 Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Williston Development Review Board meeting of March 12th, 2024. My name is John Hemmelgarn, Vice Chair of the Williston DRB. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the Williston Town Hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All 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 April 9th, 2024. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Nate Andrews. Yes, here. Paul Christensen. Present. Lisa Brayden Harder is not here this evening. Scott Riley not here this evening. David Turner is here. John Hemmelgarn is here. Pete Kelly is not here tonight. We have four out of seven. It's a quarrel. Who's doing the instructions, Andrew? That would be me. Welcome to everybody in person and on Zoom. If you are on Zoom, please take a moment to name yourself, rename yourself, so we know who you are. You can do this by pressing on the Participants icon at the bottom of your page. Then clicking on your name and button on the right is the rename button. Then you type your name in, rename yourself. If you have any questions, you can type your name into the chat and I can rename you. If you're on Zoom, we have a number of features you can use tonight. The microphone button turns your microphone on and off. Please keep yourself muted when it is not your turn to speak. The video button turns your video on and off. Video is optional. You can use the chat button to either ask to speak or ask questions. Please just keep those questions to technical questions for the Zoom broadcast. Lastly, you can use the reactions button to access the raise hand tool. If you would like to speak and someone else is speaking, use the raise hand tool and I will call on you. Tonight we'll be using side by side mode to view the documents that we review. You can select your view in the select view options at the top of the page. You scroll to the bottom. It says side by side mode and then once you have side by side mode up, you can use the drag slider in the center of the screen to change the size of the documents if you can't see them. You have bad internet connection. You can try turning off your video, closing other tabs and programs. Lastly, you can also use your phone as a speaker or a microphone. The directions are there. If you have questions, once again, just let me know. Thank you, Andrew. Tonight's agenda is relatively full. We've got public hearings on four items. A discretionary permit review of a three lot subdivision by the Bhoutans. Kevin Mazzuzan is requesting a discretionary permit of a proposed amendment to the conditions of a previous application. Yasmin Tabie is requesting a pre-application review of a two lot subdivision and Patrick O'Brien is requesting discretionary permit review of a 80,000-secundary-square-foot commercial ministory facility. I'd like to adjust the agenda a little bit to move a couple items. I think you're going to go quite quickly to the front end this evening. To that end, I'd like to have the Bhoutans go first. Also, I think we have a final plan review for the Annex that I'd like to also move forward. Any objections? Great. To that end, we will start our meeting as we always do with a public forum, which is an opportunity for anyone online or in the audience to comment on items that are not before the board is even. None in the building. Anything online? I have no raised hands online. Great. We will then move on to our public hearing of DP 23-13, Leo and Mona Bhoutan. Are the applicants present? Yes. Yes. Great. Welcome. I'd like you to identify yourself and your address for the record. My name is Mona Bhoutan. My address is 1722 North Road, East Fairfield, Vermont. Great. Thank you. So we'll have staff present a report. Yep. Thanks, John. This is a request for three lot subdivision. The parcel contains three existing dwellings, a primary dwelling and an accessory dwelling unit are proposed to remain on lot one. The third dwelling at 1513 Old Creamery Road would be on lot two. The third lot is an open space lot where no development is existing and no development is proposed as part of this subdivision. The homes and accessory structures are there. This is placing a lot around existing dwellings. The property is just under 40 acres. It is located in the agricultural rural residential zoning district. It was not subject to design or conservation commission review. Tonight staff is recommending that you take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate and approve a decision with standard conditions as drafted. The DRB may recall pre-application review last year in April. In 2002, there was a similar concept plan proposed, but that never moved forward. Public Works commented that they had no comments. We did not receive comments from fire or police nor did we receive any public comment letters at the time of mail out or this up to this evening. The DRB may recall some pre-application recommendations, most of which were standard. A couple were specific about providing not having to survey the entire open space. However, they did do a plot of the entire property. What follows is standard recommendations for the residential zoning district. The open space development meeting that 75% open space requirement. No changes to access. They did provide us with the water and wastewater permit for storm water, for the well and septic system. For density, we did provide a density analysis where theoretically there might be some more homes eligible for this land if they were to pursue a subdivision in the future. In terms of watershed health, there is an unnamed stream and possibly wetlands on the property. However, all development is existing. No changes to the site are proposed. What follows is standard findings effect, conclusions of law and conditions of approval. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Mary, would you like to comment or provide further input? Are you talking to me? I am. Oh, I'm Mona. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Mona. My I'll try not to make that mistake again. It's not a problem. No, I just wanted to point out that it were the 2.3 acres is or the whole purpose of this subdivision is just to separate out the 2.3 acres that goes under the property. Our buildings, we own the buildings on that property, but we don't own the land underneath. So the whole purpose of this subdivision is just so that we can get access to the land that's under our buildings. And no additional buildings are proposed in this subdivision or expected in the future. Great. I'm going to open this up to the board for any questions. Right away, access to the third parcel that's ever disposed of. There's two driveways now one that goes to the 1607 and 1609 houses and one that goes to the 1513. They already have separate drives. I know what I'm asking is that lock three, wherever to be stripped, broken away from your lock one and two, how would they get access to it? I didn't think that it could be. I thought it's listed as open land and that it would have to stay part of the 37 whatever the other acreages is. That's how I understood it. Yep. Mona is correct. So that third lot is an open space lot. It can't be developed or further subdivided. Ever. Right. Barring any changes to zoning, which are extremely unlikely. At that time, they would need to figure out access through one of the other two lots. But there's no requirement in our bylaw that an open space lot have access. I just want to make sure because I thought I read a statement. I know you're saying something about potential future development for that block. Yep. And the density analysis. So theoretically, the 40 acres could have more homes, they would need to be clustered into the 25% land area. So that 75% is the open space lot. New homes would close cluster closer to the existing houses. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you. Anything from the audience? I have no raised hands on zoom. Good. Mona, any last words on your part? No, no, I just appreciate you. What's that? Yes. Thank you for the welcome. Thank you for your for your time and effort on this. I'm going to close this hearing at 712. Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you. Next, the giant next on the agenda is I'd like to move to the final plans review DP 21 day shape 18 the annex to to review the request, I believe by the DRB to see these plans for the art part. Prior to moving forward to that. Oh, Andy. Good evening. So as you mentioned, we were advancing the plans for the art work. I'm sorry, can you just we know we know your name and probably know your address to Andy Rose, Snyder Homes 4076 Shelburne Road, Shelburne. Thank you. So on the the annex project currently under construction on the former church property near Taff's Corners includes a public park and as part of that public park, there were three artwork pieces, three sculptures. And as we're advancing the design of those sculptures, we wanted confirmation from the DRB that the size and massing and to the extent that you want to weigh in on the art sculpture itself was acceptable before we move forward with having these constructed, fabricated and then installed. The three artwork elements are the stone, which the same image is presented with the staff report in the narrative as was provided with the previously approved final plans. And the height on that is about 10 feet with a diameter of about six feet. And then as you go from Alpine Drive down into the public park, there's a junction sculpture. That's as you get from the paved path to the loop of the park that circles the perimeter of the public park area. And that's the round wood stack. And that would have a height of 10 feet. And then out in the public park itself is the meadow sculpture. And that's the artist that we're working with has characterized that as the wood egg. It's very similar to what was originally proposed with a little different take on the appearance or the way it would be constructed. And that would have a height of 11 feet. And this would be in addition to the other various natural play elements that were part of the previously approved final plans. There's no change to the layout of the park, the other play elements. We just wanted to get in front of you before, as I said, we move forward with fabricating these sculptures. Great. So I'm going to ask the staff, what is it that is being requested in terms of action from the board tonight on this? Yep. So the board is approving an amendment to final plans. Most of the time these are done administratively at the staff level. There was a condition of approval for this project that public art shall be specified prior to or with the approval of phase two and that the DRB retained final plans review for the annex. So a general motion to approve them, they will be added into the final plan set that we have on file for the project and supersede what was shown previously on this page. Any questions, comments from the board? All we do is we vote yay or nay and we vote yay then it goes back to you guys and now we're responsible, right? Yep. So I need to know. I can give my opinion to the applicant that I think these are great. Thank you. For the sculptures that are actual wood, is there some sort of preservative or am I reading this right? Are they actual wood on the surface? Yeah, wood and... It's less forever. Not forever but it's... It's forever a long time. Yeah, I mean for the play elements that's what we're looking at as well as a black locus which is rot resistance, very dense, hard, won't last forever but the idea is that it will last for a good long time. And these will be... Species, isn't it? It is an invasive species, yes. These will also be mounted on bases so that they'll be up so that snowfall will also pile up around them but the idea is to get them up away so that the bases are as suitable environment as possible to not induce the rot. Good. We're all good. Thank you. Great, thank you. I don't even have to close this, do I? I think that didn't open. I know, I don't know where you are. We'll open the next hearing at 717. This is DP 20-15.1. Kevin Mazuzin requests discretionary permit review of a proposed amendment to the conditions of DP 20-15, a two lot subdivision at 1120 Butternut Road in the Agricultural Rural Zoning District. Welcome. Thank you. So if you could give us your names and addresses, that'd be great. Sure, my name is Kevin Mazuzin, 1120 Butternut Road. Jesse Lauer, 1120 Butternut Road. Great, welcome. So, that would be me. Thank you so much. I'm trying to hear my screen but this is not co-operated. Would somebody else mind hearing? Okay, this is a request for a discretionary permit amendment for a previously two lot subdivision on a 5.27 acre parcel, creating one new dwelling unit at Butternut Road in the Agricultural Rural Zoning District. The applicants requesting the DRB reevaluate the subdivision under current bylaw, apply the growth management exemption, and remove the 2020 growth management conditions for DP 20-15. Staff is recommending the DRB approve this application with conditions as drafted. So on October 26, 2021, the discretionary permit was granted and final plans were signed and recorded on November 18, 2022. No advisory boards reviewed the proposed amendment and no town departments reviewed the proposed amendment. No comment letters were received at the time of the mail-out. So the applicants proposing an amendment to the previously approved subdivision, DP 20-15, the scope of this hearing and DRB action will be limited to determining whether the proposed amendment complies or fails to comply with the bylaw. Pre-application is not required for the proposed amendment. So this request, it is a substantial change to DP 20-15, but the nature of the amendment is not one that's depicted on the final plans, and staff is recommending the DRB approve the requested change and conditions without requiring the applicant to submit a new set of final plans. So the Williston Development Bylaw chapter 11 growth management was amended as of October 17, 2023 to allow an exemption for small residential subdivisions, construction of up to four dwellings on a parcel where residential uses are allowed. As a two-lot subdivision, DP 20-15 qualifies for this exemption. The currently approved subdivision obtained a growth management score of 30 points on March 24, 2020, subject to the following conditions. Conserve energy that proposed new dwelling will meet Efficiency Vermont high performance level and at least 75% of estimated energy demand will be generated through on-site renewable resources. Designed for context, the development is in scale with surrounding uses. Minimize visual impact, the development will be minimally visible from public roads except for any road directly serving site. So the applicants requesting the DRB formally grant 2015 an exemption from growth management conditions, specifically the requirements under the conserve energy criteria. The overall scale and character of the subdivision will remain in line with neighboring uses and will have minimal impact from visual impact from butternut roads. The site plan will not change. So the staffs recommending the DRB approve the requested amendment with changes in the findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions approval noted below. Thank you Melinda. Anything to add to that? Other than to say thank you Melinda and staff for preparing the staff report. We don't have anything further unless there's questions. That's easy one. Nope, a question. Paul, do you have any questions? I remember the prompt. It's been a little while Paul. I actually was sitting there wondering, I was about to ask the board why they didn't point this out before we moved back in October 26th until I realized it was 2021. Never mind. I just, a couple of comments. This is interesting and it's difficult a little bit for me because energy conservation is important. I think it's an important issue for all of us in our town, in our state, in our country, in our world. And in this case we had someone who promised to build a house that was at a certain level of energy efficiency and now we're moving backwards from that. So that does not make me particularly happy or satisfied. I do recognize that if this project were re-proposed at this point as a new project it would meet all the criteria that I think were just pointed out. So I don't think I have an issue so much with your application as I do with the changes that were made to the bylaw. I think we've gotten ourselves into a spot where now we're going to have a less energy efficient project in town. I don't think they're changing the energy efficiency. I think the biggest thing was the 75% of creation of energy on site. If it makes you feel any better, the dream scenario is still for us to build a net zero passes solar home. But sometimes dreams are just that and if that day never comes then if we wanted to sell the lot those kind of conditions upon a building lot really limit our buyer pool. So are you saying that I mean there's two pieces to this then that was to meet efficiency of a high performance level and at least 75% of the estimated energy demand with on site generation. Am I hearing that you're still planning on meeting the high performance standards? If we build it will go above and beyond. That doesn't make me feel better. John it will actually go above and beyond that because it'll be a net zero or a passive one. Alright well that's great. I appreciate that. This project was the only one to ever score points in that category so I believe that category went from like five star lead which was a throw away. Everybody got full points and like in 2017-2018 it became this standard. They were the only project and one home to achieve full points. Great was that why it hasn't been built yet? Well the pandemic a near fatal car accident there's been a lot of different things. We actually just got our discretionary permit to start to bring an excavator on the property but now with early mud season we're not doing that so the project has been delayed. We're patient we're not going anywhere and you know eventually it will come to fruition. Thank you. Do we have any