 Okay, thanks God Good evening and welcome to the Williston Development Review Board of Tuesday April 9th 2024 my name is Pete Kelly. I'm the chair of the DRB This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the Williston Town Hall and on Zoom all members of the board and public can Communicating real-time planning staff will provide 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 The meeting will be continued to April 23rd 2024 We'll start by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members Nate Andrews is Oh, he's here. Oh, okay Hello, Nate. Sorry about that Paul Christensen president Lisa Brayden harder Scott Riley is absent Dave Turner is absent Mr. Hemmelgarn is present attendance and The chair is here. So we have five in attendance. We need four for a forum. So we do have Okay I'll turn it over to Andrew for zoom instructions. Thanks Pete Welcome to everybody in person and on zoom On the agenda is the public forum This is an opportunity for people to address the board on items that are not on tonight's agenda Anyone present tonight to address the board on items not on the agenda Or in zoom if you would raise your virtual hand We have no raised hands on zoom Okay Segwaying to item number two on the agenda. This is the public hearing portion of tonight's agenda We have five items on the agenda DP 23-03 Which is a discretionary permit for a two-lot subdivision? DP 22-09.1 is not less holdings At 115 wellness drive seeking a discretionary permit for site work modifications DP 24-01, which is the P&P septic Seeking a discretionary permit for a 16,200 square foot commercial building Item number four is DP 23-09 William and Joan Boardman Requesting a discretionary permit for a four lot subdivision and last is a pre-app DP 24-17 And this is a proposed triplex at 31 57 St. George Road Okay, first up is DP 23-03 Who is here representing the applicant? Hey Brian hey Name and address for the record place. Yep. Oh, Larry Burke civil associates 13 corporate drive Essex Vermont here tonight representing Mike and Cynthia Olsen Thanks Pete This is a discretionary permit review of a proposed two-lot residential subdivision at 98 Snowdrift Lane in the ARZD subject parcel is 0.07 acres Parcel contains one existing single-family home, which is served by on-site septic and drilled well and Applicant is proposing a subdivision to create Should say oh, yeah, sorry lot one a six point one one acre parcel for the existing single-family home and lot two 3.96 acre parcel for the proposed single-family home Staff is recommending approval with the conditions as drafted Moving into the product project history the original subdivision occurred in January of 1979 It's created the 10.1 acre lot and then you might remember back in November 22 Review the pre-application and the project also received growth growth management allocation in March 2023 Conservation Commission did review this application Their recommendations are included As conditions Public works in fire also commented on this application. Please note that fire department comments That are not contained in the development by-laws cannot be enforced by the DRB There were no public comments at the time of mail out so looking over the pre-application recommendations Pre-application recommendations Requested that The applicant provide documentation of that 98 Snowdrift Lane has the right for a second access off of the private driveway Applicant must provide documentation that the proposed lot two has legal access to Snowdrift Lane Discuss that discuss this below looking at the conservation Commission recommendations from their October 22 memo It is Number 4f Request that site plans show defined building envelope of one half acre or less for the proposed lot and that clearing of the existing forest or vegetation on the home site to be limited to the The building envelope should include the home site including the yard parking and circulation areas and any accessory structures This is discussed below as well. So looking at the chapter 23, sorry 31 recommendations Skip to the 31 3 2 states that setbacks from the rear and side property lines may be controlled by the landscape buffer requirements of chapter 23 We will discuss this below Building envelope for lot 2 does exceed the 15 foot setback requirements It's required for lot 1 Additionally the setback for lot 1 from old Creamery Road is 50 feet project complies as proposed for 31 9 lots and home sites 31 9 6 requires new homes to visualize to minimize visual impacts from public ways where possible The new lot is distant from the nearest public right of way but for the Clearing of that lot It does limit the clearing perhaps a half an acre This does not include however access driveways utility lines or areas cleared for underground wastewater systems That applicant has proposed minor clearing beyond the half acre envelope Clearing for that half acre envelope must clearing above that half acre envelope must comply with the requirements of WDB 31 point 9 point 6 point 1 That is also in a condition below to a Moving on to chapter 13 As previously mentioned the applicant should provide documentation That at final plans that lot 2 has legal right access of snowdrift lane I have spoken to the applicant recently and I believe that they are well on their way to doing this or on-site infrastructure WDB 1510 requires the on-site water supplies And sewer also the meet the state requirements condition 22 references this or density the 10-point so so can we stop there for a moment? Mm-hmm. So proposed condition number 22 There are there are a number of state requirements that must be met And why is that one? Sighted single Instead of just some type of blanket statement about the state requirements So our bylaw basically says that we need to have that the applicant needs to provide septic and Well information that meets the state requirements. Basically, they need a wastewater permit well wastewater permit. So That's the 22 is drafted the way the bylaw discusses it It's We're deferring to the state We're deferring to the state requirements there. Yeah, okay. That's all okay. Is that a Is that new language? Emily, that's not a that's not a boilerplate statement. Is it? Maybe not true boilerplate, but we've definitely used something similar before we have okay. Maybe I okay I Okay, we'll talk about that later. Okay, great Interruption that's all right. Yeah, so for density The 10.1 acre parcel would be allowed a maximum of four dwelling unit footlands and the applicant is proposing to the project complies as proposed Chapter 23 landscaping Chapter 23 and table 23 a establishes requirements for landscaping buffers according to project and it's joining land uses The existing for us surrounding the project meets the 50 foot type 1 buffer requirements in table 23 a for joining uses Street trees are not required Recommending that the DRB waive this requirement given the fact that the Parcel along old Creamery Road is is wood Subject parcel is within a significant wildlife habitat area due to its designation as core habitat on the significant wildlife habitat official map The applicant has submitted a habitat disturbance assessment to conservation Commission The project is not anticipated to impact any uncommon rare threatened or endangered species Unique natural communities farm lands of local importance special flood hazard Flood hazard areas but lends or streams or scenic view sheds WCC's recommendations are included as conditions It has proposed or has submitted a runoff and erosion control checklist importance with our requirements and lastly The applicant is required to Pay impact these at the time of administrative permits to construct any new dwelling units What follows are findings conclusions and conditions of approval Great. Thank you, Andrew Brian the There's 22 proposed conditions of approval. Yep, you have any comments on Uh They're not big but in my opinion conditions 8 10 12 14 15 Look like they might be carryovers from a site plan approval Maybe not applicable to ARZD subdivision, but I'll leave that up to the board to Termin say those numbers 8 10 12 14 and 15. I don't think they're You know negative just Are not typical conditions I see for this type of subdivision and then I flag number 22 As well, and if that one could just reference a state wastewater permit, I think that would cover it Okay I have questions about the Issue that was raised about the site clearing Greater than a half acre. Yep. I'm would like some clarification on Exactly how much area is being proposed to be cleared It's not allowed or beyond the allowable half acre and why you would need Yes, so my understanding is that you're allowed to clear or Designate a building envelope up to half acre in size, which we have done but you're also allowed to clear for access and on site septic or wells or Utilities in the ARZD So we're we're clearing To fit a driveway in we could probably narrow up some of the clearing we are you'll see some grading on the west side of the Or the south side of the proposal recording in progress probably Skinny up that clearing a little bit there and where we're showing the proposed turnaround We could probably move the clearing limits in in that spot slightly as well, but They're pretty minor Clearing expansions and as you can see in the back where the clearing or the building envelope is shown to the The power easement in the rear of the proposed parcel We're not proposing to clear to the limit of the easement. So all together It's roughly a half acre, but it's not all within the building envelope because the septic The mount systems, you know a few hundred feet away, and there's a driveway that needs a little