 Thank you. Welcome to the Wilson Development and Review Board meeting of June 27th, 2023. My name is Pete Kelly, I'm Chair of the DRP. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the 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. Are we going to need to do that Andrew? Is there Zoom participants? Okay. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to July 11th, 2023. Roll call. Nate Andrews is present. Paul Christensen is not present. Lisa Brayden Harbour is present. Scott Riley is present. Dave Turner is present. John Hemmelgarn is present. And the Chair is present. So I feel a little bit different sequence on that, constant confusion, sorry about that. So we have six in attendance, one absent that does give us a quorum so we can proceed. At this point, Andrew, I'll turn it over to you to give some Zoom instructions, please, or Simon? I'll do it because I'm going to walk away. Okay, thank you. Go ahead, Simon. Hello, everyone. Welcome to the DRP, these are some brief Zoom instructions. I think everyone is named appropriately, which is a good start. As we move on to the next slide. So if you are in person and you've got a laptop or a phone and you're following along on it, please, can you make sure to turn your microphone camera and speak a lot, because that doesn't fear the Zoom experience for everyone else. For those of you on Zoom, we've got a range of helpful features on the toolbar on the base of the Zoom window. We have the mic button. You can click that on and off to mute and unmute yourself. We have the video button. You can stop and start that. Video is optional. The chat button, please only use that or help message a member of staff or if you need help or you'd like to speak. Please don't give testimony in the chat. If you would like to speak to a public testimony, you can either message Andrew in your court and he'll advise the chair to call on you or you can raise your hand. And if you're on your telephone, you can press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to mute and unmute. We are going to be looking at a lot of images on the computer so that everyone can see the same thing. We do recommend you use the side-by-side mode. There are some instructions there on how to access that. You should automatically be called to it, but if you don't, you can click the view options next to the green rectangle, scroll down to side-by-side, click that and that will let you see who's speaking and also what everyone's looking at. You can click the slider there to adjust the size of the video or the screen share. And lastly, if you are having a bad internet connection, you can try several things. You can turn off your video. You can close your other browser tabs or computer programs or if you're running some help, you can use your telephone for a speaker and you do that by clicking the up arrow next to the microphone button, clicking the leave computer audio, and then dialing back in the instructions on the DRV webpage for that. Okay, thank you, Simon. First up is the public forum. That's an opportunity for people to weigh into the board on matters that are not on tonight's agenda. So if you're present here in the room and you'd like to address the board, do so at this time. If you are on Zoom and you'd like to address the board in the public forum, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, we're going to the public hearing. Section 2 of tonight's agenda. We have three items on the agenda. DP09-01.26, which is Riley Properties, a subdivision over a Finney Crossing. We've got DP20-20.1, which is Pigeon Farm Properties, a 3,000 square foot commercial addition at 375 Engineers Drive. And then we've got an appeal, 23-02, the appellants Peter and Abigail Mead are filing an appeal of AP23-01.81. So at this point, Mr. Riley, I think you're probably going to recuse yourself on DP09-01.30. 26. Okay, thank you. Okay, with the applicant come forward and state your name and address for the record, please. Thank you. Thank you. Chris Snyder, Snyder Finney Crossing Commercial Properties, LLC, Shelburne. Andy Rose, Snyder Group. Okay, welcome, gentlemen. Staff goes next. Thanks, Pete. This is a request for discretionary department to subdivide a parcel in the half-cornered form-based code overlay district. This property is located at 281 Holland Lane in 668 Zephyr Road. The lot is lot C3. It's 2.74 acres, and it's going to be subdivided into two parcels. Lot C3A, 1.9 acres, and lot C3B, 0.84 acres. This property is in what we remember as the top-cornered stoning district under the old bylaws, as well as the newly adopted form-based code overlay district. So the purpose of this subdivision is to create parcels that comply with the dimensional requirements of the form-based code. This is purely a subdivision application. Under the bylaws, it's no longer subject to hack design review, and it was neither subject to conservation commission review. Tonight, we're recommending that you take testimony and close, deliberate, and approve the application. There is a special condition added, number 22, and I'm recommending a couple further edits. I'll get into that moment later. Overall, the subdivision... Now, Emily, is that supposed to be condition number 12? Yes, that's correct. Number 12. Okay, so note that, Andrew, for the minutes, please. Continue, thank you. So the subdivision complies with bylaw chapter 12, which is the rules for subdivision, as well as chapter 41, which says there's no minimal block size in this undercashure. It also complies with dimensional requirements of appendix at the form-based code. Other elements of design review or development review, such as access, utilities, parking, and the building former architectural standards, are now handled through the certificate of conformity review process. This is essentially an administrative permit that is either approved or denied by the zoning administrator. There is a certificate of conformity permit application under review for proposed hotel on lot C3A, and then in the future, we're anticipating another building, apartment building on lot C3B. However, an application has not yet been filed for that parcel. This property is located within Finney Crossing. You may recall in 2021 reviewing an application for a senior living facility on lot C3. However, that application has not yet filed final plans, and that was also approved under the old bylaws for 4-4-based code. So what is in front of you today is a subdivision that complies with the 4-based code in anticipation of a certificate of conformity for a hotel. Again, advisory boards are not required to comment. Public works and fire commented that they have no comments in general because the subdivision is not their area of purview. Their comments relating to the building are handled through the certificate of conformity process. Additionally, no public comment letters were received at the time of mail out or up until tonight's meeting. What's included in your staff report is a screenshot of the proposed hotel building. That's part of AP number 23-0188. That's the hotel that is going through the certificate of conformity review process. It is not yet approved, but it's in the zoning administrator's review. So this property is still within the Tap Corner Zoning District where there is no minimum lot size requirement. In terms of Chapter 12, the proposed flat and monuments comply with the requirements of that chapter. Most of tonight's review relates to the 4-based code regulating plan and where anticipating compliance with the addition of condition number 12. In general, the purpose of this subdivision is to create lots such that new buildings comply with the building form standards, particularly the required building line, RBL frontage requirements. Lot C3 is too large to comply with these requirements and therefore must be subdivided. The backbone of 4-based code is the regulating plan. It's the zoning map that lays out interconnected street blocks, alleys, and public open spaces throughout the district. In general, 4-based code requires building facades to be brought up to the street with vehicular parking and access served through a shared alley in the rear. A shared alley, in this case, is the shared parking lot access aisle. And then also to have very minimal curb cuts onto the street. The 4-based code places restrictions on the minimum and maximum lengths of the building with the goal of a pedestrian-friendly street frontage. So hence the subdivision. In order to be able to develop a 4-based code compliant building, the lot below it needs to comply with the dimensional requirements. Lot C3 and in addition, Lot C4, which has an apartment building on it already, these make up an existing block. The photo on the right is an excerpt of the regulating plan map that shows the existing streets that found this block, Stillwater Lane, Zephyr Road, Market, and Holland Lane. This block is also constrained by the Velco easement. And those Velco restrictions are factored into the regulating plan where building lines go, parking lot lines go, because you can't do certain things like put a building under the Velco easement. On this map, you see several colors including dark orange. Dark orange means the town center frontage and 4-based code. That means the building within town center frontage needs to meet certain dimensional requirements in terms of length, width, and height. So in order to comply with 4-based code for recommending condition number 12, because this block is greater than 360 feet long, it's 492 feet long, it needs to have a pedestrian pathway or public access easement in order to comply with 4-based code section 2. That section says greater than 24 feet when, however, in my recommend edit to condition number 12, I'm striking no less than 24 feet when given that this is a pre-existing lot, pre-existing streets, the challenges with the Velco easement, this public access easement pedestrian pathway can be adequately provided with something that's less than 24 feet. So condition number 12 would read that designate a pedestrian pathway or public access easement for compliance with WDVF 2.C.2 between 3A and 3B near or along the proposed boundary. So on the subdivision plan, it would run near the red property alignments being created between the proposed hotel and the future building. There would be a corridor that's publicly accessible. The intent of this standard is that these longer pre-existing block faces are not continuously taken up with building, that there's a way for pedestrians to connect through, and that intent is met even though it's less than 24 feet in width. So what follows is a set of findings and facts, conclusions of law and conditions of approval, including your packets of the older version, the one that I'm screen-sharing shows that proposed change. Thank you. Okay, thanks Emily. First and Andy, your turn. I think that was a very comprehensive overview. As Emily mentioned, this is just looking at the subdivision itself and the property lines and the restrictions upon the land, such as the easement in regard to condition 12. The layout that is before the zoning administrator now does have a sidewalk in that area, and we're fine with a pedestrian easement up to 20 feet wide, which we've discussed with staff. So there's no issue with condition 12, as long as it's an easement up to but not more than 20 feet wide. Great. Okay, anything else? No, I think the staff report's pretty comprehensive. Okay. Do you have any members' questions, please? No, I appreciate the primer on the farm-based code. It's the first time we've had to deal with that, so it's a good introduction. I don't have any questions. Any questions? I'm not sure this matters in regards to this subdivision, but I just had a curiosity. Will there be parking under the hotel? No, surface parking. Okay. Members of the audience, any questions? Members of the audience participating in Zoom, any questions? Raise your virtual hand. Okay. Last call for questions from the DRP. Okay. I'm going to close DP09-01.26 at 717. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP20-20.1. This is a pigeon farm property who is present for the applicant. Go on up and sit at the applicant table, please, and state your name and address to the record, please. Jesse Carzwell, Krebsen Lansing Engineers, 164 Main Street, Colchester. Welcome. Staff goes next. That's me. Is that Master's degree? Signed plan and staff report, so I'm just going to do them back to back because it's very short and simple. So this is a request for a discretionary permit of 375 Engineers Drive in the industrial zoning district west. It's for 3,000 square foot addition to the existing building, sort of behind it to the north over here, and a perimeter fence, and it's all to accommodate the applicant's bulk retail storage and servicing business. We are recommending that the DRP take testimony discuss the fence located in the setback and the applicant's request for a reduction in bike parking, and we are recommending approval of the application. We did not receive any public comment on this proposal, so the users proposed are allowed in this district and the addition itself complies with the dimensional requirements of the IZDW. The post fence is a six foot chain link fence. In this district they're not permitted in the setbacks unless they're part of a landscape buffer where they are subject to DRP review. If they are outside of the landscape buffer then they're not subject to design review. You may make a call from around three years ago. There was an approved site plan for this property that showed a wartime fence along the boundaries to the east and west, so the east of the adjoining property, and the west to engineers drive within the setback. Also wartime fence on the outside of the setback to chump bike lane that's all shown in green there, and then a chain link fence shown in orange for the rest of the property. Just to clarify, there's a very minor inconsistency between the east half of the port and the site plan. The applicant has actually moved fence on the east and north boundaries, so this outside the landscape buffer, so outside the setback, and it's also been tweaked sort of in the, I guess you could call it the southeast corner, which is the top right corner there where it clipped the setback from chump bike road. The only element of the fence as proposed within the setback is to engineers drive there, and I think the main reason the applicant's proposing it there is because if it was setback behind the setback, you would essentially run through part of their paved maneuvering area in front of the building. So clarify something for me Simon, please. So are you saying that the plan that we have in our packet is not up to date? The plan you have is accurate. I think the staff report reflected a slightly older version of the site plan. So you have the correct plan. It's become simpler. There's only one fence in the setback, which is that fence to engineers drive. And that fence is proposed in what material? Chain link. Okay, so that's one issue that we have to address. I'm sorry, I'm not, I'm still not there. So this plan right here is accurate. Correct. So the, I'm sorry, um, so the fence looks to be inside the setback me unless the dash, I'm not sure where is the dash, is the setback marked on here? Or is it right on the setback line and they're overlapping each other? I think, I think it's on the setback line. Is that correct? Yes. It looks like it's on the out. Okay, so the plan that is up right there. Okay, Andrews, stay right, stay right where you were with the green lines, please. So that was the previously approved site plan from 2020 that showed that the Wokton University approved. So that's just one issue to take testimony on and discuss. Apologies for the slight confusion there. In terms of access, if it complies as proposed, there are no changes proposed to the access. We are having five additional new parking spaces in front of the addition. They will benefit from a brief path to get into the man doors of the addition. And then over there in a sort of near the office building, you'll see the existing parking spaces, which is where customers are most likely to park and they benefit from the existing yellow pedestrian walkway. The HIPHILA parking complies as proposed. The vehicular parking generates a need for cycle parking. So there are two existing short-term bike spaces there at the moment. That level of parking that we've got now creates a requirement for four short-term parking spaces, three long-term bike parking spaces, which itself generates a need for an end-of-trip facility. So the applicant is requesting reduction in the bike parking standards. So you're probably aware that WDB 14.865, which is in your packet there, allows the DRB to reduce bicycle parking requirements if they find that the location or the nature of the proposed development makes bicycle use highly unlikely, such as the second issue to discuss there. The landscaping buffers are standing as existing, they're not affected by the proposal. So those are as approved three years ago. The outdoor lighting, this was subject to a discussion during the preparation of the staff report. The applicant is proposing four additional wall-mounted lights on the addition. The freestanding sort of street lights were installed for the approval from three years ago and there are eight existing lights on the building. Now those lights are non-conforming in terms of the height they're mounted at and then shielded and downward-facing. They're not shielded downward. So the applicant has said they will be replacing those fixtures in compliance with the bylaw condition 6A has been drafted to reflect that. One change I would just like to ask the DRB to consider the condition 6A is that on view there's a notation on the lighting plan that essentially says that the replacement fixture is going to be mounted at 20 feet above ground level which doesn't comply with the bylaw. So I think that just might be a typo. So we'll just get that updated at final plans to comply with the bylaw. And then lastly on lighting, the timing of the lighting is not specified. So we are going to recommend that condition 6B does do that. We have a note on light timing so that they'll be turned off half an hour after closing or 10pm whichever is later or to be on motion-activated sensors. So if they're complying with WDB 24 that would be covered in that blanket statement. Yeah. So what follows is a recommendation for approval with findings of fact, conclusions, one there on the bike parking to the DRB to look at number 3 and conditions of approval. I'll be brief on the master sign plan. The application proposes one freestanding sign, a wall sign and a awning sign. The awning and freestanding signs are existing and they're not changing and they can comply with the bylaw. The wall sign is proposed and because it's larger than 24 square feet it can't be approved administratively. The wall sign itself does comply with chapter 25 of the bylaw. It's appropriately located on the building and doesn't block any emergency access or windows architectural features and the overall signage calculation applies with maximum allowed for this building. So we also have some findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions drafted for the event. Okay. Thank you. Jesse, your turn. Anything to add or clarify or augment the staff report? No, it was pretty comprehensive. Just as far as the fence, the fence is now proposed to be, it's proposed to be installed in the future. It wouldn't be installed with this building addition. And it was just recommendation by the staff that it be shown on these plans and approved by the board so that if in the future it is going to be installed it could be done so administratively rather than having to come through the DRB just for the chain fence. Anyways, that's its purpose on the site plan. That was the only thing. And yes, it would be within the setbacks except for a long engineer's drive where I would ask that it be allowed to be in the same location as the existing split rail fence. Otherwise the 35 foot setback kind of does slice through the parking lot and I, that's it. And what's your position on if you were to replace the split rail fence? What type of material would you propose to use there? I would propose to use the chain link fence like similar as other fences along Shum Pike road, but that would be based on comments from the board. So you're proposing, so you're asking, you would ask for a variance? Yes. That's what you're saying. Yes. Okay. Anything else? No. DRB members, questions please. So if you replace the chain link fence through that area, will you be doing fencing across the driveways too, the entrances? Yes. Yeah, it would be, and so it would have to have, it would be a gated fence and that code would be shared with the fire department if they ever needed to get access to the building, but the purpose of it would be for the security. Yeah. Okay. What is the rule, what is the rule on fences facing the road? Do we have one? Well, they're subject to design review where they're in the setbacks. You can control the appearance of the fence with regard to material is used elsewhere on the property and the appearance of the building is hard to phrase. How does this differ from the FedEx building? So the FedEx building, I believe, was allowed to be partially within the setback, and I think, I think the board reviewed it once. It was very close to the road and the applicant agreed to move it back to where the edge of their pavement was. So they still had some pavement in the setback, front and onto the street. So the fence remained in the setback, but it aligned with the pavement. Okay. I think the fence where the trucks come out did extend the setback in that one area, right? I think it was along the setback for most of it. You're right, there was a small area that sort of jutted into the setback, and that might be for gate that's lived there. Yeah. Yeah. They had some jogs for the existing trees. Yeah. There's a lot of going on there, fence-wise. Yeah. Okay. Other questions? Are you storing any materials on this site? Like construction materials, do you mean? Yeah. No. But it's outside