comments, questions from the audience or from online? Nothing online yet. Good. I think we're all set. I will close this hearing at 726. Thank you. Thank you. So next up is BP24-16 which will open at 727. This is a pre-app, a pre-application review of a proposed two lot subdivision to create one 2.58 acre parcel for the existing dwelling and one 1.2 acre parcel for a proposed residential dwelling at 2255 Mountain View Road in the residential zoning district. So do we have anyone who's representing this project? Yes, I am. I am as well. Yasmin Tayebi, 225 Mountain View Road. I'm sorry I did not hear your name. Could you repeat that? Sorry? I did not, I didn't catch your name. I just asked you to repeat that. Yasmin Tayebi, 225 Mountain View Road. And we've got Mike from CEA also representing us here. Great. Mike, can you give us your full name and address? Sure. It's Michael Koch with Civil Engineering Associates, 10 Mansfield View Lane in South Burlington. Right. Thank you very much. Who's up for staff? Melinda again. This is a request for pre-application review of a proposed two lot residential subdivision on Mountain View Road in the agricultural rural residential district. The existing parcel is 2.5 acres and occupied by one single family dwelling. The existing dwelling will remain on a 1.3 acre lot and a new single family dwelling is proposed to be constructed on a 1.2 acre lot. The new home is proposed to be served by municipal water and sewer and its own driveway from Mountain View Road. Staff recommends allowing the project to proceed to discretionary permit with recommendations as drafted. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing this project. The staff report includes the project history. It was approved by the planning commission in 1997 and that created the subject parcel and one other lot. Both lots were located outside the town sewer service area. And then the parent parcel had received some allocation prior to 1990, but that allocation had been returned unused. The select board granted renewed sewer allocation in 1996, but only to serve a single family residence on lot two. Lot one was intended to be deferred from development permitting requirements at the time. And the stated purpose of the deferral was so that the property owners did not have to do soil testing as part of the subdivision review. The lot was understood as being solely for agricultural use. In 2014, the property owner at the time requested to connect the parcel to the town's municipal sewer system to facilitate future development of the parcel. And soil tests indicated the property could not support adequate wastewater treatment. The select board did make a decision to connect to allow sewer allocation to be granted and to connect that lot to the town's sewer service area. So lot one was granted water and sewer allocation for a four bedroom single family residence. And permit was issued in 2015 to permit construction of a new four bedroom single family residence and with a music production home business. And then there was one other permit issued in 2020 for a backyard shed. So public works department did submit comments for this application. And those comments are included. DRV can adopt comments as conditions but only to the extent they can be enforced by the statutory authority of zoning for VSA chapter 24. No comment letters were received at the time of the mail-out. So this staff report puts the discussion of density up front because it's really critical to the DRV's consideration of the project. And the discussion under the following section really relates to an area of conflict between the town's current bylaw and state statute recently adopted act 47 home act. And where there is a conflict between a local bylaw and state statute, state statute must prevail. In other words, the town must treat the home act as if it were part of the Williston development bylaw. We are in the process of amending our bylaws to be consistent with the home act. The planning commission has reviewed these proposed amendments. And the select board has not yet warned of public hearing on those amendments. So we're kind of in the process. But for now, the home act must prevail. So table 19a establishes a net density in the ARZD of one dwelling per 80,000 square feet or 1.84 acres. This is the provision that is preempted by the home act, which was adopted into Vermont statute last year. The home act establishes a net density of five dwellings per acre in any area served by municipal sewer and water infrastructure. So staff is recommending that this subject parcel meets the definition of served by municipal sewer and water because it is located in an area where residential connections and expansions are available because the subject parcel is already served by municipal water and sewer. If the parcel subdivided, staff is recommending that a new dwelling can feasibly be connected to municipal sewer and water service. And that's included in the recommendations. The Williston bylaw states that acreage on which wetlands and steep slopes are be subtracted from the density calculators. In this case, there are no obvious constraints on the parcel. So one additional dwelling is proposed and a preliminary density calculation estimates that 12 dwelling units can be supported by this parcel in compliance with the home act. An accurate density calculation should be provided at discretionary permit. And this is included in the recommendations. For the dimensional standards of the ARZD, compliance is anticipated. WDB 3131 permits a maximum building height of 36 feet. It allows the DRV to impose a lower height limit to maintain the visual character of Williston. Setbacks from the rear and side property lines are controlled by landscape buffer requirements of chapter 23 where chapter 23 doesn't apply. The minimum setback is 15 feet. Development must be setback 50 feet from a public road. Setbacks must be landscaped and the only development permitted within them is access drives, roads, pedestrian ways and underground utility lines. Buildings and parking areas are not allowed within the setbacks. The site plan shows all development except the access drive setback from 50 feet from Mountain View Road. The lot has adequate frontage. The WDB 3141 establishes a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, 1.84 acres. Four lots created from parcels of less than 10 and a half acres. But the proposed lot 1A is 1.3 acres and lot 1B is 1.2 acres. But again, this provision is preempted by state statute, the Home Act. Home Act effectively establishes a minimum lot size of 8,712 square feet or 0.2 acres. And the proposed lots comply. Okay. So the parcel is less than 10 and a half acres so doesn't have to be, is not required to protect open space on a separately plated lot. The lots and home size sites are anticipated to comply. So let's see. WDB 3196 seeks to minimize the visual impact of new homes by using existing vegetation and terrains. Homes should be effectively screened from view from public ways but brief views of the development are acceptable. Clearing of screening vegetation is strictly limited. If a home cannot be screened, it should be cited where it will be effectively absorbed by slope or woods per WDB 3197. The applicant may propose the DRB may approve measures to supplement screening or absorption under WDB 3198. The parcel is a mixture of open and wooded with the new home proposed to be cited within the wooded portion. The DRB may discuss with the applicant whether any of the measures listed in WDB 3198 are necessary. There's a street view of the existing home from Mountain View Road and a street view of the proposed lot 1B. The project is not subject to growth management review. On October 17, 2023, the select board adopted changes to the Williston Development Bylaws. One of these changes exempted the construction of up to four dwellings on any parcel where dwellings are permitted from growth management review. This residential subdivision can proceed straight from pre-application review to discretionary permit. And per WDB 11.3, the project is not required to provide affordable housing as it will create fewer than five new dwellings. For access, compliance is anticipated with a recommendation. Properties are allowed direct access to local roads such as Mountain View Road under WDB 13.2.1. The DRB may require shared driveways to reduce the number of points of access. The Department of Public Works did state in their comment memo a preference for the proposed driveway to be located further from the intersection with Old Stage Road than is proposed, which is about 230 feet away from the intersection. DPW is requesting the applicant provide site distance of the proposed driveway from the Old Stage and Mountain View Road intersection, and that is included in the recommendations. And then WDB 13.2.3 sets out design standards for points of access to private roads, including alignment, grade, site distance, and clearance. Compliant points of access should be shown on the site plan at discretionary permit. This is also included as a recommendation. With respect