bit of grading to facilitate as well. So and again the staff very nicely included the by-law Excerpt here in the in the report and it does not include driveways again The half acre Includes the yard and the space occupied by the accessory structure And it limits it to a half acre But it does not include access driveways utility lines or areas cleared for the underground components of onsite wastewater So when you take out your wastewater and the utility line that's underground that goes to it Which is off the screen here? It seems like what's what's cleared beyond that would be limited to a half acre And from what you were saying, I'm not I'm not sure that it actually does exceed that is the by-law that You can't clear more than the half acre associated with the approved building envelope, but you can also clear for Utilities and access as well. That's how I read this. Yes. Yeah, right So we're clearing within our building envelope and then we're clearing for access and the proposed mount system I think if how you answer this will solve this so It So you're you're not exceeding the half acre for the building envelope. Is that correct? Not clearing. We're not clearing within the entire half acre. Yes, but it's less than a half acre of clearing for the building Correct. Yeah I guess I don't think you need to clarify you're saying a half acre per lot Yeah, so I get if we were clearing Completely within our half acre designated building envelope I think the by-law then allows you to clear additionally if you need to clear for a mound or a well or access or whatever that may be So you could potentially clear, you know, seven tenths of an acre Whatever it may be, but we've chosen to you know It just works out that clearing is roughly around half acre even with those Havaker total for lots one and two or a lot one is existing so it's just a lot to right There is some clearing on lot one, but it's it is for a On-site wastewater. Oh, yes, that's correct. Yes That's right Do I understand that you're talking about your presumptive recording in progress your presumptive well is going to be drilled in the power right away No, our proposed well is shown right next to the house in between the house in the turn around There might be utility pole shown no you got a note out here says presumptive well Isolation. Oh, that's the well shield. Yeah, so there's isolation distances associated with the well for a septic system 200 feet uphill 100 feet downhill. Okay, so just saying noted noting that that thing was right in the middle of the Yes Access I know what the power vehicles can look like when they're putting it in there Yeah, and I was going to go up there. Oh, yeah under there. That's not going to be good. Nope. No, okay That's all that's on the end of that. Yep And that means that the presumptive sewage isolation shield is from so you guys are going to share the current field So the field is proposed for the primary of lot 2 and then when you do a subdivision the state makes you Designate a replacement area for an existing. Okay, so that presumptive is your so big enough It's big enough for the lot 1 replacement area, but it's primary for a lot too You got a good lawyer recording in progress. You got a good lawyer is going to fill out the contract explained to the two people Who's responsible of the field? This is one of the easy ones Members of the audience participating by zoom any questions raise your virtual hand please No raised hands on zoom So we're going to close DP 23-03 as 721. Thank you Thank you Okay, next up James and Doug This is DP 22-09 0.1 not less holdings this is For proposed site work for a two loading dogs Expansion at 115 wellness drive and the industrial zoning district West Gentlemen, if you would state your name and address for the record, please Doug gulat your dog consulting engineers 478 Blair Park Road, Williston and James Unsworth for not less holdings 28 Howard Street Burlington Okay right Nattles not always holdings LLC requests a discretionary permanent amendment of an approved site development at 115 wellness drive Located in the industrial zoning district West This property was formerly the sports and fitness edge And in 2022 was converted to warehouse uses permitted under VP And With internal renovations and exterior improvements including new loading docks in the front of the Stormwater infrastructure and reconfiguration parking Staffs recommending the drb take public testimony Hearing tonight This is the first time the drb is reviewing this request there's a number of prior approvals that are shown in the staff support No advisory boards review the proposed project Public works and Fire departments submitted comments and they are included in the recommend in the conditions However, the drb can adopt comments as conditions only to the extent they can be enforced by The authority of zoning No comment letters were received at the time of mail out The project complies with all dimensional standards Including the maximum building height of 36 feet The Setback of 35 feet And the setbacks rear and side property line setbacks controlled by the landscaping requirements of chapter three And the 40 feet of road finish that is required on an existing or proposed public or private road The site's a rear lot with no furnaces to south brunel road or marshal avenue access being provided by a shared private drive No changes are proposed to building height and no changes are proposed to a lot dimensions Outdoor sales and storage are not proposed Or anticipated in this project The applicants proposing an amendment to a previously approved development under dp 2209 Specifically the applicants proposing to provide new loading docks on both the east and the west sides of the building To facilitate the warehouse use On the west side of the building improvements include construction of a depressed ramp to a loading dock With retaining walls and an adjacent paved drive Both to access new A new 16 foot by 34 foot concrete loading platform And on the east side of the building A new overhead door is proposed and a paved driveway to serve this new door A gravel drive currently provides access to the existing overhead door to the east And this gravel will be replaced by pavement Other improvements include painting lines to prohibit parking in certain areas where proposed truck turning movements will require The need for additional room to be on the current parking lot drives and aisles A number of parking spaces will be painted with x's denoting that they are not available for parking in the areas anticipated In an effort not to increase the impervious surface on the site 29 parking spaces are supposed to be converted to grass As stated under wtb 6 10 6.10 3 about 1 The scope of the hearing and drb action will be limited to determining whether the proposed amendment complies or fails to comply with the spy law Pre applications not required for this amendment No changes in access are proposed Trip generation presented for dp 20 209 was 10 p.m. Peak peak hour vehicle trips This is not anticipated to change as a result of the proposed site improvements um for vehicular parking The total spaces comply as proposed the current number of parking spaces is 139 The proposed site modifications require removal Uh through construction or line striping of 14 parking spaces And a further 29 spaces will be replaced with grass To compensate for new impervious surfaces. So this leaves 96 proposed parking spaces um so Wdb table 14a Specifies the number of off-screen vehicle parking spaces for different uses Um industrial uses are very diverse and one space per 1,000 square foot Should be used as a starting point, but the drb has flexibility in determining the required number of spaces um So the proposed number of parking spaces equates to 1.71 spaces per 1,000 square feet And the building has a 55,850 square foot footprint The applicant anticipates a need for 21 to 25 spaces for employees Which is about 0.44 spaces per 1,000 square feet 96 spaces is appropriate given the site is free existing and the scale of development proposed is minor The applicant's number of employees and the flexibility accorded to the drb The existing parking is much more than one is needed and the applicant is proposing to reduce the number of parking spaces for 43 spaces ADA spaces can comply with condition Wdb Table 14b requires four ADA spaces based on the proposed 96 spaces Or one space based on the applicants needed 21 to 25 spaces There are proposed two ADA spaces shown near the entrance to unit 101 And one ADA space near the entrance to units 102 and 103 There are four ADA spaces existing one space will be removed to accommodate the new loading dock on the west side of building Wdb 14.3.2 allows the drb Defined that a development needs more or fewer accessible parking spaces than stated in table 14b And wdb 14.3.2.3 Allows industrial uses to meet lower ADA standards drb Should discuss an additional ADA space on the west side Given that one existing space will be removed. That's been added as a condition condition For bicycle and parking and ended trip facilities project complies Table 14a states that total bicycle parking for industrial uses must be provided 5% of the vehicular parking with a minimum of four spaces of which 75% must be long-term The applicants proposing four short-term spaces and three long-term interior spaces Wdb 14d requires one shower and changing facility for three long-term bike parking spaces And ended trip facilities are provided in each of the three tenant spaces On-site infrastructure complies as proposed the applicant is proposing a new catch basin and storm drain pipe To collect water at the low point of the depressed