display. It's a tag. It, yeah, no materials, but tractors and stuff. No, but again, it's a whole idea of the story. Display. Right. No, yeah, no construction materials or stockpile on this site, if that answers your question. Okay. So I didn't see in here, there was a mention of a short pedestrian path to the first door by the new parking. I didn't see that on the plan. Is it nothing more than the three feet between the parking lot and the door? Yes. Okay. So it's essentially like a crosswalk with a pad outside of it so it doesn't give up and keep the door open. I noticed on here, this is, I guess, Simon, as much as I needed, that he said the lighting plan does not specify the lumens per acre. Is that something we would normally expect from an applicant? The designation of that? We would ask for the lighting plan to help pay review and demonstrate compliance. Would that be something to be appropriate as far as submitting with final plans? It would be helpful, yeah. I think that's a good idea. The number of parking spots, as I looked at this, and forgive me, I knew this a couple of days ago that I looked at this, you're saying the F composing five extra parking spaces to bring the total to 16. So there's 14 employees on site, at least, and I think the six employees that are working off site probably don't need parking spots. And then retail customers. So that would mean that if all the employees were there, that would leave only two parking spots for customers? Is that common? Would you expect to never have more than two parking spaces for two customers at a time? There is also additional parking on the north side within, because it's sort of a large gravel area, they do the employees sometimes just park elsewhere around the site. The other oddity that I saw in this is that one of those parking spots, I'm not sure you're going to strike that when it's on the ground. I've seen it in my office, it doesn't work very well. It's a short term solution. So I mean, I asked the question, is there an intent here to increase the amount of pavement? Yes, probably to square it off with a new addition. I don't think so. Somebody else has a question. I think I have another one, but I need to find it. So the existing building doesn't have any facility or showers for the mechanics? Other questions? So I want to talk about bicycle parking and the need for that. I'm trying, I guess I'd like a little more information on why that would not be necessary in this case. So the long term bicycle parking is for employees, correct, rather than the short term is more for them. But the people that work there, a lot of them, if they're doing maintenance on these vehicles, they have their own tools, they just drive their pickup trucks that they need to bring their tools to work on the vehicles with. So they're not likely to ride a bicycle to come to this area to work. This is, this is, this is our one, it's not a hard one. It's not hard. This is our one bite of the apple. This, you know, right now maybe you've got people who, you know, who bring their trucks to work have tools, but five years down the road when the use changes and it's something else. And there is, you know, no long term bicycle parking and or no end of trip facilities. You know, I don't agree with your request. And for my, you know, from my perspective, it's a no. So are there a number of long term bicycle parking spaces that would not require end of trip facilities? I think right now it's, I really think the end of trip facilities are required and needed. And they should be included in your application and on your application. I get it that maybe they're not, it's probably not going to get used as much right now. But I think that, but I think they should be included as part of the bylaws. And you're adding to the building, you should be adding this as well. And that's regardless of the number of long term bicycle spaces. Actually, I think that there, while they can be, while we, if we reduced the amount of long term bicycles, part of bicycle spaces, we can then wave, if it falls under a certain threshold, then we can wave the end of trip facilities. I believe that's how that goes, correct? So even one to three long term spaces requires an end of trip facility under the bylaw. So unless you completely eliminate the long term bike parking spaces, you still need to provide it. And also, you didn't ask my opinion, but there's also sales staff working in the building, as I understand it, who don't need to carry their tools on their bikes. So anyway, you've got where I was going to go here quickly. Which is I think there's a lot of reasons and a lot of scenarios that we could come up with that would indicate that there would be at least one, and likely more people riding bikes in the future. And when that's part of the intent of our, of our bylaw is to promote that, I think we're not doing, and it's only any of us doing a service to eliminate that. Especially when it's quite simple to do. And there is multi-use path real close to there, so. Okay, we'll talk about this more during deliberative session. I think we all understand where you stand. Any other questions? I guess I have, I guess I have not so much a question as a comment. And listening to, listening to the testimony and listening to staff go through the application, you're not entirely sure where all the parking is going. You know, you mentioned, oh maybe they'll park out back. So we like to see site plans that show exactly where things are going to go, because that's what goes in the file, and that's what staff refers to down the road if there's an issue. We like to know where the paving is going to go. Again, statement was, well, maybe we'll square it off, or maybe we'll add, we'll add to it. Again, we like to know where things are going. When it's presented to the board, we've got something hard in front of us, and then that in turn translates into a well-documented file in the staff offices. Same with the lighting. So either there's three things right there that in my mind makes this application incomplete. Now, they're not huge, but I think that from the, you know, from the board's perspective, it adds questions to exactly what's going on here. Again, they're not huge, but it makes it difficult for the board to understand exactly, you know, where things are going to go. So something to keep in mind. Okay. Any other questions or comments? I'll say. I'll say. Members of the audience, any questions? Comments? Okay. Any last thoughts, ERB members? Jesse, anything, any final thoughts? No. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to close DP 20-20.1 at 743, P23-02. So what I'd like to do here is I would like to have the, sorry, the appellants here, Peter and Abigail Mead. Okay. I would like you to come up and sit at this table that has the public label on it. Yep. And the property owner, are you present? Okay. And you're James Becker. Okay. James, I'd like you to come to this table. Are there going to be other, are there going to be other participants that are going to, that are going to speak on anyone's behalf? Yes. We have the council here and also my business partner. He may or may not speak, but he's here as well. Okay. Just come on up and get the position. And so where am I going with this? So there's three points that Peter and Abigail, you've made. And we're going to do, we're going to segregate them. Okay. So that we, as a board, you can focus on each of the points separately. And, and I've had a conversation in advance of the meeting with Melinda who's going to provide a global staff overview and then, and then go into more detail on point number one. We're then going to have a discussion, questions, et cetera, on point number one. We're going to conclude discussions on point number one. And we're going to move forward to point number two and ultimately go to point number three. And that way we're doing each point justice and focus and they don't kind of become blurred. So that's my logic. And any questions before we start? Okay. I do actually have a question. I have a statement because we received a lot of information after our initial appeal. That's, you know, just more information for us. I don't know if it's still relevant and we're going to do the process this way, but it, would it just be beneficial to just, you guys to have it as a record or because if we're going to go step by step, this is not going to necessarily follow that case. Not tracking. Can you say that again, please? Yes. So I wrote a statement based on the staff report based on Mr. Becker's lawyer's opinion. It was new information for us. So we had some updates to our appeal based on that information. So I didn't know if that would be relevant at this point or if you just want to go step by step because this will not kind of follow that initial cadence of the one. What's the length of this statement? It's four pages. It's four. It's four pages? Yes. Okay. I can hit the highlights. Well, this is, that's too long. It's not fair to, a fair preparation standard on our part to receive information like that of that length and of that curve in the public forum. Oh, I had looked at the forum from March 13th around the dog rescue that was happening. And I saw similar statements that occurred at that time. But it's fine. I'll just hit the highlights during the conversation. And I will be completely honest with you. We learned a lot. Fair. Fair. I was following and we, you know, we're not going to repeat some mishaps. Okay. So I'm not quite sure what to do with that. If you really want it entered into the record, it would, my immediate reaction is to continue this hearing and enter it into the record. And we'll come back in the first week of July and continue. I don't think that's necessarily fair to James and his business partner. I think, I think it's fine if I think we've prepared enough that we can speak. It's just, it's difficult because things came up. Hang on one second. I'd like to make a motion to let her just make her statement. And if you can hit the high points or what does the board think? I mean, I'm struggling with this a little bit because as Pete said, if it's a longer statement that we should have a chance to, to digest, I would like to have a chance to do that. But that, I think would require us to continue hearing. Are you changing your position? No, I think we're, you've appealed, you've appealed the decision of the administrator three points. So if you're not changing your position, it's, I think our understanding of the bylaws changed based on the staff report. And so it sounds like the home business Chapter 20 supersedes the ARZD Chapter 30 rules, if you can prove that you are a customary residential home business. So my first point is in the ARZD, when that actually doesn't make any sense, we first have to discuss the issue around whether or not it's a customary home business, which I think is the second point. So what, what I would like you to do is, is to weave in your points as we go one, two, three. And, and that will give me an opportunity to not have to consider a continuance. And you can, and you can, you can weave