to on-site infrastructure, compliance is anticipated with a recommendation. The parcel is proposed to be served by the town's water and wastewater service through existing connections to the parent parcel. The Department of Public Works requests that the applicant's engineer confirm the existing water service line is adequate to serve both homes and has requested the applicant to reduce the number of valves from the three that are proposed to two total and that each building should have one designated shutoff valve that allows the water to each building to be shut off without interrupting the other building. DBEW has also requested the applicant provide a copy of the proposed utilities piece that this is included under recommendation 6A, rather. With respect to landscaping, compliance is anticipated with a recommendation. WDB Table 23A establishes requirements for landscaping for different types of development. Staff recommends a proposed development can meet the landscape requirement with a type 1 existing vegetation landscape buffer on the side and rear setbacks. The DRB may wish to discuss with the applicant the proposed landscaping for the front yard setback, including whether any supplemental screening is necessary to reduce visual impact from Mountain View Road. Staff recommends the driveway and utilities to be located on currently where feasible to minimize the amount of clearing on the lot. Street trees are not a typical treatment in this area of town and the driveway can be screened by existing wooded vegetation. For WDB 2612, staff recommends a requirement for street trees be waived. And that just shows you a screenshot of the general area of the proposed development and there are any street trees along that road. The parcels within an area map to a significant wildlife habitat area and the development will impact for habitat and wildlife travel corridor. WDB 2757 requires that habitat disturbance assessment be prepared contracted to the town but funded by the applicant and submitted as part of discretionary permit application. This is included in the recommendations. The conservation commission made specific recommendations to minimize the impact to the significant wildlife habitat area including careful positioning of the building envelope, shortening the driveway to preserve the wildlife travel corridor and in alignment with the findings of the HDA. The site plan should show a defined building envelope of half acre or less for the proposed lot. No structures of forest clearing shall be allowed outside the building envelope. These are included in the recommendations. Subject parcels within an area mapped as primary middle ground view shed. WDB 2795 states that for all development within a scenic view shed the impact shall be determined by the DRB who may request recommendations from the conservation commission. The subject parcel doesn't appear to be prominent in the view shed from the viewpoint and the conservation commission had no recommendations for mitigating view shed impacts. The proposed project is not anticipated to impact any other of the conservation resources. For erosion control and compliance is anticipated. This is considered a low risk development in which the cumulative land disturbance is greater than one quarter acre but less than two acres in which all land that's disturbed is outside water shed protection buffers and or has a slope of less than 8%. So the application should be accompanied by a completed run off and erosion control checklist that shows how the applicant will comply with guidance provided in the low risk site handbook for erosion prevention and erosion control. This is included as a recommendation. Compliance is anticipated with respect to wetlands and water shed protection buffers. So in this case there aren't any mapped wetlands on the site. The staff is recommending the applicants engineer confirm there are no wetlands present on the parcel if wetlands are present, a wetland delineation is required and this is included as a recommendation. And then transportation, recreation, school impact fees are assessed when administrative permits are submitted. The current fees are about $8,000 for single dwelling units. Thank you, Linda. At this time I would ask the applicant to come forward or to speak up and this is your opportunity to describe your project to the DRB. I would ask if you have had a chance to see the recommendations that were just reviewed by Melinda already. And if you have, I would ask you during your presentation here to essentially comment on those or to let us know of any that you may have an issue with potentially. Sure. We are doing this subdivision because we are moving to Boston and we are planning on selling this single family residence that's already built here on the original lot. And by subdividing obviously I think we all know Boston is quite expensive, hoping that maybe that will help us buy a place down there. So that's the purpose. It is intended to be sold as a single family lot. We don't really want anybody to put five dwellings on it just because technically they can. So that's our hope. And in terms of the recommendations, yes, we've seen that staff report. Everything is totally fine with us. The only thing that we would like to discuss is the shared driveway recommendation. So we saw that, I think they said in the plan that maybe on the plan it was 230 feet from old stage. We understand that the minimum should be 305 feet from the intersection, which is totally doable. So we're happy to move that driveway eastward down the road. And that would still leave over 100 feet between our driveway, the existing driveway and the new driveway. And just having a look at some other recommendations. I think that's a long mountain view road. It seems are several that are less than 100 feet apart. So I think we would comply with. With what, you know, we see is pretty normal within Mountain View. That's the only. Thing we wanted to bring up really. Great. I would, I would ask Mike, if you could confirm as was suggested in the, in the staff report that about the wetlands on the site. We are not prepared to discuss the, the wetlands as they, there are no current findings, but we are happy to comply. Great. Okay. Thank you. So I would, I guess open this up to. Board questions at this point. Comments. Question for us. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Question for staff. Is there any potential. Walk down the road. For sidewalk. Let's. I mean it seems like that. I actually. Right. It's not currently a requirement. For residential. Property. And I mean, usually that. Is something that. Might be obtained during growth management. But in this case, the property is not going through both management. And they. Oh, yeah. So if I understand this right, we're going to do homes thing. We could grant this one lot one house on this other lot. And then someone could come along behind them and say, well, we're instituting homes. We want to build the other three homes. And we have no input on that. Is that where I understand it? That would be allowed under our, yeah, under the homes. So in other words, they could, or even better yet, they could actually tear down the current house and they could turn around, build 12 houses on this two and a half acre lot, right? There would be allowed under the density provisions. It would provide it that it met all the other requirements. I'm just saying is they could build 12 homes out there, just out of curiosity. Yeah. So, okay. That's on, you know, I would just say, I would hope nobody would tear that beautiful house down. Thank you. I appreciate it. It's the guys over in South Burlington, the poor farm road, what that guy who used to own that farmland did with his property. Well, we're not discussing that property. So no, we're not. Let's stick with this one. So there's a couple of interesting recommendations from my perspective in here. One is that the house be moved closer to the road to preclude disturbing the wildlife habitat, I believe, which is interesting because one of the nice things about the house that's there that I think maintains its rural character here is that it is further back from the road. There's a nice winding driveway that gets you a view as you go past those trees, a quick glimpse of the house that when you bring that forward, it's going to probably create a much, it's going to make it more visible. And not quite as far at the end of a lane. Not that these can't be surmounted, but I think it's, it does heighten the need to pay attention to some of the other requirements that were in this report about building height screening in the front and whatnot to maintain that. So I'm not that interested in prescribing which of those avenues you would pursue, but I would like to say that I think it'll be important that you pay attention to that piece of the of the bylaw. What I will say as well is, we, you know, we want to basically get this approved and do as much of the round work as possible for a buyer, but we're not actually going to be, you know, citing a house doing the house plans that's all going to happen once a buyer takes over. And so the actual discussions about their house and where they cite it, correct me if I'm wrong, but would that be something that they would then have to bring to you guys, or is that something that we do with the building envelope before we even sell it. My understanding is that there's, you're showing essentially a building envelope on the site plan now. We're commenting on and as did the other commissions in town, and that those recommendations would be out there and exist as the next person came through to or any subsequent owner would come through to develop that property. Okay. Thanks. But as you can probably notice here earlier the when the discretionary permit lands on our desks. There's a little chart that goes over all of the recommendations from the pre application and says complies or does not comply. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. Giving you as much time as I can. Okay. This is I don't know how pertinent this is I did notice in the application that the Champlain Valley school district was on the adjoiner list. I was a little confused about that. All residential projects. List. Send them notice to the schools. Okay. Good. I learned something tonight. Never too old. Every day of day. Let me just check my notes here. And I would just clarify here that with the the shared driveway component that is something that the DRB may recommend but we're not compelled to do so. Yeah, I appreciate that. I can say that I appreciate your comment on that and we will be discussing that in deliberations. Thank you very much. That is that's all I had. Any last comments here guys. So here's where I open it up to the audience. If there's any comments out there or online. I think we're down to the last two people online now. Thank you for your time, your application. We're going to close this at 758 753. Thanks and I just want to echo the last applicant sentiments as well. Thank you to the staff for all the work on this. It's much appreciated and look forward to hearing from you guys. You're welcome. Thank you. All right. And then there was one in this place. So I'd like to open the last hearing here tonight to GP 24 days 11 Patrick O'Brien requested discretionary permit review of the proposed. Plus or minus 80,600 square foot commercial mini storage facility at 269 shun pipe road in the industrial zoning district. West and we'll open that 854. I'm sorry, seven. Am I reading the clock? I'm having a hard time with that clock. We're making good progress. Welcome. Could I have your names and addresses, please? My name is Patrick O'Brien mailing address of 193 industrial Avenue. Well, it's in Vermont. And then I make Smith with us the Ireland. 193 industrial Avenue. Welcome. All right. This is a request for discretionary permit to develop lot five of the robert subdivision located at 269 shun pipe road. They're proposing to build a mini storage facility will be served by a two way private driveway located off shun pipe road. Approximately 80,000 square feet of building area in 19 buildings. The property is 7.77 acres located in the industrial zoning district West. It was not subject to design review or conservation commission review. Staff recommends approval that the day or DRB hold a hearing and deliberate tonight. And the DRB must make a decision about condition number eight project history. So the robert subdivision took place in 2018 and 2019. There was a pre application review done in November 2022 for a different development on this parcel to spec industrial commercial buildings. However, that did not move forward. The pre app on this mini storage was conducted in January of this year. Public works and fire department commented on this application. Their memos are included in your packet. Staff notes that where there's a conflict, the, the DRB can only uphold the requirements of the unified development bylaw. Public works is responsible for the public work specifications. One comment letter was received at the time of mail out copies have been provided to you. We received no further comments up to tonight's hearing. What follows is the list of pre app recommendations, most of which have been addressed in the application. The DRB did strike one recommendation. So that's not applicable. In terms of the zoning district industrial zoning district West self storage is allowed under any ICS code 532 rentals and leasing dimensional standards compliance is proposed. The buildings will be far below the maximum height limit on the minimum road frontage requirement is 40 feet where they're proposing a 60 feet foot wide frontage. And the side and rear setbacks will discuss a little later with landscaping. No outdoor sales or storage are proposed. Some notes on subdivision. This is provided for the DRB's information. So this is lot five of the robert subdivision. It has a flag lot shape on that 60 feet in width. And it's a little bit longer where it intersects shun pipe road because of the, the line length for that parcel frontage. There are some notes on the plat where there are easements with the abutting property lot six, which is developed as will willson self storage where there's some shared access and utility easements benefiting the various slots. Access connectivity and traffic studies. So the driveway design complies as proposed. It's 24 feet in width with two 12 foot lanes. The curb cut complies with public work specifications. The bylaws otherwise silent on driveway design and access design for private commercial driveway. In terms of multi use path complies as proposed, they're going to build their section of path 10 foot wide path on their frontage. And the DRB struck the pre app recommendation about a bike pedaling. That mainly came from that prior pre app where there were going to be spec and commercial buildings where it was more likely that employees or customers might be coming and going by foot or bike for the mini storage less likely. And what follows is a graphic of the driveway grade showing the driveway. Today the existing grade slopes to the west proposed it's going to slope to the east. No traffic study was requested or required. They will be required to pay transportation impact fees per chapter 45 parking standard vehicular parking for industrial uses is very flexible. They're proposing two spaces. There will be any onsite employees. These would be spaces for customers accessing the kiosk. Most customers will just be driving up to their unit and then leaving. And again, no bike storage is proposed or required on site infrastructure. So the chapter 15 circulation chapter 14 for parking lot design. The bylaw minimum is a 20 foot travel lane two ways between a parking lot. Here these interior aisles between the buildings are mostly 24 feet. There's a couple places where they're 30 feet to meet the fire department's request for internal circulation. Private utilities comply as proposed as well as water and sewer. They've shown their electrical lines on and communication on the eastern side of the driveway. They are proposing a connection for the water line to have an internal hydrant. However, there's no other water connection or sewer connection. There's no bathrooms or inside facilities. Maintenance standard complies as proposed. They've identified snow storage and there's no solid waste management onsite. So customers take their items to and from. There's not a dumpster landscaping. Here's where we have some specific conditions for you to take a look at. So with the lot nine shared boundary line, this lot nine is the conservation open space lot for the robert subdivision. So it won't have any development. It's primarily wetland. The bylaw requirement is that there be a 36 foot buffer and that can be reduced to 27 feet where there's a nine foot fence or wall. So the back sides of the storage buildings are being treated as a wall for the purpose of this setback reduction. There's no access to the side of the building. No doors or windows. It's just the backside of the building like a wall. There is one spot near building 11 shown on the far right of the screen where the incursion is 26 feet instead of 27 feet. And there's a retaining wall and some pavement there. So the applicant has two options to address this at final plans. They could either reconfigure this area to meet the 27 feet or they could do a boundary line adjustment with lot nine. Either of those options can be handled at final plans. The landscape buffer with 253 shun pike road. So this is a residential property. And the DRB applicant should discuss the distance of the fence to the property line as well as the placement of the landscaping and the fence. After sending out the staff report, the applicant did provide me with some updated information. So this is the screening fence to protect the residential property. They're proposing a six foot high vinyl stockade fence. It's going to be fully opaque. And they propose moving the fence between the Arbor Vity hedge and the type three landscape buffer. So the neighbors would have the fence buffered by some screening, whereas the plans