 Recording in progress. When is the next December meeting? What's the date? December the 14th 14th. Thank you. Okay. Welcome all the Wilson Development and Review Board of November 23rd 2021. I'm Pete Kelly chair of the DRB. Welcome to the applicants and the public participants. Please sign in. If you're participating by zoom, please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant toolbar so that we know who you are. If you wish to speak in the public session or when we open it up for comments on a specific application. This is a hybrid meeting taking place at the town hall and in 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 the hearings are opened. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call in accordance with the law. If zoom crashes, the meeting will continue to December 14 2021. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christiansen. Present. John Hemmelgarns. John Hemmelgarns. Now I'm on you. Okay. We'll take that as a present. Present. Yes. Got Rockley. Here. Dave Saladino. Present. Dave Turner is absent and I'm Pete Kelly on present. Present. So that gives us one, two, three, four, five members. We have a forum. Thank you all for your participation. First order of business is a public. Would you like me just to do the zoom instruction? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Good everyone. Good evening everyone and welcome to those of you in person and on zoom. If you are joining the meeting on zoom, please can you just take a moment to identify yourself and sign in. You can do that in one of two ways. You can either click the participants button on the toolbar. That'll bring up the participants list on the right hand side of your screen. And then you can rename yourself using the rename button. And that's all shown there. Alternatively, you can just type your full name into the chat and I'll rename you here. It's quite important that people do name themselves properly. So please can you take a moment just to make sure your name is showing accurately. For those of you who are in attendance in the room, please can I just make sure that we have all microphones, cameras and speakers off so we don't get any interference. For those of you on zoom, we do have toolbar at the bottom of your zoom panel. We have on the sort of bottom left, we have the mic, you can use that to mute or unmute yourself. Please do mute yourself when you're not speaking. We also have the video button video can be on and off. That's optional. It's up to you. We have the chat feature. Please do use that if you need any technical assistance to reach out to me. And then we also have the reactions buttons. So during the public speaking section, you can use the raise hand function there to indicate that you'd like to address the board. You can also use the chat feature to do that. We will be using screen share this evening so that we can see everything together. We do recommend you view that in side by side mode which allows you to see both the screen share and the gallery. You can use the slider in the center of the screen signified by those two vertical lines to adjust the respective size of each. And for those of you in the room, you will be able to see what's going on on the TV. If you are having a bad internet connection, there's a number of things you can try. You can turn off your video. You can close your browser tabs or other computer programs that you're running. And then lastly, you can also use your telephone as your speaker and you do that by clicking the up arrow next to the microphone. Any technical questions do reach out to me in the chat. Okay, thank you Simon. Okay, first up is a public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone to address the board on issues that are not on tonight's agenda. If there's members of the audience who would like to address the board, please raise your hand. If you're participating by zoom, please raise your virtual hand. Okay, Simon, can you read that individual's name? I think that's Jerry Jerry Conlon raised your hand if you'd like to speak please unmute yourself and state your name and address. Hi, my name is Jerry Conlon. I live at, maybe turn your volume off. I live at 108 Marien's Way in the Normandy Estates Condo Association. We're having you hear that feedback. We're having a little trouble here, two of us have zoom out at the same time in the same place and getting feedback. That sounds better right now. Yeah, so we live in the condo development that's on Marien's way adjacent to Trinity Baptist Church property. And we have a small community of seven units. We have some elderly people. And we are really greatly concerned about this development. We really would wish that it wasn't going in. We want to make that known to you now. Can you turn your right turn your speaker on and your pad please. Or chat him. We're up in front of the camera. Yeah, that's what I was. That's what I was. He's growing along. He's going along. So sorry. That's okay. So, so this is this public forum is. Is the time and tonight's agenda to talk about things that are not. On the warned agenda. And you were talking about something that's on the agenda. And so this is not the time to talk about it. Okay, I haven't seen the agenda. So. So this is an opportunity to talk for the public to talk about something that is not on tonight's agenda. And so you'll have an opportunity to weigh in. We did. We did turn off your volume. So we didn't hear what you said. So you're going to have to start again. When the time is right, but it's not during this portion of tonight's. Session. Okay. So we'll open it up again to anybody who would like to address the board or anything that is not on the agenda for tonight. Raise hands, Simon. I'm not seeing any raised hands. Okay, great. Okay. Thank you all. So there were four items on the warned agenda. Item number one has been continued to date uncertain. Item number one is dp 21 dash 20 taft corners associates. Pre application review of a proposed mixed use development, including a grocery store. So if you're here for that application, that's not being heard tonight. There are three, there are three applications that will be or there will be heard tonight. The last one is not a an application. But the first application is the Trinity Baptist church. Review for a residential subdivision. That's dp 22 dash 0 1 dp 22 dash 0 3 is also the Trinity Baptist church to pre app for proposed three lot residential subdivision. And then the third item that we will hear tonight is is an appeal of an issuance of a certificate of compliance on old stage road. So that will be last. So the first up is dp 22 dash 0 1. That's the pre app for the Trinity Baptist church. This is for the 58 dwelling units located on a 19.6 acre parcel. Melinda, if you would please read the staff report. Do you want the applicants to? Oh, yes. So thank you. So who is here representing the applicant tonight? Your name, please and address. Thank you. Anyone else, Brian? Yeah, David Burke. Also Larry Burke civil associates. He should be on the call. He is on the call. Yeah. And I believe Stacy Barton is also on the call representing Trinity Baptist church. And I believe Randy Boardman is also on the call. Also for training. Okay, so Stacy, if you would please unmute yourself and give you our address for the record place. That's hi Stacy Barton 40 catch him drive as extension Vermont. Welcome, Randy, if you would do the same, please. Yes, can you. Can you hear me? Yeah, Randy Boardman 115 Webster Road, Shelbert. Right. Okay. Now Melinda, it's your turn. Yep. The application review for a proposed two lot subdivision on a 47 acre parcel. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the parcel into two lot. A 19.6 acre lot for 58 unit residential development. And a 27.9 acre lot containing the remaining lands of Trinity Baptist church. 21 triplex units, 20, 60 flex units and 11 carriage homes, single family units are proposed for the residential development. On the remaining lands of Trinity Baptist church school edition, a gym edition and five units of staff housing are proposed. 300 by 850 foot soccer field 180 will be relocated from its current location at the east end of the parcel onto the southwest corner of the remaining lands. The existing parcel is developed with the church school playing fields parking area and access drive. SAF is recommending the DRV close the hearing and approve the proposed project proceed to growth management. The parcel itself dates back to before 1983 and 1983 a site plan was approved for the Trinity Baptist church. In 1988, a subdivision divided the original 55.7 acre parcel into the 47 acre and 8.7 acre parcels. And then in 2013, the DP 1324 gave approval to expand and reconfigure parking and access at the church. And that was done in 2015. The conservation commission reviewed this project and I will discuss the recommendations later on the staff board. Public Works Fire Department Police Department had an opportunity to review the project. An interdepartmental meeting was held. November 2nd 2021 to discuss the project planning fire and police department staff participated. Public Works Department did not. The discussion focused around the configuration of access drive. Rather than getting into the discussion now going to discuss it further on in the staff report under the access section section. One comment letter was received at the time of mail out. November 18 2021 from Jeff. And the staff is recommending the DRV approved the applicant to proceed to growth management with recommendations. Any additional if the DRV chooses to or chooses to modify the recommendations that's drafted. Staff is recommending that that discretionary permit to separate applications be submitted one for the church and school expansion and the other for the residential subdivision. Because these you know these are basically a commercial use happening on one parcel residential uses on the other. And because there there are expected to be delays with growth management allocation phasing in the church may find it advantageous to be able to proceed with the commercial aspects of this project. Before waiting for residential. So before you go on. Do you see any issue with breaking it up into two different applications. We don't. Okay. Continue please. Okay so. The existing uses on the parcel are allowed. They're they're really the few allowed uses in the residential zoning district and the proposed residential use is also allowed. Building heights are limited to 36 feet the church steeple height is exempt under the partial exemption. So this is an open space development. Because of the size of the parcel proposed developments in the in the RZB. Must generally be consistent with Wilson's goal of creating compact walkable neighborhoods while conserving open space. But unlike the RZD there isn't a quantitative minimum requirement for open space conservation in the RZD. The goal is to conserve open space. And the applicant has stated they will provide open space that protects such resources. The site plan at discretionary permit should designate the locations of open space on the site plan. The goal is to conserve as much land as possible containing valuable natural resources. The site plan at discretionary permit should designate the locations of open space on the site plan. The conservation commission recommends that houses be clustered and some contiguous open space should be proposed as part of this project and drawn on site plan. In the chapter on the RZD it does state that new residential developments shall be organized around one or more focal points which can take the form of a neighborhood or community park. The site plan for the proposed residential development doesn't show a focal point. Staff does note that the conservation commission has asked the applicant to provide a public parking and a trail connection to a town owned open space parcel to the north. The DRB could make a finding that a trailhead and trail providing access to open space could serve this function or you could require the applicant to provide a neighborhood park or green. A recommendation has been drafted. Chapter 39 also states makes a statement about maximizing connectivity within and between the residential neighborhoods. It doesn't preclude the use of cul-de-sacs where the terrain imposes a physical obstacle. But it does encourage the use of looped roads rather than dead end streets where the terrain permits a reasonable connection. The applicant's site plan shows two separate access drives for the residential portion of the development and a spur road ending in a cul-de-sac. Staff notes that a single access drive with a loop road would provide greater connectivity within the neighborhood. Chapter 39 does encourage housing choices. The applicant is proposing three types of housing, triplexes, stuplexes and single family carriage homes. No affordable housing has been proposed. A diversity of housing types and affordable housing while not required are strongly encouraged by the residential growth management system. The provision of affordable housing of at least 30% of the proposed dwellings may increase the allowable density up to five units, five dwelling units per acre. So there are some nonconforming uses on this site. Nonconforming use being