loading dock on the west side of the building Connecting to the stormwater feature to the south Existing utilities will remain all utilities are underground Stormwater collection and treatment must be provided in compliance with chapter 29 Um as for maintenance The the site can comply Snow storage areas are not shown Two enclosed dumpsters are shown on the plan as approved in 2022, but not yet installed Final plans should demonstrate compliance with wdb chapter 16.6 on snow storage And wdb 16 7 on solid waste storage and that's been added as condition number 21 The landscaping complies Existing landscaping buffers are to remain Parking lot landscaping can comply Wdb 23 dot 5 dot 1 requires parking areas that contain more than 24 spaces to be broken up By landscape dial ins or medians that occupy Occupy a minimum of 5 of the parking area Um and that no single rank of parking spaces shall include more than 24 spaces without being broken up By more landscape dial ins or medians There are three landscape dial ins and the parking lot one landscape dial in was removed on the site was redeveloped under 22 dot 09 Former parking spaces were removed as well such that there's no single rank of parking spaces Existing 24 spaces Final plans will need to demonstrate compliance with wdb 23 dot 5 dot 1 Either by showing that the existing landscape Prize a minimum of 5 percent of the parking area or by showing additional landscape dial ins to achieve compliance And that is added as condition 7a um Street trees complies as proposed Well, the stride of the private road that runs through the site with existing trees on the west side and a watershed buffer on the east side Uh, only trees in the way of new access should be removed All other trees should be retained and protected during construction for wdb 26 dot 6 dot 1 Conservation areas complies as proposed The site contains an unnamed stream and significant wildlife habitat area core habitat No development is proposed in the watershed protection buffer for the core habitat Um Watershed shed health complies as proposed This is considered a Exempt Exempt development because The extent of clearing is less than one quarter acre So so there's no requirements to submit a Erosion control plan or the erosion control checklist but um the site The uh applicants encouraged to monitor and minimize runoff and erosion Taking whatever measures are needed to protect neighboring properties and water quality Site work yes, so um The applicants proposed removing 29 parking spaces and converting them to grass And so That complies as proposed And the parcel does contain class 2 wetlands shown on the site plan Wetlands are protected by chapter 29 and state law Wdb 29 dot 9 dot 3 establishes a watershed protection buffer of 50 feet on named streams And 29 9 dot 4 dot 1 establishes a 50 foot buffer to class 2 wetlands No development is proposed within the 50 foot watershed protection buffers Um And they will remain well vegetated and effectively delineated vegetation So that complies as proposed Uh, no changes to outdoor lighting are proposed no changes to signage are proposed Impact these uh compliance is anticipated and um Non-residential development that results in an increase in the PM And our trip ends must pay a transportation who has the The applicant estimates there will be no increase in the current trip generation of 10 vehicles per hour during the pmp and uh, what follows are findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval of drb to consider Great, thank you Melinda appreciate it All right gentlemen, so there's been uh 21 Proposed conditions of approval I'd like you to comment on If there's any Concerns that you have and I'd like you to specifically address Uh condition proposed condition of approval number eight as it pertains to the ADA space Okay I had two I wanted to talk about eight is the second one seven a is the first one Uh with regarding regards to landscape islands, we did do a computation and the current islands did not meet the 5% Uh requirement, so we will be adding four additional Islands of the equivalent size to what's there now on the final plans to bring us to the 5% landscape requirement Okay number eight With regards to ADA spaces As melinda said in her overview The proposed plan with reductions in existing parking for various reasons whether it be for truck movement or to reduce impervious surface We're going to take our total down to 96 parking spaces. That's Substantially more than what we need for a warehouse use We're estimating 20 to 25 So if we use that number and the ratios in the development rates, we need one ADA space We've got two existing in the front of the building and one which will be existing and preserved on the west side So for a total of three ADA spaces We feel that's Sufficient for this warehouse use and ask that you agree with that determination Okay Condition 21 we need to show show no storage areas on the final plans, which we'll do So we had dre members questions No, I I'd like a couple clarifications on what you just said So if you if we pulled the site plan up On the screen, are you saying that you you are adding three additional or four additional island or landscape islands in the parking Yes area Can you show can you show us exactly where that is? I'm not They're not drawn So what Doug's saying is that I'm gonna paraphrase good. Thank you. Doug's saying that he doesn't comply He acknowledges not got chance and won't make the changes when he submits his final plan And so therefore 7a is an entirely appropriate condition to put into here gotcha The number 8 I understand exactly what you were saying. I wanted to clarify a couple things. So so per the ADA I believe that requires one spot essentially for every 25 parking spots up to a certain number. Is that right? So that's where with 96 spaces That requirements are we talking about versus local? Yes, I don't have that number, john. Okay. Well, I'm I'm assuming that's where the the four required comes from It's in our bylaw It's for for All right. Well, I'm just going to say that I I can understand that with our local bylaw But at some point I don't think the local bylaw is going to allow us to supersede the federal ADA requirement and therefore I'm hesitant to give any exemptions to that Lest we be allowing something that's not allowed by federal law Yeah, the other to add to that is if You know currently you're not going to use anywhere near the 96 great. Okay. I don't think that's a question but maybe in the future you will and How difficult would it be to add another ADA space Doug? Just just painting lines painting lines just striping out one to be one less parking spot So I think so one less parking spot of what you have more than you need now so So let's get the paintbrush out Okay, thank you guys. We can do that. We can check the federal requirements to make sure Again, I know that no, it's a good point. I should know that but I don't because I rely on my civil engineers Well, let's just let's just be safe and yeah add add one ADA space The other question I had and at some point this may not be part of our preview But I don't know is on drawing C C 2 Oh three There's an interesting note there and bold type that says proposed enclosed dumpster Approved in 2022 not yet installed Is that true? Is there something that was required by a previous Permit that's not been completed yet. That was the understanding That they were going to have you're going to have like you're going to break this thing into like four units at one point, right? Yeah, we were hoping for just that was where that was where that dumpster came from because the other thing is We had approved see the pavement that they're showing in the 2-0 3 that goes over to the loading that loading dock We had already approved that pavement to that loading dock and I'm looking at the picture in it Now they're suddenly saying oh now they're going to put it in but we had approved that Pavement going in there. I know should you added another? Bay That was only a single bay. We had approved way back. Correct. Yeah, and we had approved pavement To that single bay. So all you're now doing is saying you want a little wider result, right? Yeah, exactly Right when we got the initial approval We weren't sure and we're still not sure who's going to be moving into this space whether they want an exterior loading dock Whether they want an internal one. So it was just Okay, that's expensive, but we had all but like I said, we had already approved the pavement and everything That's why I was surprised when I didn't notice that it wasn't there. Yeah, I think that's correct Oh, I appreciate you answering my question, but I'm going to let these guys answer it Okay, yeah, which is the initial question is correct It's not it's not there and the reason that it's not is because it's not needed It's not needed at this time And did we did we allow for them to not put that in if it wasn't needed or how did that work Emily? I mean, we don't usually kind of say or melinda, I'm sorry We don't normally say well put it in if you need it Either on the plan and it's required and you put it in it is a condition on the Approval and So Yeah, it should have been put in I think so I don't I just don't understand why it wouldn't have gone in if it was well, there was no there was nobody paying the contract There's nobody what nobody was paying the contract for the dumpster the dumpster belongs to the tenant That was the fight we had with the uh, I don't think these permits apply to tenants though. Yeah, the This is for the burn. This is for the building owner. Oh, that's the building. So you guys you guys are guilty Here We're happy to comply with any