivalent is a two bedroom unit or two bedrooms are greater and a half a dwelling unit equivalent is a one bedroom or studio and that's really what it means. So if you have two one bedroom units that only counts as one dwelling unit and how the affordable to get the density bonus and the definition section of the bylaw, you have to count just the actual dwelling units, which the literal physical unit as one, each one as one thing. However, density is calculated as dwelling unit equivalents. I say that as a prelude to just making the point is that the net result of our changes would be that we would go to 122 dwelling units overall and the maximum density allowed is 134 dwelling unit equivalents. So as a result of these changes, it doesn't affect our compliance with density at five units per acre using the density bonus for affordable housing as prescribed by the bylaw. So I just wanted to make the point that we're well under the maximum number of dwelling units equivalents that would be possible. Another point that I wanted to make is that really the first part of why we're here tonight is because the bylaw requires us to come in for discretionary permit within one year after growth management allocation. As was stated earlier, growth management took place March of 2022. So we needed to come back to the board for that. We were in front of the board in April of 2022 for our first discretionary permit. And that triggers the requirement to come in for final plans within one year of that date. And so since that time is part of the discussions with the applicant, some of these changes that have been talked about in terms of the mix of dwelling units, whether it's a one-bedroom or two-bedroom, et cetera, we're really looking to make some changes in that mix. And the board had delegated final plan approval to staff. And I think collectively between the staff and the applicant side, we felt it was really important for the board to see all of those things before staff would then be looking over the plans as part of final plans. So we wanted to make sure that you saw all of what it is that we're proposing. As Emily stated, we're not proposing any changes in the street layout. All the streets, as you've seen them in the past, are literally exactly the same. Some of the building types would potentially be changed. I would also like to point out there were some conditions of approval that were imposed by the board back in April of last year. So the plan in front of you incorporates those changes. And there were a couple of those where we were required to move a dwelling unit outside of a required wetland buffer, which we did. That was, I think that was lot 41 at the, is that, was it? I think it's lot 14. 14 at the numbers backwards. The northeast side of that long road. So there was going to be a single family dwelling and the yard would have been included into a part of the wetland buffer. The board said, don't do that. So we changed that. But we changed that building type from a single family structure to a duplex structure. There were some other changes like that as well as far as the, what's that? The rec path on mountain views on there too now. Oh, right. Brian was pointing out to me that along Mountain View Road, one of the conditions of approval is that we would build that pedestrian, the multi-use path along Sound Mountain View Road, and that's depicted there in the plan. Lastly, I wanted to, I know as part of the public comment, you had somebody in the town that had some questions about traffic and the potential effects of the development of this piece of land on Southridge. And so I wanted to restate what we had stated last year is that when the project gets built out, our intention is to only, only use Mountain View Road as the construction entrance. Eventually this road, Carbonis Drive, would connect to Raven Circle. But we're not going to use Raven Circle as our construction entrance. All the construction activity would take place off of Mountain View Road. Eventually the road network would connect into Raven Circle, which would connect into Southridge. But as far as any construction vehicle activity that would all come in off of Mountain View Road, just wanted to restate that for the benefit of the person that commented earlier. Do you have anything you want to add, Brian? No. Sewer is coming from Raven Circle. So there will be some activity there. There will have to be some inevitably construction equipment there just temporary, quickly. But Sewer is coming from Raven Circle within phase one. And we do have a plan sheet that was submitted back in April that does have notes on it determining where we're going to start and that traffic, construction traffic won't come through Southridge. So that's on the plan set. That's not just testimony. Okay. Anything else? I think we're good. Okay, great. Any questions? No. Okay. Members of the public either here in person or online, any questions? Okay. Mr. Campbell. Yes. Can you hear me okay? Yes. So just want to point out that I'm not concerned about the construction issues, but the residential issues when it comes to traffic flow into Southridge. And given that the approval of this project occurred in the lead up and the culmination of COVID, there are a lot of townspeople probably who are not aware of what's going to come through a neighborhood. So I simply want to find out how can we communicate to everybody what's going to happen? That's all. To address the communication piece. But just for the public good, walk the public through the discipline that's used to evaluate the traffic on a project like this. So a project like this is required to provide a traffic study which analyzes if the existing road network is going to need any improvements to alleviate any congestion methods such as turning lanes, traffic signals, things where vehicles are queuing to such a point that an intersection needs to be improved to handle traffic flow. When Southridge was originally designed, it was planned to have street right-of-way connectivity to a budding properties. If those budding properties were to develop that there would be planned connectivity between neighborhoods. Great. And I might add that it's required in the bylaw. Yep, it's required in the bylaw. Public works, I think initially in this application where it tees up with Raven Circle, they wanted the intersection to be true four-way rather than having it off-centered so that that intersection would be safe for vehicles and pedestrians