that you have in your packet place the fence between all of the landscaping and the property line. Both of these versions are compliable with the bylaw. The one they percent is probably a little bit more amenable to the neighbor. And I'm recommending that condition 8b be drafted that fence design and colors be reviewed by staff at final plans. What they're showing is fine. However, they haven't been able to hear back from the neighbor yet. So if the neighbor wants something slightly different that still meets this requirement that could just be shown administratively at final plans. The property on the west side 319 Shun Pike Road is an industrial mini storage facility. There a nine foot buffer is shown. And the applicants depiction of the abutting landowner's landscaping is accurate. So there's a little bit of overlap where tree crowns extend over the property line, both on their lot and the neighboring lot. And our bylaw silent on, you know, tree crowns overlapping on a property line. Lastly, 327 Holly Court, a type three buffer is also shown along that side. Lastly for landscaping final plans need to show compliance with the variety standard that no more than one species is present. It should be more than 15%. And that any landscaping near the snow storage areas is salt tolerant. Street trees standard complies as proposed. There's two street trees near the driveway intersection with Shun Pike Road signs and public art. A condition that the final plans must show clear vision triangle set the one free standing sign doesn't conflict with vision triangles. Assuming that the size location and height and panel size meets table 25 point a that can be approved administratively. The sign is proposed within a shared utility easement area. However, the bylaw is silent on placing signs in areas that have private cross easements. Our main bylaw requirement is that the sign be placed five feet away from the property line, which it complies. Conservation areas complies as proposed. This information is mainly provided as an FYI. So a habitat disturbance assessment was done for the roe bear subdivision. That's mainly why lot nine was created as a conservation lot. And there was some notations about a special a special bat species in the area. However, no roe bear properties were required to do separate HTAs from the main one that was done at the original subdivision. Watershed health. This is also standard and complies as proposed. So there are some watershed buffers associated with wetlands on the property. No development or encroachment is proposed within those buffers. And it is delineated by retaining walls, chain link fences, the inaccessible back sides of the building, as well as boulders in some of those areas where, you know, the driveway snow storage, it slopes down. Then there's a couple boulders just to keep any mowing and things out of the wetland buffer. Stormwaters handled through the state. They are showing their stormwater plans and erosion control on the site plan, which complies with our bylaw. Impact fees. The I.T.E. manual estimates six PM peak hour trips for a mini storage use. The base fee is just under $2,000 per trip and that gets adjusted at the time of administrative permit. Lastly, outdoor lighting. This also complies as proposed. So most of the lights on this site will be motion activated and they comply with our requirement that they shut off after five minutes of last detected motion. However, there are four lights that would be on dusk to 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. to dawn. The two bollards that are proposed along the driveway and then the two wall packs that are near the customer parking and entrance gate area. Other than that, lighting complies as proposed with the security lighting standard for development. And what follows are findings of fact, conclusions of law, conditions of approval, noting condition number eight for your review. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. So I would ask the applicant to comment or provide any additional further information that you would like to have the DRB consider. Sure. Again, thank you, staff, for the thorough report and making sure that we got out the screening changes that we're proposing. So a couple of things that I think would probably be best if I just kind of move through them here. The ones, the major ones that I noticed are that were added to condition eight. Number one would be the discussion on the retaining wall area that is not meeting the landscape buffer reduction at 26 feet. We've already decided that we'll probably shave a little bit off that building just pull everything in. I'll actually get us all the way back to 36 feet so there won't be any change or any out of compliance there. So we'll be pulling. And the other ones I think it sounds like are are approval as is. And then we continue on. Can I, I'm sorry to interrupt right here, but it's a question came up is, are the back walls of those buildings nine feet tall. The back walls of those buildings are not are between eight and a half and 10 feet so I'll have to confirm that they are nine feet tall. Because the amount of you're allowed to reduce that setback is proportional to the height of the wall up to. Yep. So. Right, so you just need to make sure that the math works here. What I would say is that we're not we won't need that full nine foot reduction that was only needed for that last area that we're going to eliminate so we will really only need like a four foot reduction so we should be being compliant. Okay. Thanks for pointing out. And then, I guess we'll move on to the landscape screening with the adjoining plot which is residential use and as Emily said we're proposing an opaque white vinyl fence at this time we'd like to coordinate with the owner and if they would like some minor tweaks we could probably work with them on that. And we feel that it's probably best to place that in between both landscape offers. I think it just masks both sides nicely that way. So that I think the condition as written by staff would be amenable to the applicant in this case. And that's the one I provided to you guys separate and that's. That's going to be so from the neighbor's house they're going to see the landscape buffer and then they'll be the fence. They will see the type three landscape buffer shrub full height trees ornamental trees mixture. Then then then we will have a hydro on our side as a redundant kind of buffer I suppose. So the fence is kind of sandwiched between the. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I would I would just ask you to when you are working with the neighbor to make sure the color I mean bright white is can be nice but it's going to be actually something that may stand out more than a more neutral color. Yeah, yeah, exactly. But that's why it sounds like staff sleeping a little flexibility on that much. We appreciate that. We appreciate it. Another point of minor comments was just a sign location at the front as far as the clear vision triangles. They don't think we have an issue. With that, as staff mentioned, there is an easement in this area for utility utility utility with lot six, which is the self storage to the west of us. You know, I think it's a lot of times these these easements are, you know, as I'm sure you're well aware, all the role bear lots had shared utility easements on all the edges so that they weren't I mean I was familiar with the project as well. And we weren't really sure where GMP was going to have volts or pedestals or anything along those lines. So that's really what that easement is for. I think there's more than sufficient room either behind the fence somewhere near the landscaping in that area or if it came down to it and we had to relocate the sign and come for an amendment or have an amendment with the town town here we can. We'll happily do that in the future, but I think the location shown is ideal it keeps it away from the residential. The other option would be putting it on the other side of the driveway essentially, and then we're right along the fence with that residential property owner, which is actually pretty close to that corner there so. There were, I know there were some other comments by public if you'd like, I could just kind of briefly tap all four of those that were made and then, you know, Publix here as well so we can take more comments after that if that sounds good to you. Sure. I think from my memory here I'm running through I think the first comment was essentially storm water runoff. And a concern that it may be we may be introducing additional storm water to the system that is on the self storage lot to the West. I certainly mentioned the we're actually reducing the watershed drainage to that area we're capturing all the pavement draining it to the east so what the exact opposite direction and we'll be treating it subsurface the subsurface facilities are around 50 feet away from each area which should be sufficient to not impair each other ours is actually at a lower elevation to so if we're taking any liability as far as some kind of an impact there