conditions that were originally just seems like that that should be happening Okay, that's why it's still in the plan We still intend on doing it when the use is when the need is there, but the need haven't been there yet Okay So we're gonna we're gonna add that as That's all I had You're good Anything nope Paul anything further no, I was just surprised that When I noticed that the pavement wasn't there that we had approved the last time this exercise occurred Thanks just showing the extent of the new pavement To be I mean, what would you do do a dash line and show pavement approved in the previous application And then new pavement to be added to Not existent pavement to make total overall new pavement. Well, that's that's the joke That's actually what's there so dashed lines So that's uh, I I don't just agree with how Doug's shown this It brings up an interesting point here Kind of when do you when do you do things that are permitted and when are you required to do them by? And is there any difference between that paving and the dumpster? Correct. I don't I'm not arguing against myself. So, okay Uh members of the audience any questions Uh anybody participating by zoom questions Okay, um, so It is 744. We're going to close dp 22 dash 0 9.1. Thank you. Great. Thank you Okay, next up is dp 24 dash 0 1 p.m. P scepter Ryan welcome Name and address for the record, please Ryan courier olury berks of all associates representing the pratt family Okay, thank you staff coast next That's me. Um This is a request for discretionary permit review to construct a 16,200 square foot building with associated parking and landscaping The building will be for commercial or industrial use The property is located at 543 shun pike road in the industrial zoning district west The parcel on which the proposed building is cited is currently split across two lots under the applicant's ownership A for a 0.47 acre vacant lot and it developed 2.52 acre lot Known as lot 5 on their flat The applicant intends to apply for boundary line adjustment administratively when final plans are submitted This will add 0.57 acres for lot 5 to the vacant lot To create the developer 1.04 acres The existing western access to shun pike road would be closed All four of p&p septic slots would share the remaining access to shun pike road Staff recommends approval with conditions as drafted Um, this is the first time as dr. V is reviewing the request and The prior approvals include a pre application review For this in august 22nd 2023 and then in 2016 A 6,000 square foot addition and boundary lot adjustment Fire department and public works department reviewed this application no No boards No committee boards reviewed the application Um, the dr. V can adopt comments and conditions But only to the extent that they can be enforced by the statutory authority of zoning For vsh chapter 24 No public comment letters were received at the time of the mail out So Here are the pre application recommendations And the applicant's response Um And I think I'll just go through these as I go through the elements of the staff report that's okay with you Okay, so for dimensional, um First of all for proposed use the building will be for an industrial or commercial use that is allowed in a district A wide range of industrial uses are allowed, but commercial uses are more limited Um Dimensional standards uh compliance is anticipated Building heights limited to a maximum of 36 feet and the elevation drawing shows the building height of 23 feet eight inches And the site plan shows the building meeting the minimum setback requirement of 35 feet from shunt hike road And both lots retain the minimum 40 feet of frontage onto shunt hike road following the boundary line adjustment And sight and rear setbacks are controlled by the landscaping requirements of chapter of the bdb-23 Um outdoor sales and storage are not proposed and none is shown on the site plan Um boundary line adjustment, um the the applicants proposing to apply for a boundary line adjustment Between two lots owned by the applicant following discretionary permits of use Provided that the project is approved The boundary line adjustment can be approved administratively as there is no minimum lot size In the industrial zoning district that would require its referral to the drb The bl a must be approved prior to issuance of administrative permit For the proposed development Condition 10a has been added Lot Five parcel is non-conforming in relation to landscape buffers to the property to the east Um street trees and parking within the setback from shunt hike road The drb may require the correction of non-conformities. They're reasonably proportional to the scale of development The drb must weigh the changes being made with the scale of the non-conformity At pre application the drb recommended correction of the parking within the setback to shunt hike road And the provision of street trees to shunt hike road as reasonably proportionate The applicant site plan shows the parking removed from the setback and street trees every 40 feet along shunt hike road Condition number 8a has been added with respect to the front yard setback The driveway design complies as proposed the western access to shunt hike road will be closed New building will take access from the shared driveway, which also serves the lots owned by the applicant to the rear The existing curb cut appears to comply with the detailed requirements of wdb 13.2.3 Pedestrian bicyclists safety can comply with the condition Site plan shows a pedestrian path from shunt hike road running alongside the driveway to the rear parking lot and ending there Per wdb 13.3.2 safe pedestrian access must be provided from the sidewalk along shunt hike road to the building entrance In condition number 9a has been added The multi-use path implies as proposed the site site plan shows a 10-foot shared use path For pedestrians the cyclists along the shunt hike road frontage of lot 1 and lot 5 Traffic study implies the pre application the drb recommended the applicant provide traffic generation data, which is attached Proposed development is is expected to result in three additional pm peak hour trips Traffic impact fees will be assessed when when administrative permit application is filed For off-street parking and loading the hip healer parking implies as proposed Table 14a sets up maximum parking standards with applicants expected to provide at least 80 percent of the maximum For wdb 14.2.5 the proposed use is industrial 18 parking spaces are provided which complies with the parking standard for industrial uses Which is one space per thousand square feet as a starting point The applicant is showing one a da space in line with the standards and table 14b one a da space for 25 total spaces Bicycle parking and end-of-trip facilities can comply with With a condition The site plan shows four bicycle parking spaces provided near the building entrance Which complies with wdb 14a? The site plan notes but does not show the location of three long-term bicycle parking spaces One end-of-trip facility shower and changing area is required for wdb 14d Final plans must show the three long-term bicycle parking spaces and end-of-trip facility And condition number 90 has been added Off-street loading complies as proposed Wdb 14.5.2 requires safe off-street loading areas for commercial industrial buildings that include more than 10,000 square foot one loading area Of 600 square feet is shown on the site plan For onsite infrastructure Site walks along roads complies as proposed a shared use path is provided on the shunt bike road frontage 15-4 private utilities complies as proposed all utilities must be located underground 15-5 and 15-9 municipal water and sewer complies as proposed Property will be served by municipal water and sewer the subject parcel has existing municipal sewer allocation For a former single-family home that was removed the new building proposes no changes and flows the new building Reutilized an existing septic tank and pump station With a redirected force main Um stormwater infrastructure complies as proposed the site plan shows stormwater collection and treatment area between the building And the sidewalk along the property frontage Um snow removal and storage complies as proposed Two new snow storage areas are identified Um solid waste complies as proposed the site plan shows a dumpster pad with two dumpsters at the west end of the parking area Um compatibility potential hazards and nuisances Wdb chapter 18 has requirements for air pollution hazards material like layer noise and vibration The future use of the building and site has not been stated, but the applicant stated the standards of chapter 18 will be met Um The location of proposed project is not within design review districts. It's not so it's not subject to design review standards Uh For landscaping the discretionary permit includes a landscaping plan in compliance with the details required under wdb 23 um To the west of the development plot 599 shun pike road is a mixed use building with a residential duplex and warehousing space A type 2 landscape buffer of 23 feet is proposed along the west boundary A lot to the north and east of the development lot are owned by the applicant and in industrial commercial use The site plan shows nine a nine foot type three Landscape buffers to these property lines which complies with with wdb 23 South of the development line of shun pike road landscaping along road frontages is governed by chapter 26 street trees and discussed in that section below Street trees can comply with the condition Street trees are shown on the landscaping plan and as required over 40 feet along the frontage of shun pike