them into your, you're going to have plenty of opportunity to have testimony. Okay. Okay. So with that, let's start by stating your name and your address for the record. And we'll start to my left. Abigail Mead and depending on who you ask for, are there 51 31 St. George Road or 130 for Apollo is still in transition and we're in Colston. Yeah. I'm Peter Mead at the same address. Okay. James Becker, 177 for Apollo Road, Wilson, Larry resident, 2929 Northrop, Hinesburg, and Timothy Fair, managing partner of Vermont kind of a solutions and fair and stupid attorneys of law. Thank you. Okay. Well, I'm done. So the subject property at 177 for Apollo Road in the ARZE has a primary loan. The property also has an accessory loan unit and some accessories structures. The administrator approved AP 230181 on April 25, 2023. The conditions state all conditions requirements of the pending sheet in chapter 20 of the most unified law and bylaw and from business checklist. The appellate statement is attached and referenced in the staff report. And as Pete said, the balance raised three issues, which are referred to in the staff report. The appellate or applicant has represented by legal counsel or failure of as far as submitting the statement, which in the first point of the plea, and there's a statement that's attached. And you receive one comment letter from the lawyer there at the time you have to pay a loan. So I will summarize my findings regarding to the appellates first issue related to the violation potential violation of the bylaw regarding the proof uses in the ARZE. So the appellate states that there's there's only a few non-ancultural non-residential uses permitting the ARZE and they reference the proof the bylaw uses in use table at the end of chapter 31. However, the ARZE only needs to consider whether, you know, what type of use this is, whether change of use is occurring, whether this use is allowed. The Wilson bylaw generally use a home business as a residential use. It's defined in chapter 46. A home business is an industrial or commercial activity, but it's conducted along with an assessment structure that's pertinent to the bylaw and that applies to the standards of the industry and the bylaw. In chapter 39, the US National Government District defines home business as a residential use. The only non-residential use is permitting the so-called descriptive child care centers, churches, elementary and middle schools, and parks. Home businesses are also permitted of AR by definition or residential use. The standards apply to home businesses are in chapter 20 residential use. Home business is defined in chapter 20 as a commercial activity conducted in a one or two household volume by the residents of that bylaw, whether for a profit or not, and that means the standards established here. Home business is considered a residential use under chapter 31. Rural residential development must comply with the open space and not the standard for this chapter. Generally, one or two household volume is put in order to manage the community and the structure where creation of multi-household volume and resultant preservation restrictions are required. Accessory ones and home businesses are also permitted. Because the Wilson bylaw defines a home business as a residential use, the use rules at the end of chapter 31 is inferior to this discussion. The application for the home business is to specify the type of business to not provide any ICS code. But then this is not required for a criminal thought or a home business. The applicant is not changing the use of part of the property or conducting normal commercial activity as part of their residential application. This can be allowed if it is a test for the customary residential area and does not have a new adverse effect on the character of the residential area under the standards of chapter 20 and the MSG. So the DRB should discuss and decide whether for most home business is a residential use and whether it's a home bylaw use in the area. Okay, thank you. Okay, Abigail I'm going to give you an opportunity now to weigh in how you've had a chance to review the staff report and hear that. Yeah, so we understand the difference between the residential use and the change in use based on the staff report. I think what is coming up for us and what we're hoping to get more clarification on is the definition of the home business. So in section 20.4, it says, I quote, no bylaw may infringe upon the right of any resident to use a minor portion of a dwelling unit for an occupation that is customary in residential areas, end quote. So our question is what this group defines customary as. So you know when we look at the dictionary is a definition of customary is usage or practice that is common or long established. So unless the legal world or this group has a different definition that we need to be informed of or confused how a business that wasn't legal in this state in you know late 2020 until late 2022 would be considered customary. And additionally this is the first request of a cannabis manufacturing business in a residential district in Williston. Again, causing us to question if it is indeed customary as it's in fact the first of its kind. So I think having a better understanding of what we mean by customary would be really helpful. Do you have any comments, Melinda, relative to the bylaws bylaw interpretation of customary? Only that I think that the term customary could be misused to discriminate as certain businesses so it's problematic in that regard. And which I'll be making later that state law actually prohibits in this valley is from treating um cannabis cannabis occupations any differently than any other occupation. But also in this case doesn't customary just simply mean any home business does not it does not it does not discriminate it doesn't single out a a type of business it just simply means home business. Anything that the person wants to do within their house as a home business is customary. That's my understanding. That would be my understanding or interpretation of it. And I would slightly differ in that if you substituted the word candy instead of cannabis and someone was doing whatever you're doing with cannabis, candy. Yeah. I'm not sure what it is that you're selling or making or and I actually have questions about exactly what you're doing because it's not at all apparent to me it's submitted to me. But if that's the case, then I can see that there's no difference. We're not discriminating on the basis of what it is they're selling. But if you were going to be mining something or whatever, then that would be different. That's a small detail of the preparation or manufacture of a small quantity of widgets to use in all the economics trends going on in the college. So that to me would be what I would say is customary that there's different things you can do out of your home. Yeah, and just to state earlier, customary use would not, would be able to comply with the versions of NSG and check what they would not have an under impact on payment properties. Okay, so I'd like to hear from the applicant on this topic. One comment is that Mr. Hemmelgard is that you mentioned it's retail business. There's no retail interaction, consumers, public. I don't know if now's the time or if you want to ask when we move on to that topic. But I'm happy to address that at any time. Why don't we save that? And address specifically the topic number one that we're on right now. That was my only comment. I would like to cancel the address. Again, I think this says it perfectly. This is going to be allowed if it meets the test that it is customary in a residential area and does not have an undue effect on the character of the residential area under the standards of WDB 20.4 and Appendix G. I think it's very clearly enumerated. The standards that need to be met are contained within bylaw at 20.4 and Appendix G. And that's what we should be discussing here, whether or not an individual opinion of the word customary, it's pretty clear in the bylaw where the standards are that need to be met in order to qualify for a home business. It's not a very subjective test. It's much more objective. DRB members, questions, comments, concerns? Are there any aspects of your business to spill out of the home other than vehicles? I mean, that's a very good question. Is anything outside of the home? So it's actually occurring in a structure accessory to the home. So it's not occurring in the home. And I wouldn't operate this type of business within my home because I have children in my home. So I've decided to segregate this into a separate structure. That separate structure allows for certain controls to be put into place, which are necessary and actually required in order to get a license. So in order for that to occur, we had to have a very particular type of structure that is like a shed. It sits on the ground and within it has windows and ventilation, like normal shed, so that if a window needs to be opened, we can open a window. But there's not BP or multiple gases or anything that's being used in the manufacturing process. It's a heat press for an air compressor. So to the extent that there are sense that emanate from the structure, it would be very minor because it's not that something is being boiled and processed in that way. It's being pressed with a mechanical press. And to the extent that noise is being emanated from the structure, I think that can be mitigated probably by having it operate within the structure, like the air compressor itself, and then do soundproofing to the extent it was necessary. So in a sense, emanating, those would be the two things that I would be concerned about in terms of making noise or other something that would emanate from that structure that would upset someone. Sorry, but you said that you have already soundproofed that building or are you suggesting that? No, if we were to actually move forward with this process, because in the way that this went down, we weren't actually able to get anything but close to an inspection, not operating at this facility, everything stopped immediately as soon as this had helped a fuel processor. Thank you. I'm confused as to whether we're going to go 0.1 or 0.2 right now. We're supposedly going to be talking about 0.1. But do you think we're going to mention 20.4 or are those going to talk about that? So I was confused. Please try. Okay, I was confused initially when we put an RPL. I wasn't clear what superseded what. Because again, we're not lawyers. So trying to read through the by-lawism and make sense of, again, what kind of controls the other was complicated. So we put the ARZD point in first when in fact it really should have been that second question burst around whether or not being qualified as a home business. So as what I'm hearing is, it does qualify as a home business. I think it's a move point. But it's the second one that you discussed. Yeah, we can't actually. So the first point was specific to the fact that you can't have, from table 31A, if it's not an NAICS code that falls within that table, then it's not acceptable in