defined as a use of land that doesn't conform to the present bylaws but did conform to the bylaw at some point in time. The subject parcel is nonconforming with respect to landscape buffers and street trees. It lacks a landscape buffer along the eastern boundary where the adjoining uses are mixed uses including residential and it lacks street trees along Mountain View Road and Trinity Drive. Thereby may require that nonconformities be corrected as a condition of approval of a discretionary permit where additional development is proposed on the same lot or adjacent lots in the same ownership. But this power is limited to requiring work that is reasonably proportional to the scales of proposed development. The applicant has proposed modifications to the subject parcel including a school addition, new gymnasium, five units of staff housing and relocation of the soccer field to the southeastern corner of the parcel. These improvements will likely increase the intensity of use with potentially adverse impacts to the neighboring parcels to the east. The DRB will need to decide whether requiring improvements to the landscape buffer, whether to require those improvements and what level of requirements are reasonably proportional to the scale of proposed development. The recommendations that have been drafted assume that the applicant will be required to bring the site into compliance with the current landscaping standards of chapter 23. The DRB can scale back those recommendations if you choose to. For permit exemptions, the Trinity Baptist Church and school has a partial exemption from the use requirements under state and local regulations as provided by 24VSA 4413 and WDB 4222 and 4223. The town is specifically authorized to regulate height, lighting and other development elements such that it does not interfere with the intended functional use. The burden of demonstrating that a condition imposed on a partially exempted development interferes with the intended functional use rests with the applicant. Okay, for growth management, the applicant is proposing 58 new dwelling units, comprising the residential portion of the project as well as five units of employee housing associated with the church and school. In order for the employee housing to be exempt from growth management at discretionary permit, the DRB would need to make a finding that employee housing is considered as an accessory used to the church and school and therefore not considered a residential use. At that time, the DRB may also wish to include a condition that if the employee housing is ever converted to standalone rental units or sold as individual homes, then those homes will be subject to all applicable regulations at the time of conversion, including growth management if it's still in place at that time. Growth management review follows pre-application review. All proposed residential subdivisions that have cleared pre-application review on or before December 13th of any December 31st of any year shall be subject to growth management review in the following year, except as otherwise exempted. To receive allocation, a project must score a minimum of 30 points using the criteria scoring outlined in WDB 11.5 unless they're exempted. The proposed project doesn't qualify for an exemption because the applicant is requesting more than two units of allocation and the parent parcel is greater than 10 acres. I've listed the criteria in the staff report. The applicant should meet with the staff to discuss the growth management process and criteria after completing pre-application review. So for access, the applicant is proposing a primary point of access that utilizes an existing curb cut and private drive, Trinity Drive, as well as a secondary access point with a new curb cut approximately 400 feet east of Trinity Drive. A new curb cut will require an access permit from the Department of Public Works. So the applicant is proposing to use the existing Trinity Drive to access both the commercial institutional uses and the residential uses. And the secondary access road that's proposed would be used only for the residential portion of the project. Concerns have been raised by planning and fire department staff about the configuration of access drives, namely that there's only one way in and out for the school and the church facilities and the access drive would pass through a residential neighborhood. Staff discussed relocating the proposed secondary access for the residential portion of the project to the western end of the subject parcel near the soccer field to provide more direct access to the school and church. However, police department staff and public work staff have concerns about this given the proximity to the Mountain View Road, Route 2A intersection, and the traffic backups that can happen there. And the fire department would prefer that location for emergency access. Or alternatively, moving the main road around the church back to the main entrance. They essentially creating a multi directional approach to the commercial portion of the parcel. WDB 13 to encourages the use of shared driveways and consolidation of access points were feasible and provides guidance on design standards. Chapter 13 is silent on the issue of shared access between potentially conflicting uses. But does state the requirement that applicants may need to provide access management improvements, including turning lanes media and sign signals or other improvements needed for safe access. The need for these improvements may be established by the town plan or other or other previously related studies or the DRB can require a traffic study if they feel that these existing studies don't provide enough information. So, no more than 40 dwellings may be served by single point of access. And that's why the secondary point of access is proposed because the applicant is proposing 58 dwelling units. Also, consistent with policy 6.3 of the town plan, development should have safe functional connections with adjoining developments for vehicles by splits and pedestrians. Staff recommends the applicant provide a right of way easement to the property line with Christ Memorial Church should the development be proposed on should development be proposed on that parcel. An easement would provide an opportunity for a future grid street connection between route to a and Mountain View Road. Recommendation has been drafted. So, for bicycle and pedestrian access the existing church and school site contain sidewalks connecting the parking area church and school. The site plan doesn't show site sidewalks for the proposed residential development. The requirements for sidewalks and recreation paths are discussed in the following section. All proposed developments for which discretionary permits required must submit the estimated traffic generation data. At pre application the DRB can require a traffic study and staff is recommending a Travis traffic study. Due to the number of dwellings proposed in the proximity of the project to a busy intersection. And the needs to determine whether access management improvements are needed for recommendation has been drafted. So the discussion on vehicular parking focuses on the commercial and institutional uses of the site with the expectation that the residential uses will provide adequate parking. Vehicular parking is required for the church and school uses the site has an existing parking area providing 183 spaces. Including the drop off spaces in front of church. 888 spaces are provided in 2015 the applicant reconfigured the parking and access with approval under DP 1324. At discretionary permit the applicant must submit a site plan and parking generation table for the commercial institutional elements of the project. And demonstrate how the number of parking spaces supports their intended functional use. The site plan must demonstrate compliance with all requirements of chapter 14, including minimum number of 88 spaces short and long term bicycle parking spaces. And the trip facilities all dimensional requirements as well must be met. And as well as the parking lot landscaping in compliance with chapter 14 and chapter 23. Notably there doesn't appear to be bicycle parking on the site just based on the aerial imagery. Adequate bicycle parking and end of trip facilities will need to be provided and shown on the site plan at discretionary permit. So for onsite infrastructure and circulation. We, let's see. Private roads that serve more than 40 dwellings must be designed and built to comply with the current edition of American Association State Highway and transportation officials policy and blah, blah, blah. Most in public work standards. The applicant is proposed a 27 foot public roadway to serve the residential portion of the project. And the road serving the church and school is proposed to remain a private drive. Sidewalks must be provided along both sides of all proposed roads, unless the DRV determines otherwise the DRV could limit the requirement only one side of a proposed road. Signed in for striped crosswalks must be provided at all intersections. Also, chapter 15 states that applicants whose projects will benefit from transit service may be required to provide or contribute to the provision of bus stops, bullouts, shelters and signage. The town plan provides guidance for the provision of neighborhood parks and residential developments. And the DRV must find that all proposed residential developments comply with that guidance. And the growth management review standards encourage the provision of neighborhood recreational space. Private utilities must be shown on the site plan and utilities must be underground. The subject parcels within the sewer service district. And the applicants proposing to use municipal water and wastewater. And the applicant will need to coordinate with Department of Public Works regarding provision of additional pump station or other necessary improvements. Solid waste disposal containers should be shown on the site plan discretionary permit. All solid waste containers must be fully screened from public ways. Stormwater collection and treatment must be provided in compliance with chapter 29. And then this just talks about maintenance of infrastructure on the property maintenance of open space and neighborhood parks. Removal of litter and maintenance, continuing maintenance of runoff and erosion control standards. Snow storage areas should be clearly shown on the plans at discretionary permit. Under accessory and temporary uses. So the applicants proposing to construct five units of employee housing for the church and school. And staff recommend that such housing can be considered as an accessory used to the church and school and therefore would be exempt from density and growth management. And some standards for accessory dwellings. Accessory dwellings are limited to 1500 square feet in size. They must have separate ingress ingress and egress to the outside and to reserve parking spaces. And they must comply with national fire codes. So density. Residential density in well stands calculated on a dwelling unit equivalent for acre basis. Where dwelling unit is defined as one dwelling unit containing two or more bedrooms, a dwelling unit containing only one bedroom is counted as half a dwelling unit equivalent. The applicants proposing 58 dwelling units. It amounts if they're all more than two bedrooms or two bedrooms, two plus bedrooms, this amounts to 58 dwelling unit equivalent equivalents. Chapter 19 density requires steep slopes and wetlands to be subtracted from the acreage and calculating density. The applicants has provided a constraints analysis and the total allowable dwelling units on the on the 47 acre parcel is 104 units. They're proposing 58. One note. The one thing I want to bring to your attention is that the applicants calculated density based on the 47 acres of the parent parcel subtracting the constraints. The parent parcel has been previously developed with non residential uses, such as the church, the school, the parking area, playing fields, parsonage and maintenance building. The existing non residential uses are allowed by partial extension. So, chapter 19 discusses the desirability of mixed use development and tap corners and all the zoning districts that are within the growth rather the growth center. Notably, and mixed uses are also permitted in the village zoning district, but the residential zoning district is not listed as a mixed use district. And the bylaw doesn't allow non residential development in the RZD except by exemption. The applicant doesn't desire to create a mixed use development, but they want to subdivide the parent parcel to separate the residential uses from the existing and commercial institutional uses. So, given that the residential zoning district doesn't support mixed use, and given the applicants desire to separate residential uses from commercial uses. I'd like to ask the DRV to consider whether it makes sense to calculate density on the entire 47 acre parcel, including the previously developed portion, or instead if the residential density should be calculated using the acreage of the 19.6 acre residential parcel. So I'm recommending that the DRV consider a couple of different paths forward for looking at this at discretionary permit and applying