road The existing mature head row will be removed and eight street trees are shown all identified as black two pillow wdb 26.4.1 That four requires that if fewer than 35 trees are proposed No more than five trees shall be of the same genus And condition number 8b addresses that For watershed health the project complies There are no suspected wetlands on the property. No, um No mapped wetlands So per wdb 29 eight wetlands delineation was not required The project will disturb more than quarter acre but less than two acres Is outside of water for shepherds protection buffer And is not on a steeply sloping site. It's therefore low risk For wdb 29.3 a completed runoff and erosion control plant checklist has been provided For outdoor lighting it implies as proposed the applicant's proposing two hole mounted Downward facing fully shielded lights at the back end of the parking area The proposed lighting type is compliant with wdb 24.2.4 And 24.4 the table below summarizes the lighting compliance No details were provided about the timing of lighting per wdb 24.5.4 all outdoor lighting including sign lighting must be turned off 30 minutes after the closing business and may be turned on 30 minutes prior to the opening of the business Condition 7a has been added Signs and public The applicant is not provided details about signage if signs are proposed that exceed the threshold of table 25a A master sign plan must be approved Uh new uh for impact fees new non residential development is required to pay transportation impact fees The applicant estimates three pm peak hour trips This fee is assessed at the time of administrative permit And the base fee before adjustments is $1943 per pm peak hour trip And there are findings of facts conclusions of law and conditions of approval for your discussion. Thank you Thank you Melinda All right Brian there are Let's see 21 proposed conditions of approval Please comment on Any that cause you concern Yeah, the only one that I Uh like to chat about is uh 9a Says there must be safe pedestrian access from the building entrance to the proposed path along shunt pike road So the main building entrance is shown in the back. We're showing a bicycle parking area And uh just a little stub of part or a sidewalk to the to the parking lot It's an 18 space parking lot. We're hopeful the drb will allow us to Use the two-way aisle as our pedestrian access to the proposed sidewalk along the shared drive with the remaining p and p lots that then goes to Uh the rec path proposed on shunt pike Um, so there's quite a bit of pedestrian facilities being proposed Given the scale of the parking lot. We just asked the drb consider that You know a sidewalk from those uh Doors in the back to the to the sidewalk to the east on the shared drive You know will be very minimally used But that's all I had Okay, so you're proposing To uh to basically gain access to the east of the building through the parking lot Yeah, I mean there's a you know sidewalk being proposed on the shared drive. I think that makes sense. It's a much busier um Drive, but uh such a small parking lot. I don't know if a designated sidewalk Makes a ton of sense to me. Um as far as no, I just Clarifying much. Yep. You're you're you're proposed to work around. Did I have it right? That's right. Okay. Thank you Okay, uh understood Drp members questions paul Well, I was gonna say so the only thing basically to the front would be emergency doors Yes, yes, there are for a few emergency doors, but the main entry is in the middle of the back side. Correct. Look at him Hey No, john You got nothing Oh one on the right and you're good with all the uh The stuff all the trees and brushing scrubs that we actually put in between you and the uh The limo service, right? Yep. So that was something we were conditioned at pre-app and yeah, that's what I was gonna say Just just reconfirming that was all I mean, you know, yes, sir. Okay. Yeah, good Okay members of the audience any questions Yes, is there anybody on zoom left? Okay Okay, it's 801 we're going to close dp 24 dash zero one. Thank you. Thank you Okay, next up is william and jones boardman This is a discretionary permit review of a proposed four lot subdivision. It's dp 23 Dash zero one brian here also representing the client here. Yep. Okay, great. Uh staff goes next Thank you beat. Uh, this is a request for a discretionary permit For three residential lots and one open space lot The property is 10 rick vista Located in the agricultural overall residential zoning district. The overall property size is just under 30 acres Where it was subject to conservation commission review staff for my staff recommends approval with conditions as drafted Final plans must reconfigure lots two and three to get them out of the wetland buffer Provide more detail on the driveway to sign and the landscaping species The drb may choose to retain final plans review or defer to staff So some history this was a lot created in the nine lot the cast subdivision The home was created in around 2008 Went through pre application review in december 2022 And growth management in march 2023 Conservation commission commented public works and fire also commented I do note that the fire department's plan review standards are a policy not ordinance Therefore, the only can enforce standards Of the bylaw and we'll get into that more with the driveway No comment letters were received at the time of mail out nor up until this evening So some notes on the lacasse subdivision There's an agricultural easement that covers the southerly portion of this lot lot seven It mostly overlaps with open space. So we're good to go there And then there is a septic easement for adjoining lots four five and six Those septic easements will remain on the proposed lot one So the lot with the existing house and barn also retains those Earlier easements for sec septic access Now what follows is a summary of the pre app recommendations And the applicant's response most of them have Shown compliance. They need to adjust the density calculation Some minor other minor things Like reconfiguring those lots a little bit to get them out of the wetland buffer Confirm the clearing area As shown in terms of the agricultural rural residential zoning district standard conditions here They're going to comply with dimensional standards the 75% open space requirement As well as other design standards of this chapter for home designs lots and open Lots and home sites so Complies as proposed there Affordable housing and growth management. So this project originally went through Pre application review and growth management Under an older version of the bylaw Today a project that proposes four or fewer units can go right to discretionary permit So they did get allocation for two dwelling units and scored 35 points in the past However, um, the bylaw changed before they filed a discretionary permit So they're in this weird place where they're not vested because they didn't file a discretionary permit It's kind of a moot point. So they're able to move forward under the bylaw that exists today The bylaw version of the bylaw that existed before they filed this discretionary permit application. So standard Findings and conclusions there Access final plans must confirm the grade Show four foot clear zones on the driveway detail Pave the first 30 feet from walker hill road and provide two pull-offs Ricky vista is an existing private driveway. It serves one dwelling after this subdivision. It'll serve three dwellings And what follows is a summation of what the bylaw standard is where the bylaw applies And then some places where the fire department comments don't have authority So the applicant proposes a 12 foot wide driveway with a four foot clear zone The fire department prefers 14 feet with a six foot clear zone. We can't require that Our bylaw requires pull-offs every 400 feet where the fire department would prefer every 500 feet Our bylaw also doesn't specify the size of those pull-offs For context a parallel parking space is about 18 by 20 or 9 by 22 And the fire department would prefer a much larger design that would fit A fire truck of about 50 feet in length. So on final plans, they just need to show Two pull-offs this image in your packets shows two places where that pull-off would be required The third pull-off is accommodated where the house driveway intersects the driveway that goes off to the barn So three pull-offs are needed, but two need to be shown on the final plans On-site infrastructure compliance is anticipated Final plans need to show the well and water line that serves the existing house on lot one And copies of the state ww permit are required at final plans and administrative permit The plans must also show underground utilities electric cable gas, etc Density Complies as proposed they just need to update their density table analysis Theoretically they could have up to nine units proposed. They're proposing three one existing and two new Landscaping compliance anticipated The buffer standards for an open space subdivision Must provide ample buffers. So most of the lot The parent parcel is becoming the open space lot The only place where a buffer is required Is where it abuts 206 Walker Hill Road. So they need to specify the planting schedule for that segment. It's about 300 feet On the plans Street trees Also standard conditions here. No new trees are proposed nor recommended. The drb may waive the requirement For open space developments when no formal plantings are or where no formal plantings are appropriate So this is discussed at pre-application. There are a couple trees along this frontage More trees would kind of inhibit that middle ground view to the hillside