the ARZD. But that would be only if it was considered a change in use, as I actually did it. It went from a residential use to a different type. And I know what my question is on one as well. I would defer to the people that I'm not sure if I read that correctly, but that's how I read it after I saw the staff report. Did she describe that before? Yes, that a home business is a residential use. So it's not a change of use. No change of use. Right, I think you got it right. What for me? Want a job? No, complicated. There's a DRB opening. You just stepped into the volunteer role. Okay, is everybody good with moving on to number two? Yeah, so this gets into a discussion about customary uses and whether business in this whole area to regulate cannabis is specified under the 7GSA, 8GSA 3, the guidance of the municipality states that cannabis is challenged as they're subject to the same learning rules in the U.S. for instance, whether by any business in this county is general for entry, and of course learning rules or this is the by all the systems that state special rules for cannabis establishment in this county. Very good. The cannabis establishment states that they're related to the business under their authority. For example, from the 4GSA 4414 and our authority to regulate size of public usage from the 4GSA 491. The municipalities may regulate any cannabis establishment, but since that's in this manner, the municipality may not regulate cannabis establishment to any greater extent than they could in the other business. Those conditions on the operation have established that this work creates special rules for them. It's not within their zone authority under the 4GSA 4414 or the authority to regulate size of public usage from the 4GSA to the 491. The GSA, they may, two next slides may not use their zoning power under 24GSA 4414 or the authority to regulate size of public usage from the 491 in a way that will continue to be an operation of cannabis establishment. It's understood that approved home businesses are restricted and still to the chance of use are residential by definition and therefore are not limited to be allowed usage-listed in the tables, which is not an extra. Home businesses must comply with the standards outlined in the W.E.C. 20.4 and the Pan-SG, which are agnostic. So 20.4. That four states, the administrative or the DRP, as appropriate, shall approve the front end for home business that complies with the standards of the Pan-SG, see also 20, 30, and 27 for standards that apply to have-home child care facilities. The application for the home business meets all requirements listed in the Pan-SG and then after the ministry was bound by the Pan-SG to permit it. Tal Wilston has not opted into retail cannabis, so for that reason retail cannabis establishments are not permitted to locate in Wilson. However, the cultivation, processing, and manufacturing of cannabis and cannabis products is allowed by state law everywhere from the town's regulated cannabis business to the territory from any other business. Town must follow the process as prescribed in the Wilson Unified Development bylaw and must not be abated in the process. So the DRP should discuss whether the proposal is comply to the local standards in the W.E.C. 20.4 and the street therapy being considered by the condition of fires, gas attacks, to details on the operational business related to noise, employees, delivery, and housing needs. Okay, thank you. I'm going to go on the same sequence. Abigail, you get to make the opening statement on this topic. There's a short section from my statement going to be read. So we're not actually arguing that Mr. Becker shouldn't operate a cannabis business on his property. We're arguing that more oversight was needed before providing the permit, either by imposing additional conditions on the administrative permit or by using the discretionary process. So Mr. Becker's lawyer interpreted that asking for additional review indicates discrimination, which is a violation of state law. We think this is an incorrect interpretation. So the town frequently imposes conditions on permits and asks for more rigorous reviews of other businesses and residents applying for permits within the town. So if the town's approach will be that they will never ask for conditions or for a resident to go through a discretionary process or put those conditions in place. When they're opening cannabis business, we would argue that it's showing preferential treatment. James? Sure. Thank you for the opportunity to address a couple of things with respect to this portion, and then I'll hand it open to council. One is with respect to initially keeping our permit clean, let's say, of any mention of cannabis on its face, was so that that permit wasn't necessarily forward facing where some of the security concerns that potentially exist with that type of business are on a permit where that can be publicly searched. It is not the intent to hide what that business was doing. So in my communications with the office, the zoning office, all communications that I've had, it's been very clear what the business was about from the very beginning. So I think that some of the issues with respect to the way that we have found ourselves here was because there was potentially a belief from my neighbors that I wasn't forthright with the town and how we wound up with the permit. So I just want to be very clear about that. And I take my reputation for veracity very seriously. My reputation is my business. So if someone believes that I'm not being truthful, it matters to me. So that's the only issue I wanted to raise outside of what council's wanted to say. Yeah, thank you. The council bring up the point of conditions being placed on other permits. We're not saying you can't place conditions. We are. Our position is you can't place conditions because it's cannabis. And that's the question I would have here for the board. Are any of these conditions that being placed would be asking for them if they were widgets to use your term? Or are you asking for them because this is a cannabis-based business? And that didn't realize the problem. Not the conditions, but the intent and the reason for those conditions. Would those conditions apply to any business? That's not a problem. What are these conditions being put solely for the purpose of putting conditions on a cannabis business? That would violate stable. So, in terms of tents, you're speaking hypothetically that if conditions were… To address the argument from the above, if you don't have a saying… Because the conditions are not there as we speak. Right, correct. You're saying if they were… Hypothetical. Addressing that point of, we're not saying that the board can't place conditions on permits. Obviously you can, of course. And my question would be, are those conditions… No, we're good. I just wanted to make sure I was doing that. Okay, thank you. Anything else? DRB members' questions on topic number two. So, it seems to me that this is hinging considerably on one of the very discretionary permits required. I remember there's going to be a Pellant saying that they… That was one of the things that they're looking for, discretionary PPP process, by which they did the comment. So, that was, I think, a mistake. And again, it was in my statement. This gets back to us writing the original appeal and then receiving additional information that helped us kind of learn a little bit more about the process. I think actually asking for a discretionary permit might be too strong of a choice. I think it's likely just conditions on the administrative permit. That we have… We do have some conditions that we would like to put in place, but I don't know when the place for that is. But to speak to… Oh, sure. To speak to whether or not it's discriminatory. Well, I'd like to continue with the discussion about whether discretionary permit is required. Yeah, yeah, totally fine. I wanted to say… I'm going to look at staff. We weren't asking for that. As I read this, there's a statement here that's a little confusing. A discretionary permit is required for any home business to be proposed to any two households who are applying for the overnight part of your commercial vehicle, which I assume you're not doing the overnight part of your commercial vehicle. No. For any customer client, you have no customer client. No. See, this gets back to me not understanding what you're doing. Are you just producing product that you then put in the vehicle and delivered somewhere else? So, what we're going to do, what we intend to do, is produce cannabis products for dispensaries and make deliveries to the dispensaries as orders arrive. But something, something needs to be delivered to your property? No, sir, we would pick that up and bring that there ourselves. Okay, so you would deliver it to yourself. So truck it out, you pick it out, and a delivery would occur. Maybe you drag it, but if you go off-site, you bring it on-site, you process it, and you pick it off-site. Correct. Importantly though, I think that it still is the same non-resident car, because it's only going to be the one non-resident car coming over and parking in my driveway, not doing anything excessive that he could come over every day he wants anyway. Where he could help. You know, not that he could play your ping-pong, you know. I understand. Are you the non-resident one? Yes, sir. So is there a by-product from this? A by-product? Yeah, by-product. Compostable puck that's like the squeezed leftover non-resident. It's composed by a by-product that's taken off-site. Yeah, or I can compost it in any of my forests in the backyard. Or burn it in the woods. However, it's plant matter that's been squeezed. And noise? The noise that we discussed was the potential use of an air compressor, like a smaller compressor, which could be mitigated by using it inside the structure. And or building an insulated box to stick it into, and when it reaches a certain peak of pressure, it shuts off anyways, because the air tank supports what we need. What hours are you normally working? I would be there from seven in the morning to probably seven at night till we got it going. But that doesn't necessarily mean machinery is running, right? So if it was a question of noise pollution, noise control, or I'm not trying to make a nuisance in my neighborhood with noise. So obviously our neighbors are the sucker growth trail, right, where people enjoy recreating in nature. They don't want to hear an air compressor pumping away in the middle of the day. So I'm sensitive to that. My neighbors probably don't want to hear an air compressor going on, even though we have all construction everywhere. We're doing construction all summer and working. But that noise can be mitigated either by putting the unit inside of the shed or putting it inside of an insulated box. So with respect to noise pollution, I think that's an easy one to mitigate. And certainly it's easy to control that within a certain timeframe. Being at the structure and having lights on doesn't mean that the machinery is running necessarily. Because there's other