conditions. The first being that the applicant subdivides the 47 acre parcel into the commercial parcel and the residential parcel and then calculates the allowable density and the residential portion. And the second would be the applicant would calculate the allowable density on the 47 acre parent parcel, but must avoid impacting conservation area resources by shifting infrastructure dwellings and roads around to other areas of that 47 acre parent parcel if there are other areas that don't impact resources. This may put the residential uses closer to the existing commercial uses than the applicant would want. So staff is recommending that we get a legal opinion to get clarity on these two options moving forward. This need not prevent the applicant from proceeding to growth management because, you know, it's going to be a competitive pool and the application that the applicant could obtain would likely be very limited for next year anyway. So moving on to landscaping. All applications for discretionary permit must be accompanied by a landscaping plan. WDB table 23a establishes the requirements for landscape buffer according to the use of the proposed development and the joining uses. The subject parcel will be subdivided into two parcels separating the commercial institutional uses from the residential uses. Staff is recommending that a landscape buffer be required around the perimeter of each resulting parcel including a buffer between the two parcels since they will contain different uses. So the two proposed parcels are treated separately in the in the section. First, the commercial institutional parcel. The existing use as a church and school parking access drives and sidewalks. The joining uses to the east and north or residential uses to the west or mixed uses, including residential and to the south as a public way. The site is non conforming with regards to lack of a landscape buffer along the site's western boundary and lack of street trees along Mountain View Road. The applicant is proposing five units of staff housing. In addition to the school and new gym and relocation of the existing soccer field. From the southwestern corner to the south from the southeastern corner to the southwestern corner of the parcel. These additions and site modifications will increase the intensity of use on the site. Therefore, staff recommends the DRV has the authority to require landscape buffer along the western boundary and street trees along Mountain View Road. And that the northern boundary of the subject parcel has existing forest vegetation sufficient to serve as an effective buffer. Southern boundary Fronts Mountain View Road and will require street trees. And the eastern western boundaries will require type two, three or four landscape buffer. And parking lot landscaping must also comply with standards of chapter 23. For the residential portion parcel, the proposed use is higher density residential development. The joining uses to the north and east are other residential subdivisions to the west is commercial into the south as a public way. Because the church and school parcel to the west of the proposed residential development will be required to provide a buffer along its eastern boundary. Staff is recommending a landscape buffer not be required along the western boundary. In other words, you don't need a double buffer between the two uses being proposed. The northern boundary of the subject parcel has existing forested vegetation sufficient to serve as an effective buffer. The southern boundary Fronts Mountain View Road will require street trees. The eastern boundary has existing vegetation that may need to be supplemented with additional plantings. So the subject parcel Fronts Mountain View Road street trees are required to be planted at least every 40 feet in public right of way. Street trees are also required along both sides of the public and or private roads and development. Street trees should be planted on along both sides of the private drive. Street trees can serve as part of the required landscape buffer between the commercial and residential portions of this project. So conservation areas. The subject parcel contained within an area map to significant wildlife habitat area. WVB 275 requires habitat disturbance assessment be prepared and submitted by the applicant as part of discretionary permit application. The conservation commission is recommending that a single habitat disturbance assessment be completed that covers the development proposed for this application. WVB 2201 and DP 2202 which is the property just to the east of this property and in the ARZD because the projects are adjacent because they're being proposed in tandem by the same applicant. The conservation commission feels that assessing these two projects together will provide a more holistic perspective of their cumulative impacts. The subject parcel also contains a primary foreground view shed area. The conservation commission notes that many of the proposed residential structures along with two main access drives into the property are within this primary view shed area. The WCC recommends the proposed eastern most access drive be relocated to the west where the soccer field is planned and proposed houses clustered toward the back of the field and or along the existing access road to reduce impacts to the view shed. The conservation commission did note that the potential impacts of getting the houses out of the view shed and closer to the back of the field may result in an impact to the significant wildlife habitat area and that can't be determined until the habitat disturbance assessment is done. So if the habitat disturbance assessment determines that relocating the houses to the back of the field would result in impacts to the significant wildlife habitat area, then avoiding habitat impacts should take precedence over avoiding view shed impacts. So watershed health, the proposed development falls under the category of higher risk development because of the amount of land being disturbed and that disturbance may occur within watershed protection buffer. The discretionary permit application must be accompanied by a professionally prepared runoff in the road and control plan and must comply with WDB 29.5 standards. The site plan shows two stormwater treatment areas given the large amount of existing and proposed impervious in the parcel. The conservation commission recommends the development utilize onsite stormwater infiltration designed to the greatest degree possible to reduce impacts to nearby streams. There are some unnamed tributaries on the subject parcel eastern northern boundaries and there are map class two and class three wetlands, both of which require a 50 foot buffer. A wetland delineation hasn't been conducted in the last five years for this parcel. So the applicant must submit a current wetlands delineation with their application for discretionary permit. And must delineate the 50 foot buffer on the site plan. WDB 29.9.6 states that watershed protection buffers shall remain undeveloped and native vegetation. These watershed protection buffers must be clearly demarcated on the site plan and on the ground to prevent future disturbance. Discretionary for outdoor lighting discretionary permit must include an outdoor lighting plan in compliance with WDB 24 existing non conforming lighting will need to be corrected. A master sign plan may be required if new sign interest is proposed and school recreation and transportation impact these may be assessed at an administrative permit provided under WDB chapter 43, 44, 45. Thank you. Thank you. There was a lot involved with this. Appreciate the overview. What did you knock us off from zoom? I think we might have caught zoom bombs. I think we got zoom bombs. Just getting rid of someone else. Somebody must not have much to do if they zoom bomb the Wilson development keyboard. So Simon, are you are we on zoom now or yeah, yeah, it's all it's all working. Yeah, yeah. Oh, it's okay. That was well as confusing me. I'm sorry. Scott, are you in the meeting? Yeah. Okay. Okay. So Brian. There was a lot that was reviewed there. I was hoping that. For clarification purposes. Melinda, you could display or Simon, you could display the site plan. I want to make sure that I understand where the 19.6 acres are because it's, it's not clearly marked. At least in my opinion, it's not clearly marked. I'm sure you know right where it is. If you want to come up and show me that'd be great. But I just want to make sure that I understand it. That color or something here, but essentially states here. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I thought. Thank you. Okay, that's that's what I would have. Yes. Okay, there's been a there's been draft motion. Have you read that draft motion? We have. Yep. And are you in agreement with everything proposed? We have a couple of things to talk about are things that we'd like your feedback gone. If, you know, in the, in the case that we do gather enough allocation through the growth management to submit a discretionary permit. And probably the biggest piece of it is the, the access, the recommendation that was brought by the Wilson conservation commission. This site was purposefully laid out with a view shed in mind and the significant wildlife wildlife habitat to the east to put the development. I'm sorry to interrupt. I think, I think we're having technical issues. There's people saying they can't hear in the chat. Okay. So we'll just have to sort that out. Just take about five minutes. Okay. I mean, we're impossible to put a copy of this plan up for today. Mac copy on one of the tables and less like I do in looking at the free press. We've got a copy of the plan. We're dealing in confusion. There are no cops in the plan. The attendees here. You don't have it really been seen in the basic courtesy to the residents post a copy of this map or at least leave one in a spot where you look at it. I'm pretty sure that I have a free press, but this shouldn't be the only way we can look at this. I don't online before I came back. I can find no point in which I could download the paperwork problem scheme, which I also as a resident and protest figures. There's there. I oftentimes download was on the website. So I think I think you must have. You must have been doing something wrong. Because, because I do that all the time. And, but that being said, I'm happy to accommodate a site plan for all to. You know, all to view. What do you think the best way to do that is, is it make a couple of some photocopies and run back while we're waiting. I can run back and grab the big plan and just, I mean, that'd be great. Why don't you do that? Simon, we can Simon currently, we can't get the plans up on the screen. No, people can hear us. They can hear us now. Can they interact with us? Right. You're recording, you're recording, but my Simon, you're the, you're the, the interactivity, interactivity, right? Yeah. Yeah, that's all right. Enter connectivity. He's the router. He's connecting everything. So we're getting site plans. We'll bring, we'll bring them in. Got to use it. You're having. We can probably. Yeah, hold on. So we're just not able to record it. See a TV or we can record. I'm recording locally. Okay, okay. Okay, Simon. So if you could give me a recap here. So zoom is up. The participants, both DRB members and the public are are able to. See your screen. They're able to hear me. They're able to. Participate. It's just the CTV is not functioning. Is that a fair overview? I'm just getting mixed messages. David, David Saladino, I can see you're not on mute. Can you hear me? Doesn't seem like you can. David Saladino, I can see you're not on mute. Can you hear me now? Hold on. I think I might. I'm going to have to put the meeting out. Well, and is that another? Is that another plan right there? That's the one that I've done for Andrew. Okay. Yeah. Paul is saying that they can see him here in the room. Okay. So I think everyone else. Dave Saladino, can you hear? Can you hear us? Okay. Can you speak, please? We're almost there, guys. It's the bottom of the list. The bottom of the list. The bottom of the list. Two buttons in the middle. Go ahead. Go ahead. Dave's to be. Okay. So I try now. Dave's to be. Please don't be on speed. At all of the times we've been doing this, we haven't had any troubles. It's actually worked out. Not fact. I think kind of the first time we hadn't won a couple of the box, but I actually participated in a show where DRB meeting where I was just in the audience. And it was a complete failure. Yeah. So I was thinking. I think we've done pretty well. It's doing all right. Yeah. Yeah. We're going to have to do that. So what I think we're going to have to do is. Segregate ourselves from. C. A. T. V. And. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Nice one. Yeah. And your. Okay. And your. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe. Okay. Okay. Can you speak again? All right. All right. I think we're, I think we're back. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. If you can hear me. Give a thumbs up, please. Okay. Right. Okay. John Hemmelgard do a test. A test audio, please. All right. Yes. Yes. Great. Okay. Okay. I think we're good now. So. Brian, you were. Addressing my question. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And you had some concerns about the conservation commissions. Input relative to access. Correct. Yes. So it'd be nine C specifically. Okay. Essentially it just talks about relocating the eastern access road on Mountain View. To the western side of the parcel. And it sites. And it also talks about. You know, And then the fire department also, you know, commented about potentially maybe a looped access all the way down. In between the school and the church through the parking lawn and down to Mountain View. And the reason we have the layout as it is, is for a few reasons we're trying to keep our distance from Marion's way. And the two way Mountain View intersection as is supported by all of the parks and the police department. By locating all the units on the eastern end of the site. We're keeping them in the lowest part of the, of the parcel. The view shed in this area on the comprehensive plan shows it essentially to the south. The view originating just south of the soccer field, looking to the east, which would be over all of the units that were shown on the low side of the site. It is showing a couple of additions to their, will be their existing 28 acre campus by moving that eastern access road to the west side and keeping the soccer field in the southeast corner of the site. It would be fragmented from the church campus. You know, they don't, they don't really want to maintain two different fragmented parcels. And also if we're moving that road to the, to the west, you can see there's a few delineated wetlands in that field that we would have to impact in order to do so. So I think there's a number of reasons why we have the layout as it is. And, you know, if we do gain enough allocation and growth management to dictate a, or to, you know, make it worth our while to file a discretionary permit. We would just like to have some feedback from the board about the layout. We would just like to have some feedback on that item. What would be your, you being the applicant, what would be your position? If the density were calculated on the 19.6 acre parcel solely. Yeah. So there's a couple of ways. I think, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, there's a couple of ways. I think as staff has noted, they've, there sounds like we may get a legal opinion about this, but you know, we've calculated both based on the 47 acres. So if you do the 19 and you subtract out the constraints, we're not going to be at the 58 acres. So we could either add more area to that 19 acre residential parcel, but really what we're looking for here is a clear break between the residential neighborhood and the church. So right now we're showing that based on a subdivision and we look at the density of the parcel all as whole. It's a plan in the development. You know, there's a decision saying what the allowable density is for the parcel. So we could also do a limited common element line where we're showing the subdivision boundary, you know, essentially file a condo plan with the HOA docs and say that the HOA, you know, has rights to this point and the church has rights to the other side. So we felt a subdivision boundary was the cleanest way to do it and to look at the density as a whole. But I think we have a few options to go forward there. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. What other comments do you have before I open it up for the DRB members to ask questions? The staff housing and the staff report, it talks about the staff housing. We're proposing five, five units of staff housing just north of the existing parking lot. If we're to be exempt from growth management, the DRB needs to find that those units are an accessory use of the church. And that would be, you know, we need to know that before we filed an application, a discretionary permit application for the church additions and those five units. How are they going to be used? They'd be used for teachers, anyone working at the facility, staff notes in their, in the staff report, if they ever were to be turned into marker eight housing in the future, they would be subject to growth management. So we would file the necessary, any necessary legal documents to, you know, satisfy the DRB that they'll be used specific for the Trinity property for employees. So anyone that leads the point is left move? So I think, so I think the question is that if somebody was occupying one of those units and they were to leave the employee of the school, would they be forced to leave the residence? I believe so. Yes. Thank you. Anything else, Brian? The easement to Christ Memorial Church. So staff is recommending condition requiring we have a 64 foot right away going all the way to about 300 foot shy of the existing personage. So they're recommending that that easement or right away gets carried all the way, essentially probably a thousand feet to the western boundary where it abuts Christ Memorial Church. And that would just be if Christ Memorial Church was developed in the future. We wouldn't support that. You know, usually we are very supportive of, you know, we think Wilson does a great job promoting connectivity, you know, and making applicants, you know, plan for future. In this case though, you know, that that roadway would go right in front of a 99 student school with a proposed addition and, you know, fitting a 64 foot right away in between those buildings. When you're looking at a front yard setback as well, you know, would be tight. So based on the school and, you know, the privacy of that the church enjoys today, obviously cut through traffic becomes a concern in the future. We just wouldn't support that recommendation. Well, is that recommendation and the proposed motion? Yeah, it's in the draft of recommendations. What number? It's to a. Thank you. Wasn't standing out. Okay. Anything else, Brian? The last one is another recommendation from the conservation commission regarding clustering. We feel that we have proposed cluster development. If you look at the units, the roads, the driveways, it all fits into about eight and a half acres. We're proposing 58 units. It's essentially seven acres per unit. What's not being developed is being left, you know, as open space to be conserved, steep slopes, watershed buffers, wetlands, wetland buffers. And we're proposing duplexes, triplexes. I think our average spaces is about 20 feet. We're right up against the 25 foot front yard setback. The fire department even had a recommendation for either creating cement board walls or residential sprinkler system for units closer than 30 feet. So we're about 20 feet. So I just don't see how a development that could potentially require residential sprinklers could not be considered a cluster development. Okay. Anything else? That's it. Okay. Thank you. Okay. DRB members. If you have a question, please. Please chime in. Okay. Go ahead, Dave. So the first off being the 80 machining of the second land, the tail and orange, a bit of steep slope. Yep. The green is 15 to 29.9. And the red is 30% and over. And it adds up to the legend. Yep. Yep. Yeah. That was just done for the constraint analysis. Yep. Yep. The just curious, I don't know if you've had any delineated wetlands out of the field, but just a quick peek at the DC, well, it does look like there's a new driver. I think it's a new driver. Is it all, is it going to go up and they're going to do that? Hold on, Dave. Go ahead, Brian. So we had a partial delineation done. We essentially delineated areas that were caught up in the air, but they're not, you know, they're wetlands. They're not in the field, but they're in the field in mode field these days. So on the eastern end of the parcel, we're aware that there's a class two buffer associated with the stream. The piece of it that was delineated is just a finger that comes out where we get by the cul-de-sac. So we're aware that, that there's buffers out there that, that aren't shown, you know, at pre app, we're not required to show all the wetlands that are available. We can show some wetlands that we're not showing, but we can also show quite a few wetlands that the DEC maps don't show. So I think, you know, we'll be sure to do our due diligence at discretionary. Dave, continue, please. I said continue, please. Just a map check on the, in the center, it says our DEC district, 47 acres, and then the two boxes, the either side, there's another line, what's six, and then Trinity Church, what's nine, the map is that, there. So, I don't know if they said, making part to the two separate parts. I believe that's the roadway. So the roadways is all in a lot. I believe it's just rounding. Maybe it is. Maybe it is the roadway. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, well, we can be sure. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, it was. Well, it's a lot. Yeah. There's a couple of things. I was just curious which, I don't know who's controlling the screen, but I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. I can verbally say, well, he's, Simon's doing it now. So I think, we're talking about this line. Yep. You got it. Yeah. Yeah. And then the right away. And then running alongside the right away. Yep. And then crossing. Yep. There you go. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's on us. We should have made that more visually. Jump out. Yeah. Yep. So the existing drive doesn't meet public works standards in order to propose the 58 unit condo development. We're going to be held to the current public work standard. So, uh, we figured, uh, if we got to rebuild the road anyway, we might as well orient the road to, uh, best serve our development. So, uh, what, right? Yep. Yep. Yep. It's not curb. There's no sidewalks. The depth of gravel is, is doubtful to be near what public works required. It's not under drain. There's all sorts of problems with it. All right. There's no. Yeah. I think it's right in that area. The existing soccer fields underneath it. Maybe, maybe that's kind of what you're seeing there, but we haven't done a storm under design, but that's just, that's essentially the low point of the site. So we expect that to be where our treatment facilities are kind of a place to place holder. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Dave. Okay. Uh, John Hemelgar. There's one thing I noticed here. Yeah. At this point, yes. When we get into our growth management application, we may pivot, but, uh, today, yes, they're all over more. Uh, two or more. Probably. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, the five units of five. We would never allow that on a single house. One lot. What. That's. Yeah. Yeah. So because this is commercial. Um, I, the accessory uses can. Uses can could be up to 30% of the commercial area of the site. And the church is considered a commercial? Yeah, in this case, yeah. Commercial this church and school. Right, so it's not your standard accessory dwelling. It's an accessory use would be a big difference. I think. Anything else, Todd. Yes, bring that up. I am concerned about the clustering and the concept that these, uh, You know, I just kind of need to be convinced that you're doing them to the greatest extent possible. I think that's just I don't want to get into that right now because I'm sure that the plan is going to change before it gets to D. V. Um, so. Okay. Okay. Thank you, John. Paul Christensen. I'm sure of there's going to be no ice cream parking development, correct? That that would be our plan. Yeah. Um, it's designed. Correct. Yeah, it'll be built to public work standards, uh, 27 foot wide curb road. So, so Paul, just just to be clear, okay? If you have a development and it has a public street built to department of public works standards. It's, it's not going to, it's not going to show a designated parking space, but that doesn't prevent somebody from parking on the street. And that's true in Brennan Woods where John, you live. That's true in Southbridge where I live. And I just. The winner is different. There's a parking ban from December. I think it's December 1st until April 1st or the last day of March. I something it's four months. It's like call it call it December through March. And that's a, and that's, and that's a parking ban. But that's different than the other eight months. And so there might not be a designated parking spot on a street, but that doesn't prevent somebody from parking there. Would you agree with what I just said, Brian? I would. Okay. Okay. Mr. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Go ahead. I would just like to say that I would be a support. Thank you. Mr. Riley. A couple of things. Did you consider, did you consider connecting both parcels at the next parcel that we're going to talk about at 22-02? We did not. The, uh, natural features between the RCD and the ARCD. Um, I, I feel make him, uh, not connecting, uh, possible. Linda, you agree with that? Yeah, I would agree. It's probably not feasible. Why? There's, there's a big, uh, gully in a stream, um, between the two parcels. Yeah. So my, my map doesn't show contour lines really. Well, I guess it does show, I guess it's just so some contour lines are not super tight. Yeah. Those are, those are fives too. They're fives. Yeah. It's, uh, what's shaded green is 15 to 30 percent slopes, essentially. And then there's, uh, water. But you are allowed to cross, you're allowed to cross it to, for, for a road, because I understand it, correct? Uh, I believe there are provisions for it. Well, I think it's deemed necessary. It seems to me that there's a lot of discussion going on about access points, access points with the conservation commission and some of the other, other areas that that might solve it. I also think you're looking at a, you know, a whole different district, not in the sewer core, the, you know, the other application that you'll see tonight is for essentially three lots, you know, minimum. I saw it. I saw it. And I was curious what you, you know, whether you would consider it or not. Yep. Yep. Yeah. And then you're building public road all the way back down to Mountain View that essentially is, uh, we can't use any of the front of John. Um, okay. I guess the only other comment I have is that, um, Just for the record, I'm going to support leaving the conservation commission's recommendations in the in the, in the draft. That's it. Okay. Anything else from the d rb before we transition to public comments? Okay, uh, but now we're going to welcome a public participation, uh, for people full here in the room, as well as people that are participating by zoom. And, uh, for those in the room, if you would please come to this table here with that little placard that is late public. We've got the microphone there. When you do come to that table, if you would give your name and address please for the record. Um, Before we we open it up for public discussion. I do want to, um, to give a a very quick overview of and this is this is simplicity. Uh, I realize this is with great simplicity, but essentially how the planning process works is that, uh, the planning commission uh, proposes rules. They're adopted by the select board. And then once they are adopted by the select board, they're given to us to solely judge compliance on a project. So there's things that we can influence and there's things that this board cannot influence. So for instance, if the unified bylaws say that there's so many units that are allowed per acre on a subject parcel, that's not something that we can weigh in on whether or not that's appropriate. And that may come up, that may not come up. And so there's there's certain things that we we can, um, that we can influence and many things that we can't. And so, um if if if we start to have a conversation on something that we can't influence, I might ask the person to, um, to add a little haste to their comments because, um, it's not that we don't want to hear from you. It's just that it might not apply to anything that we have any influence over. So with that, um, I'm sure there's some people who would like to comment and uh, so if you're on zoom raise your hand. We'll call on you. If you're here in the room, uh, please come to the table. So on zoom, Jerry Conlon, uh, raised his hand again. Okay. I don't know. Is anyone in the room intending to speak? All right, I think we, but Jerry, if you just hang on a moment, we normally take people in the room first, so we'll we'll come to you in a moment. Okay, sir. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Carl Fowler. I reside at 178 Meadow Run Road. And uh, I was the former vice president and president of the Meadow Run Condo Association, but I speak tonight on my own behalf and not on behalf of the association. I make that point very clear. Okay. I am not in opposition to this project. I am concerned about the sheer volume of development projects which the town has been permitting in the general area around the intersection of mountain view to a industrial way. And the failure, I think to take into account the need for coordinated traffic planning to make it possible for those of us who already live in those neighborhoods to continue to enjoy the quality of life we currently have. This plan, for example, is drawn without any reference to the development, which is well underway at the Michelle property just to the south of Mountain View, which will include an extension of Whitewater Road and multiple housing units in the farm field across the street. Nor does it take into account the development that's all paved and roads set out at least around Caroline, nor eventually the traffic that will come out of the housing units to be built at the golf course when it's converted into housing. Nor the Snyder project, which you folks reviewed back in September and gave preliminary approval to, which adds up to over 300 units just south of Allen Brook. And while none of this has to do with the exact design of this particular project, I give an example of why I'm concerned about this. We have the two exits roads provided from the church property. Those guarantee that at least one of them cannot possibly make a connection with Whitewater Drive. That suddenly means three more entries into Mountain View within a very short distance of the main intersection of Mountain View and Route 2A. Now, I can tell you that in peak hours, which begin as early as 2.30 in the afternoon now, we are often delayed two to five minutes in getting in or out of the Meadow Rutt neighborhood. This kind of problem requires the sort of traffic study that isn't really indeed the relevant concern of the developer of the church property, but it ought to be the concern of the town in general and of the development review process. Before these permits are issued, before construction goes ahead, the design of the projects should try to take into account low mobility of the citizens of this community. We're not going to see the CERC that's a closed issue. And even if we did, it wouldn't address this problem. We need probably a traffic circle at the intersection of 2A and Mountain View and Industrial, but whatever the solution may be, I urge you, I plead with you, I beg you to take into account the quality of life of the residents already in this area with respect to our ability to enjoy our neighborhoods, to move in and out of them. We were told in Mountain View, it's going to be no problem at all that you're going to have them a show development because you're going to have another exit out on the Mountain View. Now, we find that directly across the street will be at least two more exits on the Mountain View and one up the street less than half a mile at Caroline. And again, before too many more years, a vastly increased amount of traffic coming out from the golf course property, Catamount Golf Course Redevelopment. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed. These developments should not be considered again and again in a vacuum under themselves. They need to be considered as a coordinated part of the planning process. And their designs within compliance with the town's zoning codes still need to be taken into account in terms of what they do to their neighbors, as well as what they do to people residing in the development with which I subside and thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Take your time. I just like to clear name and address for the record, please. Deborah Hill, 971 Essex Road. And I have a couple of personal questions on here that relate to my property because I back up to your the church property. How close is those units that the for the the people that are going to work the staff at the school? How close is that to my property? I can't tell from that little man, which which property? So that's right here. That's the hill property, which back up to I can't tell how close that's supposed to be. Yeah. So what's the, so Brian, what's the, what's the setback from the hill property line? There's the three units that are right close to it. So the setback is determined in Welleson for landscaping buffers. It's different between different types of uses. I think in this district, it might be able to get down to maybe 13 feet, given the different types of planning. But I think where we're showing them today, without the details of what the landscaping buffer would look like, are you probably looking at the 40 feet, maybe 30 feet somewhere in that range? Maybe 30. Oh, 30. Sounds good. Is it, what is that little, there's a between the blue line and that there's a little dotted or slash line. What does that mean anything? I think that's the minimum setback given the most intense plantings. So that gives a little, there's a little buffer because there's just all there is now is just some woods and always been woods. The other question I had, I'd not to get away from what we're, what we're dealing with this first, we're only dealing with the first section of the number two part or number the 2201 part that all you're dealing with right now. That's correct. I just like to know where is this 2201 or not 2202? Where is where's 425 Mountain View? Is it that next section that's up by Mr. Ibees? Yeah, I'll show you. So I don't see it. I was wondering where that was. That's in. So that this is the next hearing. That's the 425. Okay. So I was just thinking you were wrong doing what that was. Okay. Bar and how close those you five units of housing for staff is. I approve, I approve the additions to the school. I'm not going to argue about that classrooms in a gym are fine. I don't like the idea of the 58 condos. The one thing it's going to increase the traffic in the area that we already have all the problems with. I live on 2A. You can't get out for 15 minutes out of your driveway most of the time. And this is just going to increase it. I'm going to lose part of the front of my property because they're going to widen the road. That's not going to solve the problem. We have more traffic because you keep building all over. Half corners is ridiculous. You just keep building. You don't stop. There's no empty space now. You're going to fill it all in with buildings. All those people drive and they go buy my house every day. I can count over 100 cars in five minutes. Anytime of day. Even at night they're going buy. Surprising, you know? So I don't want to see 58 condos go in there. Number one, I think it's going to ruin that property. The value of the property. But it increases traffic. It increases the bad air quality because of all that traffic. It doesn't leave any open space to enjoy that view of the mountains or for the wildlife. I don't want to see those condos built. There's too many of them. And if they weren't built, then they could move those housing for the stack over and make nice houses for them so they can have something to be proud of. I wouldn't mind that. But I don't want to see the condoms. I think that's too much and it's just adding to a problem that we already had. But I was told the last time I knew they weren't going to start working on the widening of my road until 2024. By the time they get to that point, it's going to be worse than what it is now. There's back to back lines of traffic all times. It's not just certain times of the day. So you got to think about that. You're just making the problem worse. Thank you. Thank you for letting me bet. That's what we're here for. Okay. Okay. So I think, I think Jerry Conlon wanted to speak. Jerry, if you want to unmute yourself and if you just state your name and address again for the record. Okay. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So I live in one of the new states. And, you know, we have a small community here, seven units, mostly retired folks, some of them. And you know, it's kind of a big situation here. And, you know, we can't stop, you know, you live on the top of the wall. So, you know, we're going to say we can't stop, you know, we have eight units at this point. You know, there are two of them. One is being built. And then there's this thing. Okay. The staff recommendation is that a traffic study be required. The outcome of a traffic study? So there's findings in a traffic study. Dave Saladino, you're actually a traffic engineer. If you could weigh in here and talk a little bit about the briefly about the mechanics of a traffic study and some possible outcomes that come from a traffic study. Typically, the traffic will get a traffic flow in the year that the project gets built in five years in the future with those two scenarios. And part of the basis, and I guess to crawl out, one of the requirements of traffic study is to include all of the previously permitted or seen development of being considered permitted, those developments that you can maybe do with being included in an accurate process. So those concerns should be addressed in this way in this traffic study that you should accommodate the proposed, for example, from those recently permitted elements. Basically, you look at it, and there's just a left, a left, a left, a right. If you're out of the intersections that you're looking at, and based on how it's closing the level of service, then you may have recommendations based on how traffic flows at the center section. Presumably, it'll be at the drive place. At least the two-way. Okay, so we can rest assured that the traffic study will be done, the situation will be rectified. It may be that the costs, I mean, not the costs, to operate at the intersection would be a bunch of one-digit dollars. If it isn't, there are 45, and that basically is collecting more improvements at that intersection slowly. And if there are dollars that are collecting in a kitty or some huge