but. So I think the concern on the storm water was valid but I think we've addressed it with the way we've designed the driveway to be super elevated all pitching everything away from that lot to the West. The second comment I believe we briefly touch or we talked about here was the sign location in the utility easement. And again, I think, you know, we were happy to work with a lot six owners and if there is a need for some utility vault or pedestal or anything else in that area to try and coordinate the sign location and relocate it. Or relocate some landscaping if needed to facilitate that in the future and you know these these easements are written into the deeds so there's not really any. We don't really have any wiggle room on that anyway so. And I know number four I'm sorry I don't have number three in front of me the third comment but. The fourth one I know is similar with regard to the access easement and potential future connection points from the self storage units in the West and again we would. We would say that, you know, we were we have provided the slot has provided an access easement and we're happy to work with the. Joining landowner in the future and if there is a redevelopment of the site or a second access is for some reason required we were more than happy to work with them on that as long as they're happy to work with us so. And the third comment and thank you for bringing up is was just discrepancy in the survey markers and I think it was maybe just unclear exactly which. What markers were out there and what they were pulling tape from the neighbor so I went out today and checked that they did have their survey or come and flag. The survey markers and then I pulled tape and it matches exactly the robert flat so it's 61 point. Just over 61 feet as on Chum Pike road and I don't, I don't think there's any. Discrepancy I think it's a an unwarranted comment that's all. But if there was, if the surveyor comes back with something different, we're happy to take a look at it and ensure that we're, we're in, we don't have any issues, that's all. Okay. Thank you. I think that's it. All right, open it up to the board questions. Is there an office or a gate or anything like that plan. Yeah, well, there will be a gate with like an RFID or some other type of access to it. There's also a small kiosk just before the gate. People can buy locks, they can renew subscriptions to their units and that's partly how new users gain access to the site. So it is staffed. No, it's not staffed. Yes. So what you do is you pull up to the facility and there's a self-serve kiosk. Okay. So this is the question I've always had and this is the first time I've really had a chance to ask it. So I see on the plan some some snow storage areas. This looks like a lot of a lot of driveway and a lot of snow and a big storm. Is there a calculation of determining how big those snow storage areas need to be? How do you do that? And do we have enough? Do we really have enough? Yeah, we have I think with some of the reconfigurations that will be shown on the final plans will be additional snow storage as well. But, you know, what it really comes down to is what the owner wants to do with the snow storage to as far as just pure plowing. Yeah, it may be an issue. They may actually need to have some kind of lift system that will actually help stack it and fill heights on these on the snow storage area. It's just kind of a maintenance, you know, real operational kind of logistics. Yes, oftentimes in the Northeast, the larger facilities like this one, they'll have a loader on site so they can stack. Because with the least larger facilities with the long alleys, it does become an issue without that type of piece of equipment. Is that then parked on site for? I mean, I think for for most facilities, it would be this one. It would be either depending on who does the snowmobile, which will likely be SDR and it would probably be one of several stops along the way. If one isn't put position there for the winter. The another question I had had to do with the, I think you actually supplied some, some separate sheets for the showing of the emergency vehicle access through. There was a statement that said that the, that there were 24 foot wide lanes where the fire trucks or the emergency vehicles will be going yet. Some of the routes that I saw on those plans were coming back through some of the narrower alleys. Is that something that the fire department has reviewed? And are they okay with that? Yeah, so the fire department reviewed all of those turning templates and they were happy with that. And I can provide our correspondence to the town or the DRB as far as that goes. And obviously they'll have to sign off on final plans as well. But it's not so much that they want to use the 30 foot access aisles. It's actually that we can't make the turning motions work without certain aisles being 30 feet and what that's all. So there are some of them are arbitrarily made 30 feet wide just to make the turning templates work. The fire department can use this for training. They'll get pretty good if they start. We will admit there are specific routes that we'll need to be taken. David says for the plow guys too. Yeah, true. They can, yeah, you break it, you buy it, right? Yes. And while we're on the topic of fire, I know that the fire department comments are, there was a comment on a second hydrant, which is in conflict with DPW's request for a singular hydrant. I think the applicant would just like that the board confirm that we will be following the public works specifications. Are you asking us to take sides between DPW? I would never do that, but I would ask that. I would ask that we, it's just another reminder that this, I know this has happened, it's not once or twice before. Fire department or DBW, well, that's a tough one. Agreed. We'll talk with staff. Thank you, appreciate it. So you're, if it's determined that a second hydrant is required, is that something that you're... We have no problem with a second hydrant. It's a matter of knowing and having them sign the final plans for us. That's all. Yes. And would staff discuss this with either the fire department or DPW? Not directly. We received their comment. If there is a way to set that condition with flexibility just in the case to next point. If you side with the fire department and the DPW won't sign final, that obviously is the concern. So if that could be worded with flexibility at all, that would be appreciated. All right, I'm sensing from staff over here, they have a way of making that. Yeah. Thank you. I actually like what you're doing with the landscaping and the bats. I think that's a great approach to being everybody happy. The only other thing I throw out there is a question is that it looks like to me when you... People drive in through this long straight driveway. And then I assume the gate is at the end of that and the kiosk. I see two parking spots and I'm just wondering is that enough? Is that enough? Someone pulls in with a trailer and they go to your kiosk and for whatever reason they go, I got to get out of here. I'm not doing this. Is there really enough room there for someone to turn around with a trailer? Yeah. You know, I think that's a good point. And first off, to make certain motions with the trailer in here is already a challenge. So we've done that on purpose so that we're not coming. And with these big, long 20-foot trail boat, you know, you couldn't bring a boat into this facility necessarily just because of how tight some of the turning is through here. So perhaps we could do something with the front signage to kind of alleviate those concerns. I understand where you're coming from. The majority of the way these facilities work is the first connection is made on here. And to Nick's point, we're not targeting people to fill these things up with vehicles and boats, et cetera. And so, yeah, so the far majority of people will know they do their research just like everybody else, that this is not that type of facility. Have you noticed the signs along the interstate telling truckers they're not supposed to go for smugglers, not? That's true. I do think we are looking at the like a 24-hour service on the kiosk as well. So if there was an emergency, they actually can push button or call a number and they'll be directed. So my assumption is we could work something out with them to say if there was a need for a turnaround or something, we could allow them a quick access in and out. Open the gate. Open the gate and then wait. Yeah, I would just throw out there that I think that if that does turn into a bottleneck and it ends up being a problem, you may want to allow yourself somehow to have a separate exit that somehow wraps around to that versus people going like this and that sort of tight throat there. But I don't think that's going to necessarily be something that we'll do. Yeah, I think the other thing I'll just bring up is we did want to do pavement. You see where the two parking spaces are for the possibility of does there need to be a second access? We're not 100% sure. Is