conservation areas standard conditions as well At pre-application there is a discussion. So pre-application One lot on a much one house on a much bigger lot was shown More of that lot shown here with the building envelope and the boundaries encroached into some of that habitat area The conservation commission recommended shifting it out of that area a little bit And they have done so So they're out of those habitat areas a habitat disturbance assessment was provided It included that there would be no undue impact. So there's no specific conditions out of that recommendation Um and scenic view shed complies as proposed Watershed health compliance anticipated. This is the one major change that needs to be shown at final plans portions of lot two and three have The building lot Within that wetland buffer whereas the open space must contain all of the wetland and wetland buffer So they'll need to tweak that at final plans. Um, we've talked with the applicant about this They'll be able to meet the side and rear setbacks As well as exceed the minimum Lot area because this is an open space subdivision the minimum lot size is very small Just over a third of an acre Lastly outdoor lighting and impact fees standard conditions here outdoor lighting At one and two family households is controlled by chapter 24 But a lighting plan is not required and those impact fees are assessed at the time of administrative permit What follows is standards findings of fact conclusions of law The drb might want to discuss with the applicant and possibly strike the fire department memo since All of the statements in their memo Are either superseded by the bylaw or are duplicative They reference the addressing ordinance, which is a separate ordinance that our bylaw refers to And at the very end the drb can decide in the motion if they would like to retain Final plan review or defer to staff. Thank you Okay In the deliberative session so other than 3b bryan Do you have uh anything that you would like to raise your concerns? Uh, nothing in the conditions. Um, I would just note that we provided the wcc with an updated plan that did show the boundary Or the lot Changes that emily alluded to with the The lot lines being pulled in within the wetland buffers and they like what they saw We just didn't update the remaining plans in time to get it to you folks But the wcc has seen it. They like what they saw and we're fully Able to do that for final though, right. Thank you drb members questions So are the plans that we have Are you saying that the plans we have now? Reflect those changes or they do not they do not unfortunately. We couldn't get them to you folks in time We brought them to the wcc. Can you could you just sort of maybe if we put the like the wildlife habitat map up on the screen Maybe you could point out how it's shifted. Yeah, so this is the site plan that the conservation commission Reviewed where it shows pulling those lot lines out of the wetland buffer Yeah, so our original Thought process was we had to leave the wetlands out So the boundaries were in between the 50 foot buffer and the actual delineation But the rules clearly say it's the buffer watershed buffers as well So we pulled the lot lines out Essentially to mimic the 15 or the 50 foot wetland buffer and then there's a 15 foot setback So effectively it's a 65 foot buffer So the final plans will reflect that Are the are lots two and three still uh, does the wildlife corridor still go through them? Uh, so the hda that was done Concluded that the I think they said eight I saw that but does it still go through them? Uh, I'm not sure. Do we have a map of the wildlife corridors that essentially the tree line there? So this photo is um, a little bit isolated but you can see in green That's most of the habitat area right? Yeah, the green is what we denote as our 75 open space area Yeah, so the yellow area that's shown there is Roughly where the two lots are The existing house here For barn that's the barn sorry And the dark green is the Yeah, so we're clearing roughly 8,000 square feet of Trees in that area our hda Said it was not a an adverse undue impact and the wcc reviewed it fully and didn't have any issues They're happy that we pulled it further out of the woods than we had it pre-out But we're bound by the wetland buffer in the back and then there's a pretty substantial septic easement to the other lacos subdivision lots that exist That preclude us from moving the lots further out from the wooded area Uh, I guess it's I'm still unclear if These if the wildlife the mapped wildlife corridor still intersects these lots But I don't think there's any way to be clear on it without the updated plan really Well, the updated plan is going to be Very very minor change where the houses are It is basically the same. It's just the lots around them get a little bit smaller If Andrew is so likely is then yeah, and even that existing map that the town has Like you'll notice that core habitat includes a lot of the agricultural field, but then some of the forest And and brian you're as well There's no other way to do this is what you're saying basically In my opinion, I think this balances the habitat versus uh, as as we stated earlier We're allowed to do up to nine lots on this property and we're proposing two. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah, Paul. Did you have anything? Do you have any comments? No, you got 816. We're going to close dp 23- Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up is 24-17 It's lot one next to 31 73 st. George road It's the lair try pecs tri flex and Brian you are representing the client. Yes, sir Thanks, Pete This is a request for pre-application review of a boundary line adjustment point zero five acres between lots one and two As well as developing lot one with a three dwelling unit building aka a triplex on the vacant lot These lots were created in 1965 and are referred to as lot one and lot two So lot one is vacant. It's where the triplex is proposed and lot two is the existing dwelling at 31 73 st. George road Together these lots have a combined size of 1.08 acres They have frontage on both town and state roads Located in the agricultural rural residential zoning district And due to the nature of this project we're not subject to design or conservation review The staff recommends approval with recommendations as drafted So we're bringing back these lots were created in a seven lot subdivision in 1965 The dwelling was created sometime in 1966 to 1972 Hurricane lane went in in the late 1980s. So that Road and the hurricane lane subdivision wasn't there when these lots were created And then more recently there was um A long history related to zoning violations on the property that have been since resolved by the current property owner What follows public works and fire comments are included fire with the typical limitations The police department did comment. However, it's more advisory in nature That the prior owner used the backyard as a dump Recommending a word of caution should they go do any digging on this land? No comment letters received at the time of mail out nor up until this evening So for the resident or the agricultural rural residential zoning district, we have a couple specific recommendations One primarily related to that average setback exemption So in the agro zoning district setbacks are 50 feet from the front and side or excuse me from the front yard setback. Uh, this property has two front yards both on um route 2a st. George road and hurricane lane um, and the zoning administrator can average out A setback looking at the abutting properties within 300 feet in this instance It's the sinesta suites across the street Which has its parking and access drive well within that front yard setback Which calculates an average of about 30 feet. So The zoning administrator, um, we as zoning administrator, we recommend doing this average setback exemption So rather than being setback 50 feet from hurricane lane the building in any parking areas would be setback 30 feet In terms of density, we also defer to chapter 19 discussion as well Both of these lots were created in 1965 And because of Changes to state law known as act 47 or the home act State law has new provisions related to density that preempt local zoning Both of these lots are greater than 0.2 acres and are served by municipal water and sewer So before home act, these lots were considered merged for the purposes of zoning But now because home act because of state statute local zoning is preempted Now these lots are seen as conforming. They could both be conveyed or developed individually today So that state law change because these lots are in an agro district, but have water sewer Um made them go from being non conforming and merged to two legally conforming lots Permitted uses trimet plexus must also be Permitted. This was another place where state law preempts local zoning as well And in terms of the open development standards, um, they are less than 10 and a half acres too small to be considered an open space development Um, and these lots are already created. It's not a subdivision. So these standards of chapter 31 do not apply Um chapter 11 growth management. So they're proposing fewer than four units So they can go from pre-application to discretionary permit without triggering The requirements of chapter 11 Um access we have some specific recommendations here Particularly that the driveway comply with the site distance and clearance requirements. Uh, they're proposing access onto hurricane lane dpw would like this driveway to Line up with the sinesta suites driveway staff does note that Lot one has a driveway right now on to st. George road V-trans issued