improvements at the two-way and industrial level. And so most likely, if there's an accident that's developed at that intersection, they would have to pay into that pot for those huge improvements. Not necessarily the medium of traffic at the intersection. Okay, so let's start again. Is there, are we correct initially that something will have to be done? Now, if we understand the beginning, that between these 58 and the others down the road, not something will have to be done, please. I don't want to say that, but I don't think that. So I think what's important here is something that you said, Jerry, because I want to make sure that there's not any misunderstanding on this point. And so if there's a contribution of this development into a fund for an upgrade on an intersection, that upgrade may or may not happen. And it's indeterminate on if it does happen, when it would happen. And so there's not necessarily a tie to a permit being granted and an intersection being improved, even if that development is contributing to future improvements of an intersection. I would chime in too that that is solely at the discretion of AOT and has no bearing on what this board decides. Okay, so this project is going ahead really well. We've been seeing you back this afternoon. One of our trips to the seasonal traffic was across the street. Because you're saying if, you know, there's no guarantee that the day ends, that's not the case that I'm getting from this. Perfect, great. Something may or may not happen. And if it's not done, it's just too bad. No, that's not at all what we're saying. Yeah, that's not what we're saying. And to make a statement that we don't have any concern about traffic and impact is unfair and unjust on your part. So we're just being, we're straight shooters on this board, and we want to tell people, concerned citizens, what we can influence and what we can influence and how it works. And, but don't represent what we feel. Can I add, I'd like that one point and that is that Jerry, there are multiple levels of approval, approval on a project like this. This is one level. Agency of Transportation is going to weigh in on access. They're going to weigh in on, at a number of different, different levels. I am not an expert on this. This is, you know, I would again defer to Mr. Saladino. Act 250 is going to weigh in. Each has their own area of jurisdiction. And, and while there is a maybe a little overlap, the applicant is required to go and obtain all of these different levels of permitting in order to secure their, their, you know, their project approval. So it is, you know, obviously we're at the local level and we are, we are subject to, as the chair had said earlier, we're subject to the interpreting of the interpreting the rules within the Unified Bibles. So that, that's our role here on this board. We don't get to make up the rules. We just simply get to enforce. You're not, you're not, you're not the first. So you need to be out there and talking to your representatives. Thank you. So that would be the, the closest to and the attractive. I don't know what it is. I'm sitting in the room. I don't know what it is. Brian, could you give an approximate offset from the property line to the closest of the rectangular soccer field? Step back, please. Approximately 75 feet. Thank you. Okay. So you can, you can talk about what you envision at this stage. We don't require landscaping plans. There has been a proposal from staff in terms of. What. Sides of the property or our rec, the staff is recommending to. Comply with the bylaw. What do you envision there, Brian? We could propose some extra screening along the soccer field for the residents on Marion's way. Since we're more than a 50 foot type one existing vegetation buffer. I don't know if we'd be required to do anything per the bylaw, but we could do some informal planning. I think there'll also be a fairly decent grade difference between the condos and the soccer field. Once we level out that a sloping field. That will help also. Well, I think that's, yeah, I think that's. That's really the applicant has the right to. I guess. I don't think there's any interest in shifting uses around and. But I, but I did note and. And I think that Brian, you can expect to see. A, an added condition about. Intensified screening around the soccer field. I would say that if you go out there and look how far away the parking lot is, then the soccer field that aligns with the soccer field is going to be a property of distance from the property of the parking lot. So that's going to be a sustainable way of kind of a long understanding. So the west end of the parking lot will be parallel to the west end of the soccer field. Since the soccer field is currently in the CMC. But so that raised another question. I think it's a good question. I believe that was a good question. Yeah, that's a that's a very good question. That's a very good question. Do you have any comment on that? We haven't likely will be under the same guidance that it's under today. We haven't looked too far in the future of, you know, expanding the use outside of the church's use. I believe some youth. So it's expected similar usage to what it experiences today. Correct. Yep. So. Yes. Your comment is so noted. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Other public comments. If anyone has any other public comments, please raise your hand. Otherwise, I know that someone's got a hand up and is in the picture. Yeah, David Burke from. Okay. All right. I'm new. Mr. Burke, please. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Good to see you. observation mission. We really shouldn't be reckoning if you can do a track. It doesn't require that. And I think the police department is the most relevant person to comment on that. We talked about there is no restriction on what the police department says that the truth. You can use it. And yes, you can use it. It's not included. You can choose. But more importantly, it's not a second answer. It's a weakness to be concerned about. The entity is accepting us. This is one where it's here. This is what this one is. And as the intervention, the entity is not one of the next ways. So we need some requirements for this. So again, the conservation conditions are recommendation on that. The Chair, Panthers, the other person next to that is beyond the expertise of 90 and the right. You can't get a map view with a road. And that's the reason that there's only a lot of restriction. So, that's why it's important to have a map view of these. If you see the three when we try to pull the last line did not only give the record only a second. One of the more competitive months here in teachers is, you know, since that happens mostly in teacher housing, or maybe administrative instead of training teachers for each new teacher. So, it would be rather not a restriction on that. It seems is that this is being done because insurance is trying to, they're trying to gain funding. Please. And it's almost 50% of the most honest and not much almost almost one third of what can be proposed with with the density. So, if the church is needing to expand, once scenario can be 10 years down the road, 20 years down the road, this will close. This part will get 5,000 changes is 144 units or 160 units. So, I think this is a very responsible proposal. The soccer field, if you hold it, you have to try to get an access of. And it just doesn't work. It just doesn't work on most. You try to do a bunch of work, and you get something to work, but it's, uh. To work for recommendations were based at the back and what it's at work. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh, other public comments, not seeing anyone else raised hands. So, I guess this is the last opportunity. If you do want to make a comment, please raise your hand now. No, my hands. Okay. Last chance. Come on up. Sorry, that's okay. So, my name is light Leonard and I live at 1658 old stage road. And I'm not going to repeat everything that's been said this evening, but I think Mr. Fowler articulated very well the concerns that I have. Mountain view is becoming really tough and with all the development that's going to be happening within the next 2 years. I mean, I'm just concerned we're going to see red lights all the way down the road. So I just as Mr. Fowler suggested that I would ask that. You know, I appreciate that the d rb your function is to kind of uphold the rules that are developed by another committee. And yet I just I would like people to pause committees to pause and look at the impact that's having on this community. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Last call for comments public forum. I've been told, told by the state. That they were going to do that widening of the road till about 2024, but they're already working on that section down on route 2 on the other side of industrial Avenue and they wouldn't give me an answer. This past summer when I did a telephone conference with them about what they were going to do, because they sent me maps just like this showing where my road, where my property wasn't everything. But they wouldn't give me an answer if they were going to do the industrial lab, the new mountain view route to a intersection that before they do my section. So that may be something that you somebody wants to look into. They wouldn't say when what section was going to be done first, because they've already done the part down way below river code by the bridge, you know, as extension, right. But see, they've already made some plans. They are for one thing they're planning on making two lanes come up industrial lab. Turning on going towards Essex. Now, when we were arguing about it when we had the meeting that you know, there's no way they're going to be able to do that. Can you imagine two tractor trailers coming up around the corner. They're changing the whole that whole intersection. So that's already been planned. So this is going to change it all over again. If we keep building more houses up in that area, it's going to change it even more and they're not going to have to, they're not going to change it again, probably, or they may, you know, they may, but we don't know because they originally did plan to do a round about it at one point. And then they changed their mind about that too. So I just thought I'd let you know what I've heard. Okay. And I've been trying to keep track of, you know, all the little pieces that involve my property. Thank you. That's still in the works. And I can't picture them building those condos on the church property in the soccer field because that's always flooded every time it rains because the water on that property goes down. If you look at the church that's up higher than the rest. I can't figure out how they can build those condos. If you drive by, you can see it. Thank you. It's a wet area. No question. Okay. Other public comments. I'm sorry. Not saying any hands. Nobody here. Okay. Okay. DRP members. Last chance for questions for the applicant. Okay. Okay. Hearing none. I have 906. We're going to close DP 22-01 and 906. I don't think you're going anywhere, Brian. Are you? I don't think so. Okay. Okay. 906. We are going to open. DP 22-02. Which is the three lot subdivision east of the. Of the property that we were. We're talking about in the previous application. And with that, I'll turn it over to Melinda. Thank you. Thank you. Trinity about this church requests pre application review for a proposed three lot residential subdivision. On an 8.7 acre parcel to create two new dwelling units located at 425 Mountain View Road. In the agricultural rural residential zoning district. Properties currently developed with a mobile home. So we recommend the proposed project to proceed to growth management. With recommendations drafted. This is the first time the DRP is reviewing this request. Prior approvals. Include in 1988. Subdivision. 