maneuvering through. Okay, next question, Emily, is walk us through the warning process for this development. Who would be given a formal warning and what other methods are used to inform the public of this project? Yep. So direct of butters, people who own property that share a property line with this property or are located directly across a public street, they would receive in a butters notice letter in the mail. We also are required to post the hearing notice in the paper. So we posted in the Williston Observer and the property owner posts H signs, the big orange H signs on the property. In this case, we had them do two H signs, one on Raven Circle and one on Mountain View Road because it has frontages in two areas. During COVID, there was an emergency order by the governor that allowed us to conduct public hearings online without an in-person location. But during COVID, we were still required to mail everybody, post the H signs, post it in the newspaper. And we always post everything in the public street as well. So the only thing that changed during COVID was meetings were online only for several months. Okay, great. Ian, any follow up questions after what Emily said? No, I'm glad this all came out. My other comment again, this is not substantive related to what DRV can actually do. So thinking ahead to the next generation, growth is going to occur. And let's consider the Cirque Highway from here to 117, which honestly, if it was actually allowed to occur, would actually would facilitate the increase of population, increase of development that we were talking about. Think about it. We have a controlled development where we have pathways, which include bicycle, pedestrian, but also road traffic and maybe a Bullard style from here to 117. Imagine what that would do for all these developments from here to that location. Mountain View, Southridge, everybody would see alleviation, including Essex Road. All the issues we're facing as we see form-based codes come to play, form-based code come to play. Just want to put that out there because I'm thinking ahead, way ahead. Thank you, guys. Okay. Thank you, Ian. Okay. Any other members of the public that would like to speak? No, no, no, no. I'm going to open. On that note, any final thoughts or comments? Brian or Ken? DRB members? Okay. I'm going to close DP 20-18.757. Thank you. Coming. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP 23-12. I'll hand the reins over to Mr. Neumann. Thank you, Pete. I would note, I believe there's a couple of our guests tonight that have not signed in yet. If you could make sure you do that before we leave. Thank you. So, I think as Pete said, the next application is DP 23-12 on the pre-app for the U-Haul Moving Storage that we began at our last meeting. So, I'd ask you guys to identify yourselves, name and address, please. Doug Goulet from TCE. I presided 240 Southridge Road, Willisville. Jeff Vane, owner's rep U-Haul, 58 Howard Street, Winchester, New Hampshire. Great. Thank you for coming back. And resigning to us again with some revisions. No problem. So, Simon. Great. So, everyone should be able to see the screen now. As you may remember, this is... Simon. Simon, we're going to have to ask you to speak up a little bit there. Okay. Can you hear now? Not very well. We might need to just turn the volume up on the speaker. I think it's that little cream roll-in thing under the table. We're having a hard time hearing Simon as he speaks. Simon's people. Okay. Can you hear me better now? Keep talking, Simon. Keep talking. I don't really have that much to say unless I'm going to explain this game and what the report says. I think we've solved the problem. Okay. Something new every week. All right. Go ahead. So, this is a request for pre-application review for a U-Haul warehouse facility in the ICDW to be used to store U-Boxes, which are those portable storage boxes. You no doubt remember that it was presented to the DRB at the last meeting on January the 24th. The DRB gave the applicant time to resubmit the site plan, making some changes. And that's what we'll hear to review tonight. So, the changes that have been made very briefly are to remove the 16-space car parking spaces slash storage spaces that were previously shown at the front of the site, close to Weston Road. And we've got nine car parking spaces now at the rear of the building. The building itself has moved forward of approximately eight feet. And the applicant is proposing a 10-foot-wide planting strip in front of the building. The landscape buffer to the sort of bacon lot to the east has been increased in size from nine to 23 feet. We're now showing a revised landscape buffer to the south, to the single family home there, the steady property, which is a fence on top of the berm. The applicants including a small sort of clutch of additions to the building, which include a small office, a restroom and the utility space. And then they've also provided a sort of a tracking diagram which shows how different delivery vehicles will access to the site. So tractor trailers, which will be coming to the loading dock over here and how that will maneuver around the site. And then also the straight-bed truck, which I believe delivers to the roll-up door on the east side of the building. Switching back to the staff report. I'm just going to focus on the sort of the highlights because I know people reviewed this last time. So we're now posing nine parking spaces to the south of the building, which is a reduction from what was previously shown. I know the applicant is going to go over this, but they are needed, understand they're needed for additional start or temporary help parking or vendors who are coming to the property. This is to avoid people parking in the truck lanes in some sort of ad hoc manner. In terms of sort of access, if the parking space is to the south of the building showing a discretionary permit, the applicant just needs to show that there'll be safe pedestrian access to an employee or customer entrance. So that'll be a minor extension of the striping if the car parking space is served, the building subject to this reapplication review or just indicating safe access to the main new hostility if they're intended to serve that. We are also suggesting that the DRB waive the short-term bicycle parking provision as there's no public access to this building. However, we are still recommending one long-term space for the forklift operator. The recommendation in terms of