aspects of the business we'd have to be doing lower there. That would only be a small fraction. Any other questions? Thank you. Yeah, so there's the compression aspect of this manufacturing. Is there also a heating element? It's like a hot plate? Yes, it's like a T-shirt for us. So does that require a chimney or smoke step? No, sir. A building? No, sir. But just an open one? Your toaster oven at home heats up hotter than that thing gets. Okay. And we would, obviously, the fire marshal would be expected in the facility anyways. So that would be, he would have to address that, I would feel. That's one of the prerequisites, but let's ensure it. So the state fire marshal has to come over, issue a certificate of occupancy that certifies the change of use for the NAICS code change. So since there is going to be an actual thing that occurs, and this is a real process, the fire marshal has to come over and certify it, and then the CCB comes over and issues a license, and that type of stuff. There's several inspections before there's actually a license presented to us. Okay, thank you. Yeah, of course. So, staff, these guys are nicely successful what they do, and they need another person to help. Not only are they too knockers and employees. Does that create the need for discretionary to run at that point? Can I? Hold on, I'd like to make some questions. Yes. So then there would be a requirement once the second plate was going on off that site to come back in front of the discretionary. I'm pretty sure that was what was told to me during the initial process. At least for the first year we have no intention or finances to take on another employee, so, or the space, it's 120 square feet. So with respect to that, if we were ever looking to get another employee, we would move. But that's if we're successful. Right now we're trying to minimize costs and be frugal with our, you know, buckets. We want to be able to invest that in the ongoing concern of running business, not running a business. We'd like to be successful to have employees absolutely, as in every business, that their goal. Absolutely, and that's why I have that question. For sure. If everyone understands where those women's are, and when we might expect to have to see them, we all work with businesses, everyone else. Does the state permit limit your production in any way to a specified amount? No, the different tier levels limit your capabilities in terms of what you can use to manufacture. So for a tier two, we're using heat and pressure in order to get the product that we get, which is like a syrup, or, you know, it's the squeezed live resin. And to answer your question, we're going to be, as well as making pre-roll joints, we're going to be making spiked maple syrup. So we're working with a local producer, we're making proprietary recipes, and that is our angle. That's why we are a sugar company, because our products are going to be cannabis-infused maple syrup. It's going to be a maple-based type then. Okay, Melinda, what did you find out? Oh, yes. So it is, we recommend that you reduce required for any other business that has more than one non-resident employee, and or produces more than one much more product. So, you know, that's right. Right. And so about, so in any condition that was around that, you know, we would not be discriminatory because it's cannabis business that would be any business that we were reviewing that was generating more than one peak hour in a trip. So I could see a condition that limited your deliveries and whatnot, and those trips are not recited to not be nearest to the end of the week. Yeah, I mean, I think that's totally a rejection there. Yeah, absolutely. And given where you're at, which way of traffic is happening on that road, we don't need any more people going now than other companies. Yeah. Okay, any other questions by the DRB? I don't know if this pertains to any of these. I'm confused as to how this is, this excess of structure actually counts as a home business when, as far as I can tell, none of the area that is in the residential space is being used as a part of this business. The only area being used for the business is something that's not there right now. Oh, no, the shed is there. The shed is there. Yeah. I thought it was really no, it's physically there, but we're just not running a business in it. It's an empty structure. It's just the shed. No, that wasn't there. It would bring me my other point, which is I may not know anywhere here, but it's just me kind of spouting off a little bit of math. Is that this, as I look at the requirements here, applicants must demonstrate compliance and standard by submitting scale drawing of their property that clearly delineates the space indoor and outdoor that would be used for proposed home business. This drawing is also shown for both landscape cover, where to pose the existing vegetation as a buffer, photographs of that vegetation submitted where the buffer will be installed and finally submitted. I couldn't see any scale plan to show where the buffer was, what the planting there were. It was certainly not a scale drawing. So I wonder why this was even reviewed. Can I also step in and say this shed was actually brought onto the property a couple of days after it would be some other time when I'm on the mailbox. So I couldn't say was it the resisting structure, since the structure brought onto the property for to be clear. What are the dimensions of the shed? 15 by 8? It says that. Yeah, it's okay. That is the work. But there's certainly not a scale cycle plan here that is at all flexible or showing information since the request. Okay, so I'd like to pause for a moment and let Linda answer the first question that you raise. What do the regulations say about a home business operating in an accessory structure that was brought in specifically for this new home business operation? It doesn't say anything about a structure that it doesn't get into specifics of whether the structure exists or it doesn't exist prior to the business. But it does say that a home business can bring in some more so that it can be in an accessory structure. Or is this there's a score put in London on the accessory structure? I think it's under 1500. Under 1500 square feet. Yeah. That would be that you can put on your property without going in front of the DRB getting it perfect right now. Okay, right? Yeah, it wasn't. Yeah, we're not dealing, we're not letting that way. But yeah, there we are That's not really a question. I understand that this is a significant clear that it just showed up. Or accessory structure. Yes. So it doesn't go ahead and explain this in reference to the accessory structure or the business here? Okay, and it's silent on when the accessory structure or whether it be legacy or not legacy is on it? Yeah. Okay. Okay. And one point on I have to say I'm sure it was that there is a in other parts of our file not this department or size invitation is statement that there's a size limit on accessories structures. Yes. I take that to be the accessory while we meant size invitation. So it goes and then it's in the I can't quite it's in the bylaw for generally to regulate something that really big. That are really really small. I think it's not a lot. I don't know that it's not regulated or something to not regulate something that's really small. Yeah. Oh yeah. So this yes. Sorry. And you can smaller than 10 I 12 doesn't need a cost. Okay. Okay. So that's the typical long this is this is bigger than that. This is bigger than that. Okay. So dimensionally it's the same depends on 120 square foot. 15 by 8. 15 by 8. 15 by 8. Okay. And what's the height of the structure? The peak and the wall? I wouldn't want to venture a guess. I would say that it's typical for a garden shed but I could provide that to the board. Okay. Okay. So it's certainly under the it's definitely not 20 foot or not a Tuesday hour. No, it's not. No, no, no. I'd move in probably if it was. It might be 10 feet. So Mr. Hammerbarren has raised his second point was about scale grinds, buffers shown on site plans et cetera. And I'd like Melinda, you to provide a staff perspective on that. So in in this particular site the structure is where this black dot is. Can you can you show me where that black dot is? You see my crystal? Yes. Okay. I've got it. So right there which is in the Southern Properties backyard. It's you know, it's got it's there's woods on all sides of the property. And there's a bus up to woods on the adjacent properties. So as far as like landscape buffer it's existing vegetation. If you want to speak up for it's heavily wooded. Right. I guess my point is not whether it's going to comply or would comply or not. I'm saying this word in here is discretionary impairment. I would be asking the chair to continue this hearing knowing we've got a real set of plans to look at. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. That's not what we're here for today. I know though, right? Because I want to make sure I would I would provide that document if that was necessary. One million percent. I'm not sure if that is not if that's a question I have left out. Are we only learning ourselves to these three questions or is this a DRV review of this project as to whether it was approval or not? It's uh I've worked we're limiting our review to the three issues that the appellant has to discuss about on number two. Question. Absolutely. I did want to ask about safety and it was we'd like to add a condition to the permits. I don't know if this is the place for that or if you want us to hold on that. All right. Go ahead. So I believe on page four of the administrative permit application there is actually a section to indicate that you would like to have an instruction completed. I'm doing or looking at that correctly. We would have preferred to have a first responder perspective to ensure that the location is in a safe space and that they're appropriately managing waste and again the heating sources and so on and so forth. And we spoke with Deputy Chief Tim Gehry who indicated his desire to look at the plan as well. It sounds like the state fire marshal would again proceed that but we did give an indication from Williston's deputy chief that they were interested in being a part of the review about these types of things while they're still doing. So the other piece of the security I think will speak to the plan which is there's very steep contours and so I think this gets to this little piece of the driver which is the third piece so I'll hold on that but one of the pieces around security for us was having the you know kind of chief take a look at how process was going to unfold so that we felt that it was a safe process. Okay so applicant your thoughts on that proposed condition? Our operation is being inspected by multiple parties already and certainly if additional conditions were added by this board I am not going to say that they are inappropriate or appropriate without knowing what they are but I'm very comfortable with the steps that we've taken in ensuring with safety for everyone involved and also in meeting or exceeding