there at least an emergency access? That may end up being a gate if the fire department wanted it as a gate or something like that. We come back through where the parking spots are. Yeah. And again, we don't anticipate the spaces being used frequently at all. We could even put signage for, you know, short term space, the parking spaces. It looks to me like it's a parking spot when people get out to go use the kiosk. That's it. Yeah. And one of them has a striped area decided to be an accessible. Yes. Yeah. That is what it's intended for Bob just saying as far as a secondary emergency access point that we don't anticipate Park's vehicles are for more than five minutes at a time. So three people here wants to be a traffic jam or would be a would be a brush out. Yeah. Yes, exactly. All right. I'm at this point, opening this up to comments from the audience. I assume that you're here for for this. Yes. Okay. So you have any questions or comments? No, I mean, the big thing is I'm free. So I'm just making sure that. Okay, good. To make sure that we maintain the ability to use those in the future. We need them. Right. Utility and access. And you've heard what said, are you satisfied or he said me and you know, I have. I mean, he's done it right before right. I don't have time to really look at the details. So right now I don't have to like add more. There's one comment. I don't. Okay. I think he miss worded it in the email, but I want to fix your location. We appreciate the engagement here. I think all the entire process is set up that we end up with a, a well-designed and well-placed storage facility here. I will say we have the same exact system. We need to have a chaos system. Exactly the same. I will say you do get more people parking in the hotspot and where you're going to have people leaving and the people trying to come in. Just from experience. And we weren't expecting as many people to utilize. Yeah. They do, but we constantly have. Good. Excellent. Do we have anyone online Andrew at this point? No one online. No one online. So. You've got my last chance to. Yeah, just three things. You know, one of the things I've learned in my career is you, when you present, sometimes you learn something from the board or the neighbors. So we will take the advice of maybe some more parking. You've heard of moves into consideration. So thank you for that. Secondarily, I would like to go on record once again. To say that we acknowledge that the adjacent property. Now that is owned by Miss. That is the property. That is owned by Miss. Auclair is subject. Both benefit benefits from a 60 foot wide access easement on our property. Now and in the future and in perpetuity. And then secondarily. In regards to the utility easement. That is. It is not an exclusive easement. In other words. So just wanted to clarify that and we certainly will work with them now and in the future. When their site gets redeveloped, if ever if they wanted additional curb cut, that's what these easements are for. Okay. Thank you. Any last comments from the board? Yeah. The one question I had is you contacted department of public works. About your 60 by 100 foot access easement there. That would be approved by the department of public works. That would be approved by the department of public works. But whether or not that curb cut would be approved by. Dvw. Yeah. You were saying about you wanted to make sure that you had your second access. If necessary. It was designed to give us the easement so that if we ever depending on if it was a change of views. So I know that that's fine. In the name of the subdivision. But I have a specific. Specifically a utility easement, right? Correct. There's two. Okay. That was my point is now that this is now creating another curb cut. I was wondering if you check the Dvw to see if they've suddenly forgotten the fact that there's still a curb cut laying out there that potentially is in the. Okay. Again, this is a future application. I believe. So my understanding of the flat is the 60 foot easement is the flag lot for the driveway. So there's a line on the flat that says with an arrow and access and utility easement to lock six. So I believe it's not a new curb cut onto shun pike road. It would be they could loop onto this driveway and come in and out on this driveway. Okay. That's okay. That settles. Okay. That's on needed. Anything else? No, I'm good. I just want to make sure that she didn't suddenly say. Thank you. What happened to my curb cut? You good? I'm good. Yeah, thank you. I'm fine too. So I'm going to close this hearing at 831. Thank you for your time. Thank you. And your efforts. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks. Thank you for that. Okay. We have a motion for D P 23 dash 13. Leo and Mona. Putin yes as authorized by WDB 6.6. 3. I'm Nathan Andrews moved at the Williston I, Nathan Andrews move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 12, 2024, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 23-13 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. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Any discussion? Let's vote. Yay or nay? Nate? Yay. Paul? Yay. Dave? Yay. The Vice Chair is a yay as well. So carries four to zero. Thank you. Do I have a motion for DP 20-15.1, Kevin Mazuzin? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Nathan Andrews move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board, is required to comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented to the public hearing of March 12, 2024, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 20-15.1, 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. Do I have a second for that? Second. Paul seconds it. Okay. Nate? Yay or nay? Yay. Paul? Yay. Dave? Yay. The Vice Chair is a yay. Motion passes four to zero. Do I have a motion for DP 24-16, pre-application for Yasmin Tabie? Yes. It's authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I. Paul Christensen, moved at the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all the accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board, is required to comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law, having heard duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 12, 2024, except the recommendation for DP 24-16, and authorizes the application to move forward to discretionary permit review with one item, or striking 5A. That's it. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Voting. Nate? All abstain. Abstains. Paul? All abstain. Dave? Yay. The Vice Chair is a yay, which, I guess, means that that does not pass. It's a two to zero vote with two abstentions, and I'll let staff deal with what that means with the applicant. Do I have a motion for DP 24-11? Patrick O'Brien? Yes. Am I doing mine? Yes. Thank you. I'm authorized by WB 6.3 by David Turner, who's the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all the accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board, is required to comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law, having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 12, 2024, accept the findings of facts and conclusions of law, or DP 24-11, an approval discretion and permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorized to the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval for these plans from staff, and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans under the approval as based. I'm going to modify a couple of conditions. I'm going to blow it up just so I don't risk it. I'm sorry. Nope, you're good. I'm going to modify condition 8B to read, 253 Shunpike Road, opaque bench shall be located between the type 2 edge row and the type 3 buffer. Best design colors to be reviewed by staff at final plans. And for condition 9, additional parking spaces may be shown at final plans up to six total parking spaces. 9B provides signage to discourage oversized vehicles for trailers from accessing the facility for WDB 14.7.2. That was it. And you mentioned staff. You made it to the final plans by staff. Yes, I did. Okay, great. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Nate seconds it. Any discussion? So we'll vote. Nate? Yay. Yay. Paul? Yay. Yay. Dave? Yay. Yay. Vice-Chair is a yay. Motion passes 4-2-0. Thank you very much. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of February 27th? I had one comment on those. The certificate that was in there says that it was the half that reviewed that. Yet I believe it's now the HDAC. It's going to take me literally years to change their name. In the certificate itself. In the minutes it says HDAC. It's lurking everywhere. I'm trying to scrub it. Anyway. And then I forget. That was the only comment I had. And I think that they're probably fine as written. It's just an anomaly. So voting. Nate? Yay. Yay. Paul? Yay. Yay. Yay. Vice-Chair is a yay. Passes 4-0. I think that wraps us for tonight unless there's any other business the staff needed to bring up with us. So hearing none. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. That's the second. Sure. Thank you. Thank you. We are adjourned.