8808 was approved creating this parcel from. 155. Shaker parcel. Okay. Melinda, before you continue. Do you, do you folks have a safe plan? You, you, you know, you know, we're looking at, okay. Okay. Continue please. That's another one right here. Okay. If anybody wants another one, there is one sitting right here as well. Okay. The conservation commission reviewed this project. And their main recommendation. Was that a single habitat disturbance assessment be completed. Encompassing both. DP 20201 and the current project. DP 20202. As I discussed in the previous. Staff. So there. This is in the ARZD residential uses are allowed. There is a dimensional standard. Minimum lot size. For. Subdivisions that are not open space subdivisions for. So a subdivision on on a parcel that's less than 10 and a half acres. There's a minimum lot size of 1.8484 acres. Which needs to be met. The budget for that. Lot sizes on the pre app. Do not currently meet that standard and we need to be adjusted. And then the parcel is less than 10 and a half acres. So it's not considered an open space development and it's not required to set aside open space. The existing and proposed lots will be served by on site wastewater prior to issuance of a permit to build a new dwelling. Clearing existing forest or woodland for a home site, including the yard and space occupied by any accessory structure, must be limited to a half acre, doesn't include access driveways, utility lines, or areas cleared for the underground components of on-site wastewater systems. Where possible homes and accessory buildings shall be effectively screened from view for public ways by existing vegetation or the terrain. Growth management review follows pre-application review, all proposed residential subdivisions that have cleared pre-application review on or before December 31st of any year shall be subject to growth management review the following year, except as otherwise exempted. And to receive allocation of project must score minimum 30 points under the scoring criteria outlined under WDB 11.5 unless they're exempted. The proposed project is eligible for a minor subdivision exemption should the DRB choose to grant one because the parent parcel is less than 10 and a half acres and the applicant is requesting more than two units of allocation. The applicant should meet with staff to discuss growth management process and criteria for the application review. Criteria are listed and the project is located outside the sewer service area subject to the criteria of WDB 11.9. Access to the existing proposed lots will utilize existing curb cut along Mountain View Road and a shared private driveway. WDB 13.2 encourages the use of shared driveway. WDB 13.5.1 limits the maximum number of dwelling served by a private driveway to five. Design standards are outlined in 13.26 and the applicant should be aware the Department of Public Works and Fire Department have their own requirements and staff encourages the applicant to coordinate with these departments during planning and permitting. Proposed project is estimated to generate 3 p.m. peak hour trips daily. In a pre-application the DRB can request a traffic study. Staff is not recommending a traffic study for this project. Sidewalks are not required in the ARZD due to the low density of development permitted in the zoning district. The application paths and permit trails may be required as shown in the town plan. However, there are no desired permit trails shown on the property in the town plan. The applicant has not proposed a public rail easement as part of this project. The existing house served by on-site wastewater and municipal water. The applicant proposes on-site wastewater and municipal water for the two new lots. Since municipal water was previously extended onto the subject parcel in the ARZD, it's considered legal non-conforming and could continue to serve the parcel. The Department of Public Works would decide whether municipal water can serve the newly created lots and connection fees may apply. The site plan submitted for discretionary permit must show all public and private utilities and all utilities must be underground. For residential density in Williston is calculated on dwelling unit equivalent per acre basis. The applicant is proposing three total dwelling unit equivalents in the form of three units for two or more bedrooms. The applicant has done a constraints analysis, subtracting steep slopes and wetlands from the overall acreage and calculated that the parcel could support three dwelling units and three dwelling units are proposed. For landscaping, WDB Table 23A establishes requirements for landscape offers. According to use of the proposed development and adjoining uses, the proposed use is a non-open space residential development. The adjoining uses to the east, west and south are other residential subdivisions. To the north is open space, agricultural. And to the south, the parcel has about 60 feet of frontage on Mountain View Road. The northern and western sides of the subject parcel have forested vegetation sufficient to serve as a landscape buffer. The existing vegetation may need to be supplemented with additional plantings directly west of the existing mobile home, where the existing forested vegetation is thin or elsewhere on the existing, the existing vegetation is thinned to the point where it no longer serves as an effective visual barrier. Staff is recommending a type 3 or type 4 landscape buffer along the western side of the existing driveway and along the eastern boundary extending north to the existing forest. WDB 23.3 and 3686 allow the DRB considerable discretion in determining minimum width and what type of landscape buffer will be appropriate in a particular context. The subject parcel has only about 60 feet of frontage along Mountain View Road just enough to the driveway, so street trees are not applicable. The subject parcel is within a significant wildlife habitat area. WDB 27.5.7 requires that a habitat disturbance assessment be prepared and submitted with a discretionary permit application. And again, the Conservation Commission is recommending that it be done in conjunction with DP 2201. The Conservation Commission also recommends that forest clearing is to be limited to the greatest extent possible and that a designated building envelope of half acre or less be established for each proposed lot. Building envelopes should be located as far to the east as possible to avoid impacts to the significant wildlife habitat area. The proposed development is not anticipated to disturb greater than two acres of land or land within the Watership Protection Buffer or any area of steep slopes. Thus, projects considered low risk development and at discretionary permit must be submitted. The completed runoff and erosion control checklist will be required. There are map class 2 wetlands on the subject parcel. And WDB 29.941 states requirement for a 50 foot buffer around the delineated boundary of all class 2 wetlands. A wetland delineation must be submitted with an application for discretionary permit. School recreation and transportation impact fees may be assessed in administrative permit provided under WDB chapters 43, 44, 45. Thank you. Okay, thank you Melinda. Brian, any comments on staff report? Nope, we have read the recommendations and we don't have any issues with them. Okay. Any members? Comments, please. Let's start with Paul Christensen. David, you proposed to the other two building sites. We have not done on-site test pits for septic, but we definitely will before you with a discretionary permit. Okay, John Hemmelgarten. What is that wetland certification on this site? We expect the wetlands to be located on the northern end of the site. We have not had a formal delineation done at this point, but it will be done before discretionary. Is it just a slight increase in the amount of questions that you're assuming during the density calculation that might restrict the number of all humans here? Correct. If we're significantly more than two and a half, then yes, we'll lose the unit of density. Yeah. Right, yep, yep. Okay, thank you. Scott Riley also. Dave Saladino. I just have a question on the geriatrics. Is it the intention to go just east of the existing driveway and the existing simple and clean home? Yeah, likely to follow the existing driveway that hurts a few hundred feet and then feel off to serve the other two lots. Okay, great. Okay. The driveway seems to end at the 5.08 acre lot segment. I don't think the firing turnaround that's needed in there. Just a general look at that. That's a T. Yeah, there's a T, so we'll do the engine turnaround to escalate there. They need one for that small thing? Just to know. And at 5.08 acre lot, how much of the trees can act like that? No, so the building envelope has to be reduced down to half acre and the conservation commission requested that we try and impact as little trees as possible. The existing septic system I show in the back of the parcel is that little open space. We may have to clear some trees. There's a little pocket of a soils to the east of there in order to get a septic system in there. But we're trying to limit clearing to the furthest extent possible. Okay. Okay. Any public comments? If you're on Zoom, raise your hand. If you're here and want to speak to this application, please come forward to the table, please. I'm not seeing any raised hands on Zoom. Okay. Okay. Last call for questions on 2202. Okay. I've got 921. I'm going to close DP 22 dash 0 to Brian. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Next up is an appeal of a certificate of compliance. It's a P P 21 dash 01. It's for a property owner Keith and Jessica, Jessica. And it's Keith and Jessica present. Okay. So just you, Keith. Okay. And you're 1505 old stage. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Melinda, you go first. Okay. This is an appeal of the zoning administrator's issuance of the certificate of compliance. CC 22 online or four bedroom dwelling located at 1505 old stage road owned by Keith and Jessica failing. The single household dwelling is permitted under AP 21 dash 01 to zero and DP 1808 per year. You may be denied your permission for the application. The application is approved by the D.R.B. The D.R.B. must hold a public hearing following the hearing. The D.R.B. may uphold, modify or overturn the decision of the administrator. In every case, the D.R. B shall adopt written findings and conclusions supporting its action. The D.R. B's decision on an appeal can be appealed to the Vermont environmental court. provided by 24 VSA 4471. I have attached a number of exhibits I've provided in your packet and uploaded to the website. The materials you received in your packet were included comment letters that we received at time of mail out. We did receive a couple more comment letters after the mail out and those were uploaded to the website and I believe those that that submitted them will speak to them tonight. And I'm sorry and the comment letters received included a comment letter from Keith Bailen, a comment letter from Marcia Urie and a comment letter from Liz Neald. So for findings of fact, the single household dwelling on lot three of DP 1808 is located at 1505 Old Stage Road in the agricultural and rural residential zoning district. Residential isn't allowed use in the ARZD. The 2.79 acre parcel was created under DP 1808. The DRB reviewed DP 1808 and approved it for five unit subdivision in 2019 and the administrator approved AP 21.0120 in November of 2020. The administrator issued a certificate, a temporary certificate of compliance for 1505 Old Stage Road contingent and the temporary certificate was contingent on the completion of the landscaping buffer and expired on October 12th, 2021. On October 13th of 2021, the administrator issued certificate of compliance 2209 for 1505 Old Stage Road and then on October 26th, Marcia Urie, Georgian Jenkins and John Lentine filed an appeal of CC 2209. So the administrator approved AP 21.0120 on November 20th, 2020. The following conditions were added on page four of the permit approved for two-story single home, four bedrooms, and all conditions of approval for DP 1808 apply. On June 12th, 2021, the planning office received a complaint about clearing the front yard of 1505 Old Stage Road. The zoning administrator subsequently informed the owner Keith Valen about the requirement for a landscape buffer along the road in southern boundary. Mr. Valen informed the zoning administrator that he was in the process of removing invasive buckthorn and leaving native trees. The administrator responded that if the remaining trees did not effectively screen the property, then the existing vegetation would have to be supplemented by plantings. I included the correspondence, all of the email correspondence in your packets, and it was also uploaded online. On July 30th, 2021, zoning administrator conducted a site visit at 1505 Old Stage Road and issued the following recommendations to Mr. Valen. The vegetated buffer is an appropriate width of at least 50 feet. The remaining vegetation I observed in the buffer is mostly hardwood trees with little foliage for the first 10 to 15 feet in height. This makes the house visible in a way that is not effectively visually buffered from Old Stage Road to effectively buffer or soften the view of the house. The vegetated buffer needs to be supplemented with some landscaping stock between the remaining trees. Species used for this need to have the potential to grow to 12 to 15 feet in height to fill the space created by removing the buckthorn. And then he goes on to landscape stock used to supplement the buffer can be normal retail size and does not have to perform buffer function upon installation but should form an effective buffer and maturity in a few years. There are a number of good species that could work here evergreen and deciduous. Want to avoid the prohibited species. Arborvite deciduous shrubs such as dogwoods would be effective. Finally, he states, I took a picture at 1543 Old Stage subject to similar buffering requirements. I noted that the buffer on that site while thicker than on your site does not render the home invisible. If you're looking for an example of effective buffering, though, it's my opinion that what's at 1543 represents an effective buffer under the bylaw definition. The administrator issued temporary certificate of compliance 2203 for 1505 Old Stage Road, which stated expires on October 12th, 2021. All improvements required by permits listed must be completed by that date, including but not limited to front yard landscaping buffer. Mr. Phalen submitted a revised landscaping plan following the zoning