a notice of violation in 2012 Spoke with the applicant with this and this application will resolve this non conforming driveway. That's very close to the hurricane lane and root 2a intersection Uh bicycle and pedestrian access or discretionary permit must include a sidewalk or multi-use path easement Along the frontage on both hurricane lane and root 2a Um the traffic study, um, we asked dpw if they wanted a traffic study And they did not respond to that question. So we assume no, we're not recommending one here hurricane lane has two turning lanes On to root 2a Parking a specific recommendation here as well So parking lot is limited for multifamily buildings Where our bylaw would allow six they're proposing nine. There are some options to increase the parking spaces Where there's a solar canopy where spaces are dedicated to alternative fuel vehicles i.e having an electric charging station So that would need to be resolved at discretionary permit And bike parking is not required for residential uses. They can store them in the garages or else. We're on the site On-site infrastructure These lots are served by town water and sewer. So those would need to be shown as well as private underground utilities maintenance final point or discretionary permit my show snow storage If they are to share a consolidated dumpster, it would need to be screened in compliance with 167 Density a specific recommendation here as well. So this property is in the agro zoning district Where before density was much lower because of state law preemptions the density is now five dwelling units per acre The total acreage is just over one acre 1.08 acres where a maximum of five units could be allowed between the two lots The boundary line adjustment they're doing Makes it such that lot one can have three units And that would still allow for lot two to have two units So right now it's a single family home. It can be a single family home with an accessory dwelling unit If they wanted the existing house at 3173 st. George road to be a true duplex That would be theoretically possible. It would need to be something they work out And show details of at discretionary permit Landscaping specific recommendations here as well Um, we're recommending that other residential subdivisions be the best fit for the southern buffer This would be the buffer Between lot one and 3173 as well as a type three buffer A 15 feet in width along the eastern boundary What follows is the landscape buffer matrix North and west they're along a public way There's ample trees that are planted And as we discussed tree trees below they also need to be mindful that Intersections need to be free of any visual obstructions So some of those trees might need to be removed or pruned up They would still need to maintain that spacing if any are adjusted Lastly outdoor lighting and impact fees standard recommendations here Um, a lighting plan is required Where it shows compliance with the light one zone, which is a lower level Lighting zone in the agro district and impact fees are assessed at the time of administrative Permit. Thank you Okay, thank you Emily uh recommendations one through three with a number of Subsections any comments bryan? No, I thought Emily did a great job explaining some of the complexities associated with it Simple product once everything's been considered, but a little complicated how we get there So if you have any questions, I'm happy to Okay So I I do have a question about access to the existing Residents on St. George road You said that there was a resolution To the notification of violation and I didn't I didn't quite follow I didn't quite track how I got resolved Well, it's in the process of being resolved. So v-trans issued this violation over a decade ago in 2012 It's stale at this point Um v-trans is going to require an 1111 permit to remove that driveway And by shifting access from st. George road to her hurricane to hurricane lane That brings this lot into compliance with both our zoning bylaw and what v-trans prefers which is Driveways that have the options to go to a local road should do that So going from state highway to hurricane lane or local road is good there Intersections where a driveway is really close. So it's very close to hurricane lane. It's not that ideal different distance Moving it to hurricane lane Gives more separation from that intersection. So um, I think This Outstanding issue, which isn't our issue. It's a state violation will be resolved by this application They'll just need to apply for an 1111 permit to um close off that old curd cut Okay, so the site plan doesn't show that Relocated driveway at this point. Uh, the site plan shows the The proposed driveway location. It's shown in the ortho if you look closely, but it's uh, right under where it says 3157 of our St. George road in the top left corner and see a faint gravel drive through there. So we'll need a Highway access permit not to re-establish the access but uh, essentially grass over the existing gravel Drive that's there. Uh, that's not supposed to be I'm pulling up some aerial where you can see a little bit better v-trans, you know, if we were to try and permit that access Their preference is always to come off the minor road as you can tell from across the street the lengths they go to consolidate curb cut All right, so Would you just out of curiosity when you go to the screen please? and point where the existing dwellings Driveway is going to be routed to over our camp, please Or Emily can you draw it or So to clarify that that because i'm just not following I think so there's there's two lots The one on the south is an existing single-family home. Their driveway is legit On the north side is the vacant lot that there's an existing Curb cut now on the v-trans 2a that shouldn't be I'm good. Okay. Sorry. I was yeah, I was yeah, no worries. I got you. I was I was like, how are you doing this? Yeah, okay, okay I I was looking at the right line. Okay. Thank you So is that going to have a hurricane address or St. George address I'll leave that up or not for e9 one. Yeah, I just was curious I believe it would have a hurricane because I think it's okay. Yeah, because I was gonna say but it doesn't seem like it's our concern Yes, if this was a true subdivision if this was one lot and they were splitting it into two We would be looking for consolidated access because they're both existing That existing house can stay on st. George road and this new triplex can go off hurricane late. Okay. I uh I'm For sure. Okay. Uh paul questions. No, I'm good now. Okay. Nate Uh, I I would just like to make a point of clarity around the homes act and because this is pre app I think there's a chance to come back and the new bylaws have been enacted around this that Could affect this and I think I think it's important that we don't Make assumptions in these pre apps and when I read That well first of all certainly density standards Are mandated. I agree with that. But what what I don't agree with here is when we say That the homes act effectively establishes a minimum lot size because it does not it in fact encourages municipalities to establish their own Dimensional and lot standards. So I want to be careful about how we advise on this Would you weigh in on that place? This has been the the guidance we've received from A ccd on how to interpret The new changes to 24 vs a 44 12 Um Where the density creates preemptions both on the net density and the minimum lot size Um all the changes that have been proposed forward Through the planning commission this application would comply with that So we have a set of bylaw revisions to bring our bylaw into compliance with Um state law we're preempted as is so this is a clerical task Everything that's gone through the planning commission would allow this subdivision to move forward It just hasn't been warned for a hearing with the the select board yet so You still have concerns. Uh, well my concern is that this is a Sort of an opinion Based on a guideline not on the act itself It's based on a guideline with a big caveat at the beginning of it that this is not legal advice. So That guideline that you referenced is not the law right and this interpretation of that Makes a big assumption And so that's where I have a problem in all likelihood the select board will pass that and and our Lot sizes I agree in all likelihood that will happen But there's a chance that that won't happen that we could establish minimum lot sizes with permitted uses In line with the the five dwelling units For acre density minimum But that hasn't happened yet. So I just think we For the record should point that out, but but at that point would we not be In violation of the state law. No So the way which requires you to approve Up to five Yes, so what 24 vsa 44 12 section 12 states is In any area served by municipal sewer and water infrastructure that allows residential development Bylaws shall establish lot and building dimensional standards that allow five or more dwelling units per acre for each allowed residential use And density standards for multi unit dwellings shall not be more restrictive than those required for single family dwellings So one acre divided by five is point two acres That's where that minimum density Or minimum lot size Comes from Um, and that we cannot require more restrictive density standards for multi family than single family So what what's what's your concern? Nate that if If the select board doesn't adopt The recommendation of the planning commission Um Well, what what is your concern? I just think we owe it to the applicants to To say that the bylaw has not been created yet. We don't know what the minimum lot size or dimensional standards will