all of the applicable state requirements for this license. I would also say that the Vermont legislature has created a safety requirements for cannabis based businesses based on the license type they also rented rulemaking authority to the Vermont County control board which will extra and additional security requirements which must be met and in fact that there is an on-site inspection done by a compliance officer from the Vermont County's control board to ensure that every cannabis based business is in compliance with the security requirements as laid out by the legislature it's my understanding and my belief that municipalities do not have the ability to add extra security measures on top based solely on the fact that this is a cannabis based business that should a security measure be opposed on all businesses and that would be something that we would absolutely be willing to discuss and of course secure to however again we get back into the we have replacing extra security requirements solely because this is a cannabis based business that would violate state law state law is pretty clear the security requirements that are required by the state are significant this is not something that was taken lightly by the legislature nor is it something that's taken lightly by the county's control board and I know of no legal authority which allows individual citizens to start placing requirements on others businesses requests can be made of course I would ask that you know we make sure that any additional security requirements are those that would be imposed on any business and not solely for the fact that this is a cannabis business and a great bottle to that I think we're not we're not talking about additional conditions for the for the security system and I know given the culture of that those business we're talking about the actual location of business and first responders ability to access it and we'll get to that I guess and that's the next step but we're not we're not asking for conditions if it was a widget coming up there we would be asking for the same conditions not saying you want to base it because it's cannabis we're really not we're not trying to we're not looking at that looking at as any business and we're not trying to again get in the way of state law it's brand new I think everybody's still interpreting we're trying to interpret cannabis law the vials of the town and the permitting process all in the same kind of piece and we don't have again a legal degree so we're doing the best that we can so again if this board feels that the state fire marshal is you know the authority that's fine by us we just wanted to make sure someone was going in to assess the actual operation of the business and then that and it's been made perfectly clear that it's not because it's cannabis and again we're talking about any business so you realize that we're not we're not trying to discriminate as we can as it's board members are ready you go to item number three okay the lenda issue relates to by the way so the account is private the issue of who is being used to access for the business so shown a figure of the the online around the purple that works off of the main driveway it's going to promise to raise the point that that this purple logging room that's in the residential driveway but I am knowing that the residential driveways is red and it actually ends here in the last residence the purple road is not a residential driveway it just works off of the driveway it's just to be used as a trail or a logging road or anything so it's not really within the purview of this from the community take any into account that the standards over that road and it doesn't have any little student this is candy access from the background of the of the and you may not use the the logging road to access it yes I have two comments the first one being you'll notice from this picture that the shed is at the very end of the purple non-residential road not near the red driveway so as I talk through my comments I just want to take that into account so I believe the in section three comment number two on the DRP actions and staff report there was a condition around not using the logging road easement provided by our land for vehicular access to the business so as the staff report states the former logging road cannot be considered a residential driveway because it's an accessory to a forming off of the main driveway and was originally intended to serve as access for logging operations not to access a dwelling end quote so we agree with the statement but in reality the shed was delivered via the logging road and the easiest access for loading and unloading supplies is via the logging road so we want to ensure that this will not be an acceptable practice and that Mr. Michael will use his main driveway so since his attorney and already stated that the employee will be parking at his home which is on the red driveway and walked to the location it shouldn't cause them any undue hardship to have this condition within the permit my second piece about the driveway but you're you're asking you're asking for a condition in the permit in which there's no support in the bylaws to make that condition okay then that's well they might have stated that so we we don't have any basis to do that continually yep so actually can I ask a clarifying question on that if the if the actual staff report says it can't be used to access a dwelling and it's being used to access the shed do we have of course even though there's nothing in the permit that says you can't the board I don't I don't think there's anything that would that would prohibit accessing this shed on that primitive road but uh and Melinda if I have this wrong let me know but it's um but there but there aren't uh in which we we can reference that need to be met on that primitive road that's the distinction yeah so the easement that we provide to that logging road has been in dispute since the beckers merged the two properties so adding a business onto a logging road is greatly the content of my understanding the DRB can't necessarily mitigate but part of the reason that we're looking for that condition is they're adding a new use to that road by putting the business on it that again while it's still in disagreement about how that easement if it exists or how it's used is problematic for us but I will leave that aside for my next point so we understand that the cannabis control board and the state believe that the location of the shed complies with all state rules but we don't know how the board reviewed the location and what specifically they're looking for so when looking at a map which you're not going to be able to tell here on the contours the shed may appear close enough to the Becker residence but we believe the shed is placed in a location with no easy access it is an extremely steep slope behind the Becker home often overledged so Mr. Becker's lawyer indicated that the Wilson first responders can access the Becker residence stated quote the business would be accessible from the reverse side of the Becker residence end quote this infers that they can reach the home business location because it sits behind the residence we believe that's incorrect so no vehicle can access the proposed location from the back side of the Becker home in the approximate 260 feet between the back of the Becker residence and the shed location there's an elevation change of 75 feet which represents a slope of 30 percent or six stories high there's no way for a first responder to get to that shed from the residence from the right driveway you would have to access it via the purple driveway driveways are understanding some large portion of all sugar houses in the state of Vermont cannot be accessed by a car or a truck sled and to be fair behind my house is a carriage road that ATV could go up I've assisted Williston fire department getting onto our property to rescue people through all sorts of trails and roads on my property so it's easily accessible it's within 40 meters from my house the fire department could bring a pumper truck and walk the hose up right in the back of the house right to where that structure is and when you say a sugar shack that is the equivalent structure that we're trying to model much smaller yeah other point on topic number three any additional rebuttal on that okay DRP members so in the winter time we're going to keep that purple primitive math we don't customarily file that anyway it's a login road that goes quite far back into the entirety of my property and then moves back around it would be astronomical to plan so what I would be doing is maintaining the access to this in the back on that carriage road with my tractor and just bucking you that other questions the carriage road is the trail that you're talking about and not the it's just like what would be easiest before that logging road existed there's you know a little carriage road in the back that you can bring a wheelbarrow or you know a power barrel or a tractor or a tractor I ride my tractor up there and move stuff around so it's wide enough for that but it's not a proper road you know but it would have been fine for a horse and buggy or something it's very accessible yeah one more question is your shed have electricity to it I'm assuming or are you running a generator no if if we do go and through this process we would have electricity which would be permitted and it would be an appropriate power source but since we didn't get to that point of getting utilities in and that type of stuff power is really the only utility that we would need to bring into it Larry can use my bathroom we're going for water water we have like a little how big is the gallon it's a 275 gallon freshwater tank that we're going to keep beside the unit and then we have a 150 gallon wastewater tank underneath that we would take like an RV and pick it up because it's on wheels and bring it and get rid of it and bring it back inside of underneath and that's like an ag container you know like a white white polycontainer yeah right right okay so can we actually comment on one of our final conditions was actually about something similar in that regard so and again I'm not sure the DRB can impose this condition but we would like Mr. Vector to obtain all relevancy permits as putting a business on a lot larger than 10 acres may actually require additional permitting under activity so I'm not sure what your capabilities are in terms of putting that condition in the space but so we have no power relative to that 150 and that's putting that condition on doesn't change then we can then we get it right right then you do it anyways they have to do it anyway it's out of our that's the thing we've seen no indication that they intend to they said they've got an all-relevant state permits but nobody as follows what those are should be a www permit because they're adding employee which should be well you stop but I'm saying no we're not required to thank you that's not us with any applications I'll ask activity for your fictional opinion it is up to it is up to the applicant to know at the end