landscaping has been updated. So as I mentioned earlier, they are posing the Type 3 23 foot landscaping buffer to the east boundary along here. And they're also being directed to work with these steadies to the south with the parcel and developer and appropriate buffer with them. And they've already started to look at that by extending the berm and the vinyl fence along that boundary. And then lastly, in terms of watershed health, previous meeting the DRB provided direction to the applicant to look at a reduction in the extent of payment across the parcel and to investigate options to increase the quantity of green space. So that's been primarily achieved through the removal of the parking space at the front of the property, the incorporation of the 10 foot wide planting strip in front of the building and the increased landscape buffer. So overall that does reduce the amount of impervious area by 19% compared to what we looked at last time and reduces the overall log coverage from everything the impervious surface and the building from 73% to sorry, 71% to 63%. So that's it. What we have is a recommendation to approve the application, the pre-application with recommendations as drafted. Thank you, Simon. Gentlemen, anything to add or further clarifications you'd like to put before the board? I don't really have anything. I think it's part of your package. I had a nine bullet email that was basically covered everything that Simon covered. So I'm not going to go through them again. Thank you. So I'll open this up to the board for any comments, questions. Looks like you made some more green space. So we did. I can see the nice green on the plan there, which is helpful. That's great. Colors help. Paul, any questions, comments? Just kind of curious why there's any signs on the building that isn't for the public and the advertising signs. That's a rhetorical question. Semi-rhetorical. It's sort of like the sign when you used to go out 123 in Virginia and there was a turnoff to the CIA. You know, it's like, well, if you know where you're going, you didn't need it. And even though you saw the sign, it wasn't for you anyhow. So like, why was it there? And so if this isn't for the public, why is there a sign saying, oh, by the way, this is you all, but don't come in here because it isn't for you. It is allowed. I know. That way no one will go investigate trying to figure out what it is, Paul. We won't have to hear about the little green men that are hanging or whatever. And if you look at their diagram, if the truck actually had its wheels turned that way and followed that thing, the trailer ain't going to be going where they think it's going. Okay. Just an aside. Any more? No, I'm good. You're good. Lisa. You all right? Good. Scott? We did what we asked them to do. Absolutely did what we asked them to do. We appreciate that. No problem. So do we have any comments from the public? Simon or Andrew? I guess you're in charge of that tonight. Great. And there's none in the audience at this point for sure. So I do. I guess I do have a question. Is there a master sign plan to go with this? Or are the buildings considered too separate? So this is pre-application stage. So we're recommending that they do prepare a master sign plan. It's part of their discretionary plan. Okay. Good. Great. So then I think we'll be able to close this one tonight. At, oh my gosh. Oh, there it is. 10 after 8. Okay. Thanks for your time. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, John. So at eight 10, the DRB will go into deliberative session. Does not. Does not comply with all the requirements of WB, DB 25 signs and public art. Number conclusion of law number three, illuminated push through letter signs are a prohibited internally illuminated type per WDB 25.6.7.1. And finally, we are going to make condition number nine. Read final plans must clarify. Signing signage lighting and light timing. Illumination must comply with WDB 25.6.7. Thank you, John. Is there a second? Scott seconds it. Any further discussion? Okay. Yay or nay. Nate. Yeah. Paul. Yeah. John. Yeah. Scott. The chair is yeah. Lisa. Yeah. Six in favor. Not opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 20 dash 18.1. Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3. I Scott Riley move that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all of the accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of February 14th, 2023, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the approval of DP 20 dash 18.1 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions 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, Scott. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds it. Any discussion? John? Yay or nay? Nick? Yay. Paul? Yay. John has recused himself. Scott? Yay. The chair is a yay. Lisa? Yay. Five in favor? None opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 23 dash 12? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I Nathan Andrews move that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted into all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearings of January 24th and February 14th 2023, accept the recommendations for DP 23 dash 12 and authorize this application to move forward to discretionary permit review. Thank you, Nate. Is there a second? Second. John seconds it. Any discussion? Yay or nay? Nate? Yay. Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. The chair is recusing himself. Lisa? Yay. Five in favor? None opposed? One recusal on the Ethan Allen Holmes DP 20 dash 18.1. There was five in favor? None opposed? One recusal. I did not mention the recusal when I read the results. Okay. Next up is town of Williston Development Review Board meeting minutes from January 24th 2023. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Yeah. I move that we approve the minutes of the meeting in January 24th 2023 as written. Thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay. Scott seconds it. Any discussion? Hearing none. Yay or nay? Nate? Yay. Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. The chair is the yay. Lisa, are you going to recuse yourself because you did not participate? Okay. Five in favor? None opposed? The meeting minutes are approved as written. Is there any other participants who think fourth tonight? Glad to have it. Seventh member. Yeah. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Seconded? Seconded. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. We'll adjourn. Thank you.