be when they are We should not assume that it is going to be Point two acres because that is that is not mandated by act 47 That is exactly what act 47 is saying As far as I can tell he says you must allow five units for yes But you do the math out of the math. It's going to come out the same every time Point two you you can have a five acre minimum lot and you would have to allow that density, but you don't have to The town does not have to have Allow lots that small They have to allow five units be built on that. Yes Lot correct on that property. Yes Yes, I'm not following you because in my mind this is no different than the point I made earlier About our local requirements not being able to supersede the federal law on the number of ADA spaces We cannot do that here in such a way that we would be superseding the state law This is we have to allow five The state law does not set a minimum lot size it sets a number of units per acre Yes That in my mind is exactly the same thing So if we had a bylaw that said you can have five units per acre But your minimum lot size Is a half acre that would be an internal conflict that Would conflict with what section 12 of state law says because bylaw shall establish Lot and dimensional standards that allow for five or more dwelling units per acre So you would allow somebody to create a lot, but then it wouldn't be able to Effectively achieve that minimum density. So if If that type of bylaw were being proposed or approved by the select board the staff recommendation would be to not move forward with that because It creates a conflict with state law and state law would still supersede question Didn't we just approve that Development with the two lots behind and each of those lots are smaller than uh You need to be more specific. Yes, that's correct. I know what Paul's saying. We haven't done it yet. Our open space And I think where some of Nate's confusion comes from the way our bylaw does density and minimum lot size Is a little bit confusing. So if we have an open space subdivision, you can have a minimum of lot size down to A third of an acre Which is pretty small in the ag role, but net density is based on Roughly 1.84 acres per dwelling. So our bylaw has Net density and the minimum lot size as a means to encourage clustering here No, no, but what i'm asking is down the road someone could come along and I they now own a sub You know that 0.4 0.4 acre lot They could come along and say oh Jay, you know, you guys will listen to prove this. So I should now be able to go five units on my lot According to the state rules Well, right. Well, the state rules are Only places with water and sewer. Well, I'm just saying is you know at some point in time someday water's gonna come up is gonna come up St. George road And when it does No, no, I'm just saying it. So now you're gonna have this Small less than an acre lot that someone could come along and say oh You guys approve this minimum size lot. I now can put five houses on it It's five houses. It's a minimum of five houses per acre, right? correct, yes well Yeah, if a small lot does get approved and the regulation changed at the time it'd be dealt with any nonconformity in town Yeah, yeah, I'm just saying yeah, it's gonna be it's gonna be an interesting. Yeah. It's not my problem to deal Yeah, is the home zack here forever? I don't know but um, you know, we're well aware that We're gonna be seen under the version of the bylaw and the state rules at the time that we submit And we're not grandfathered into a set of rags until we submit a complete discretionary application Yeah, I'm just I'm just saying is that at some point in time, of course, we're gonna have created a Sure nonconformity. Yeah for someone in the future. Yeah, not my problem Yeah, it potential or it could go the other way Okay, any other questions fault? No, I'm good. Nate anything else? No, I'm good Okay, it's good discussion. Yeah, uh 840 we're gonna close dp 24-17. Thank you, Brian. Thank you Is that the most you've ever had one day here, Brian? Okay Into the deliberative session board for Tuesday, April 9th, 2024 The current time is 940 the drb is out of deliberative session Is there a motion for dp 23-03? Yes as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 I John Hemmelgarn Move that the wilson 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 wilson development bylaw And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of april 9th 2024 except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for dp 23-03 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 They're going to adjust a couple of the conditions specifically strike Conditioned to a 2 And We're going to modify condition 22 To read final plans shall provide a state water and wastewater permit in compliance with wdb 15 Thank you, john. Uh, is there a second? Thank you, lisa. Uh, is there any discussion? Hearing none Yeah, your name. Nate. Yeah All yeah, lisa John yeah Chair is the a five in favor none of both motion carries Is there a motion for dp 22-09.1? Is authorized by wdb 6.6.3 Moving with the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials Including the recommendations of town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application By the wilson development bylaw and having heard and being considered the testimony presented at a public hearing of april 9 2024 except the findings and facts and conclusion and laws for dp 22-9.1 and approved the discretionary permit subject to the conditions Of approval above this approval authorizes the applicant 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 performance with the plans on which this approval is based We have one adjustment and then that is I am 8 For a final plan shall include an additional 88 space on the website Thank you, lisa. Is there a second second John seconds it any discussion? Yeah, or nay, Nate. Yeah, Paul. Yeah lisa John yeah Chair is the a five in favor none opposed motion carries Is there a motion for dp 24-01? Yes, as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 I Nathan Andrews move that the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials Including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards Required to comment on this application by the wilson development bylaw And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of april 9 2024 accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for dp 24-01 And approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval approval above This approval authorizes the applicant to file plans obtained approval of these plans from town 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 We do have one change. We will be striking condition 9a Thank you, Nate. It's their second second Paul seconds it any discussion Uh, yeah, or nay, Nate. Yeah, Paul. Yeah, lisa John yeah Chair is yay five in favor none opposed motion carries. Is there a motion for dp 23-09? Yes as authorized by Wdb six point six point three i paul christensen moved at the wilson development review board Having reviewed the application submitted and all the accompanying materials Including recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson bylaw development bylaw And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of april 9 2024 except the findings effect and conclusions of law For dp 23-09 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above And there will be one change to the conditions of approval at strike 3 b 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 paul is there a second Lisa seconds any discussion Yeah, or nay nay yay paul yay Lisa john yay Chair is a yay five in favor one opposed motion carries Would that be four four? Did I say five? Yes, I wrote four and I said five all good Work plus one is five. Yep. Yep, and uh, and I even have a math minor. Thank you That's not apparent right now Okay Next up is dp 24-07. Is there a motion 17? I'm sorry. You said 07 didn't you I said dp 24-17 I thought you didn't know I thought I heard 07. Well, let's start. Sorry. I think I messed up that you you did my bad But that's all right Is there a motion for dp 24-17? Yes As authorized by wdb 6.6.3. I paul pristensen Move that the bolstin development review board Having reviewed the application submitted and all the accompanying materials Including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards that are required to comment On this application by bolstin development bylaw And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of april 9 2024 Except the recommendations for dp 24-17 and authorized this application to move forward to discretionary permit review Thank you paul. Is there a second second john seconds. Is there any discussion? Uh Yay or nay? nay paul yay lisa john yay The chair is the yay board in favor One opposed motion carries point of order Would you like to reconsider your vote on the previous? Yes, I would thank you Sorry about that Um, so we're going to backtrack to dp 23-09 Nate is it accurate to say that you intended to say yay to that? Yes, it is. Thank you. Okay, so the record will Reflect that uh dp 23-09 is Five in favor none opposed And the motion Remains carried Okay, next up is uh meeting minutes from march 26 Uh, is there a motion to approve the minutes as written? Lisa makes a motion to approve the minutes as written. Is there a second second all seconds. Is there any discussion? Uh, yay or nay? Nate. Yeah, paul. Yeah, lisa John yay, chair is a yay five in favor none opposed the meeting minutes are approved Uh, is there anything else to bring forth tonight to this meeting? Nope Is the motion to adjourn so move Uh, is there a second second Aye, aye any opposed We are adjourned. Thank you all