if they don't know to research who knows to research what those requirements are for the purchase I don't question that they don't I just have if they don't they have to think of mine to them think of them okay but it's nothing that we can influence yeah I understand okay we're asking just because we haven't seen anything that was that was a it's a good question it's just it's not something we can control any anything else find on your list no those were other questions okay okay DRB members any additional final questions members of the audience any questions if you could state your name sure and address for the record please name Dan Boonehauer 4545 St George Road adjacent landowner below I love it's nice to see you all my concern and question is just regards how you feel you can keep a business up there on the Hill secure when people are moving in right through our property and the trail is there a concern about that for anybody so I think that the nature of your property and because of the way that it is intermingled with the sucker broke it's fundamentally different than our property there is a distinct road that separates our property from sucker broke so with respect to public access the needs are very vocal about moving people off of the road and making sure that people are not parking for the sucker broke so there's an active practice of moving people off of our road I have dogs that are very vocal in terms of going all over our property and making sure that people are there that are not supposed to be and with respect to security we're following all the requirements that are absolutely put forward by board to your point there's a lot of digging and monitoring that goes to our phones at all time if there's motion a little further my dog running past sort of something weird we go to trigger on our phone but to your point you know people walking through your property right all the time all the time because the drug is your property or it's like next to its door also our property is we do not put up no trespassing it's like people have permission to walk our property but I don't want to feel like there's any responsibility for that so we have about 15 trespassing on our property because it's actively hunted and maintained so I want to make sure that people are not wandering on there and for people that are investing the time and effort into my property to turn it into a career to come through in a healthy environment that is is respected and I've had to come close over time because I've come close all the time so with respect to posting we're pretty happy and I also feel like there are sheds in the wood and we don't have signage right nothing's going to be obvious about what's going inside the shed in the woods so I tend to defer to the good nature of the monitors that they're not just busting into my shed next to my house with my dogs and people in the order during the day and if something were to happen then we would call the police and they would come in park in my yard and walk up the carriage road and they would do a little bit that would be how I would do it okay second point of question if I could yeah I was here talking about carriage road and I believe you see Marlin who was the person who owned the property so you did own it and he did put an incredible amount of work into making them more accessible roads so it's more of a I mean lots of tremendous road carriage road seems like a misnomer well the carriage road what I'm calling the carriage road is like what the original inhabitants of that property and I think even before the players because it was Marlin before that right there is an access road that when I scrape it all down there's stone there's stuff that's there that we're using in order to access that shed Steve must have put in 5,000 dump trucks of stone yes okay like an insane amount of work right and that's not what we know okay that's what I was thinking yeah that's a totally separate area this is like if you've been up that way you know how on the landing there's like where Steve used to have his work area there's a little cutoff that goes before that and that cutoff is the carriage road that goes down to the barn that uh jean prepares to have it okay thank you that clear what that said okay thank you any other questions from the audience any questions from people participating in zoom okay any final comments before I close this okay so i'm going to close get the right number 8, 8, 23, dad 0, 2 at 8 53 I would like to thank everybody involved with this very respectful and very productive so thank you all thank you guys thank you very much appreciate it okay so we're going to go into the legislative session okay thank you scott welcome back to the town of wilson development view board for tuesday june 27th 2023 it is 9 30 is there a motion for dp09-01.26 yes it's authorized by WPB 6.6.3 i john hummeldaren moved with the wilson development view board having reviewed the application submitted all the company materials including the recommendations of the town's staff and the advisory board required to comment on this application by the wilson and having heard and duly considered the testimony designed at the public hearing of june 27th 2023 except the findings of fact and conclusions of law dp09-01.26 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 wilson development which must proceed in strict conformance to the plans once this approval is based we are going to adjust one of the proposed conditions which would be number 12 we're going to right it shall read in its entirety doesn't make a pedestrian pathway public easement public access easement no less than 20 feet in width for compliance with wdv-f 2.c.2 between the lots c3a and c3b near or along the proposed boundary this pathway such easement shall run from market street rbl to the outskirts okay thank you john is there a second i'll second nate seconds it any further discussion okay yay or nay nate yay lisa yay scott you're recusing yourself yes dave turner yay john hemmelgarner yay chair is a yay five in favor of non-opposed one recusal motion passes is there a motion to approve is there a motion for dp 20 dash 20.1 yes okay so um it's your time dp 20 dash 20.1 okay as authorized by wdv 6.6.3 i scott riley move that the willis to develop a review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board required to comment on this application by the willis to develop a bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented in the public hearing of room 27 2023 except findings of fact and conclusions of law for dp 20 dash 20.1 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 see the administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based under the conclusions of law number three the location and nature of the proposed development does not make the use of bicycles highly unlikely under conditions of approval 6 b we will be so at final plans the applicant should provide an updated lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with wdb 24 specifically a note should be added to the lighting plan regarding lighting timing lighting timing to demonstrate compliance with wdb 24.5.4 and the total lumens for acre we are also adding 8 b final plan shall show all existing and proposed parking spaces and the proposed extent of pavement accurately 21 final plan should show a wrought iron fence slash chain link fence in the west setbacks okay thank you Scott is there a second oh second Dave turner seconds it any discussion uh yay or nay Nate yeah Lisa Scott yeah Dave John yeah chairs the yay six in favor none opposed motion carries for the same applicant there's a master sign plan okay as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 I stopped where I removed that the wilson developer review board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying material including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board required a comment on this application by the wilson developer bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing between 27-23 except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for db 20-20.1 and approved this discretionary permit for a master sign plan subject to the conditions of approval above this approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans to obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek administrative sign permits permits quote unquote which must proceed in strict conformance for the plans on which this approval is based thank you Scott is there a second second thank you John any discussion yes sorry in the the first one that you read Scott yep I believe the applicant just wanted the option of offense did we just require them to put a fence in so we just permitted it but we did say final plans should show it right does that final thing if they don't put it in then it wouldn't we so we just permitted it okay so I guess they don't if they don't do it and then it doesn't doesn't need to show up got it that that yeah yeah and the plans and say like future fence okay and and so certainly the testimony yeah and in the plans confirm confirm that the way they were there were there was a note on so we permitted they don't actually have to build it if they don't want to got it right okay so we're on the master sign plan we have a motion that was read we have a second we were in any discussion they you brought that forth any other any other discussion okay so we're voting on the master sign plan yeah your name Nate yeah Lisa Scott yeah Dave yeah John chairs yeah six in favorite none opposed okay APP 23-02 is their motion yes as authorized by WDB 5.4.6 I David Turner moved the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the appeal of the administrator's decision all of the accompanying materials and having heard that and do we consider testimony presented at the public hearing of June 27th 2023 except the findings of fact and conclusions of law that at 23-02 an appeal of the issuance of the administrator permit and uphold the decision of the administrator to issue AP 23-0181 with the following conclusions of law the proposed home business is a residential use and is therefore is isn't allowed to use of the agricultural residential zoning district the proposed home business complies with the applicable standards in the WDB 20.4 in Appendix G 3 the access access standards for residential driveways are not applicable to the proposed home business great thank you Dave is there a second Lisa seconds it any further discussion yay or nay Nate Lisa Scott yeah Dave yeah John yeah chairs a yay six in favor none of those motion carries is there a motion to approve the minutes of June 13 sure I know that we would approve the minutes of June 13th at the staff thank you John is there a second Scott thank you second is there any discussion hearing none yay or nay Nate yeah Lisa yeah Scott yeah Dave yeah John yeah yeah chairs a yay six in favor none of those meeting minutes are approved is there anything else to bring forth or would somebody like to make a motion to adjourn make a motion to adjourn I'll be seconded okay all in favor thank you everybody