administrator's recommendations. The zoning administrator stated a final certificate would be issued after the landscaping was planted in conformance with the revised plan. And then he stated, you know, if you planted what was on the plan, you submit it with your request for certificate. I would issue the permanent certificate based on you fulfilling that plan and understand professional oversight, species and location on the plan may change as long as in my estimation, those changes provide same level screening at maturity is what you've already submitted. I'll prove a certificate based on that. Happy to review what you came up with ahead of time. Let you know. Administrator conducted a final inspection on October 12th, 2021 and issued certificate of compliance CC 2209 on October 13th, 2021. Photos taken during the inspection were in your packet and are online. A notice of appeal and statement from the appellants was submitted on October 26th, 2021. This was included in the packet and summarized as follows. The majority of the existing vegetation within the 50 foot designated buffer area was removed during the construction of the home. See videos. A revised landscape plan was developed to replace some of the vegetation that was removed. This appeal is being made on the basis of the approved landscaping plan and subsequent plantings not meeting the definition of the type one existing vegetation buffer. So the issuance of certificate of compliance 2209 is being appealed on the grounds development is not in compliance with trial law. In following respects, revised landscape plan isn't scaled, doesn't show the depth or length of depth of 50 foot buffer on the east side and the south side of the lot. The actual locations of the plantings along the 400 foot road frontage do not provide adequate density for a visual barrier. Landscape plan does not include photographic documentation of the buffer's effectiveness as required by the bylaw. The proposed supplemental new plantings are not of sufficient height or density to provide an effective visual buffer. The bylaw stipulates this type of buffer must be relatively wide to sustain its habitat value to function as a woodland or forest that needs only minimal maintenance. As the revised landscape plan is written, the area in the 50 foot buffer can be mowed at the end of the year or not and keep cutting out tree saplings and it directs to limb up to remove dead branches and weeding growth on existing trees. This type of maintenance does not adhere to the intent of the regulation that calls for sustained staining woodland or forest habitat value. Keith and Jessica Phalen submitted a comment letter dated November 12th, 2021. Summarizes follows sort of response to the appellants. The 50 foot existing vegetation landscape buffer was previously infested with invasive buckthorn. The Phalen's wanted to remove buckthorn to restore the buffer to a native woodland. The most effective method for that using herbicide is to remove the entire root system requiring mechanical excavation equipment. About 30 mature trees were retained on the south side of the driveway and 10 trees on the north side. Removal of buckthorn is allowed. Sunlight and airflow native plants are beginning to thrive. With maintenance in time, the area will return to native woodland to help speed up the restoration process. Phalen's planted trees and shrubs in consultation with landscape designer. Landscape plan makes reference to mowing. Phalen's clarified this refers to the drainage ditch along the road only. They have no intention of treating landscape buffer like lawn. Phalen's field, they have complied with zoning bylaw. The DRV does not agree. They request guidance on how to bring the site into compliance. So the bylaw requires the certificate of compliance be issued upon the completion inspection acceptance of required improvements. DP 1808 condition number four states no occupancy or use of any proposed building shall take place until a certificate of compliance has been issued signifying all conditions of any required permits from the town have been satisfied. A landscape buffer is a required condition of approval for DP 1808 condition of approval six states any landscaping including street trees shall be in compliance with standards of WDB chapters 23 and 26 and the Wellston's public work standard specifications. And these landscaping details shall be included in the landscaping plan submitted as part of final plans. And the DP 1808 landscaping plan is shown below. The approved landscape buffer for this for the subdivision is a 50 foot wide type one existing vegetation buffer defined as follows. Landscape buffer composed primarily of existing woodland or forest that must be of sufficient height and density to provide an effective visual buffer. Where this type of buffer is proposed, the landscaping plan shall include photographic documentation of the buffer's effectiveness. The landscaping plan shall also propose supplemental new plantings where the existing vegetation is too thin to be an effective visual buffer. This type of buffer must be relatively wide to sustain its habitat value and to function as a woodland or forest that needs only minimal maintenance. Other types of buffers may be narrower but are assumed to require regular maintenance. WDB 32.2.2 states existing vegetation that can effectively serve landscaping functions listed in the introduction of this chapter shall be retained to the extent possible while accommodating the permitted level of development. An application for a permit may be rejected solely on the ground that it fails to retain existing vegetation where that vegetation can fulfill the functions listed in the introduction of this chapter. Staff has provided documentation of the existing vegetation prior to development via Google Street Views which are also online and were attached to packets. And the appellants provided a video showing most of the existing vegetation was removed during construction, making the existing vegetation too thin to provide an effective buffer. This is what necessitated a revised landscaping plan showing the supplemental plantings required by WDB 23.3.2.2. Staff has provided photos taken during the final inspection. DRB will need to determine if this revised plan as implemented satisfies the requirements of WDB 23. A call out box in WDB 23.3 discusses the DRB's discretion in determining the type of buffer required for particular context. DRB discretion, context simply means surroundings. Determining what type of landscape buffer will be appropriate in a particular context is an important exercise of discretion for the DRB with the advice of the advisory boards. The DRB and the advisory boards also have a discretion to determine whether or not a berm and or screening fence that are needed in landscape buffer, etc. Staff notes that berms and fences are not required for buffering similar uses. Staff has provided attached photos taken from old-stage road of adjoining nearby properties to provide context, notably nearby residential developments are visible from the road. One of the appellants Liz Neal also provided some photos from viewing also from old-stage road. So let's see. A legal comment letters have already been noted. Legal opinion has not been obtained as part of this review. Lastly, comment from staff. The appellants have challenged the issuance of CC-2209 on the basis that the development is not compliant with the bylaw. While Mr. Phelan did remove existing vegetation that could have served as an effective visual barrier, he sought and followed the advice of the zoning administrator to remedy landscaping buffer deficiencies through supplemental planning according to the requirements of WDB-23233. The DRB will need to determine whether the landscaping specified in the revised plan meets the requirements under WDB-23233 and making this determination. Staff recommends the DRB consider the context of the surrounding neighborhood. So there are conclusions of law and proposed motions according to which way you decide to go. You can either uphold the zoning administrator's decision. You can modify the zoning administrator's decision or you can overturn the zoning administrator's decision. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The appellants who is here? Is Marsha? You're here. Okay, if you would please go to the applicant table. Okay. George Ann, are you here? If you would also join Marsha and John, are you here? Okay. If the three of you would please go to the applicant table, please. I should have asked you to do that when it started, but I don't think it has any impact the joints lately out of sequence. Okay. So there's been a fairly comprehensive staff report which provides lots of background. So Marsha first, if you would give your address please for the record. Marsha, you're a 1694 old-stage road. Thank you. George Ann, please. I live George Ann Jenkins and I live at 1694 old-stage road. Thank you, John. John Luntini and I live at 1543 old-stage road. Thank you. Okay. So staff has provided a comprehensive overview. This is, we've had an opportunity to read your, read your appeal. And this is an opportunity for you to fill in any missing pieces that you feel would be helpful for the DRB as we review this and render a decision. So the stage is yours. Yes, I'd like to touch that piece. He said don't touch that. Don't touch that. You can talk. Okay. Okay, the staff has submitted, compiled, documented our long standing concern with Mr. Phelan's removal of the natural vegetation. Visual barrier 1505 old-stage road. He was issued a temporary certificate of occupancy with the stipulation that a satisfactory landscape plan be submitted and implemented by October 15th, 2021, before a permanent certificate be issued. The town administration decided on October 13th, I believe, that this requirement had been fulfilled. I totally disagree that what was proposed and what has been planted will ever provide the required natural vegetation visual barrier. As we presented in the request for action, the density and size of the plantings must be significantly increased. We have presented suggestions as to size and spacing. There must be plantings throughout the total width of 50 feet, not just adjacent to the road. This is a very wet area. The plantings must be water tolerant. When I doubt that many of the currently planted little shrubs will survive. And mowing must not be allowed. Simon, can you get that picture up? I ask you to look at the picture safe in the past couple weeks of the frontage of 1505 Old Stage Road. I want the DRB to determine that the requirement of a natural vegetation barrier 50 foot wide is not present and will not be achieved by the current plantings and plant. Pictures of other homes on the street are totally irrelevant, redressing only the requirements of the deed to this lot. And as you said earlier, it is the DRB's job to enforce such requirements. So I believe you should revoke the permanent certificate of occupancy, require a revised landscape plan drawn to scale and with pictures by January 15th of next year to be approved and implemented by May 15th, 2022. And the permanent certificate of occupancy should not be issued until the plantings have established the required visual barrier, perhaps maybe by May 2024. Thank you. Okay. George Ann Jenkins, 1694 Old Stage Road. First of all, I really do thank you for the opportunity to be able to be here and present about this issue. I have felt very strongly since moving to Vermont that we are in a growth period. You are, the DRB is reviewing as we sat through tonight and we talked about boundaries and natural habitats. And it's been my impression that though we put things on paper and we require them, when it comes time to the actual being, the actual presentation, the rules and regulations seem to be changed or put aside. The staff has requested the DRB in making your determination tonight that you consider the context of the surrounding properties. Well, the DRB put the rule and regulation for the 50-foot barrier around the perimeter of that parcel that was originally the handy, I don't know the numbers, but that handy parcel, you required the level of boundary barrier around the perimeter. Well, now here we have an instance where the natural vegetation vegetation was removed. It wasn't necessary because of the level of development as required by the permit. It was removed because the homeowner wanted to get rid of the buckthorn. Now, I don't disagree with that or but basically your requirement says that you can remove the existing vegetation in a natural barrier if it has an effect on the permitted level of development. And that wasn't the case. So if in June the administrator had said, no, you have to cease and desist. Don't remove any more of the natural vegetation. We'd have a whole half of this property that was still the way it looked originally. So now here you are. You have to decide whether a piece of paper and a plan will in fact restore this to a natural barrier. In fact, you're looking two years out. Are these trees going to grow? Are they going to grow to a level of satisfaction? It seems as though the administrator thinks it will in maybe two years. But you're not going to come back and look at this piece of property and say, oh, we were wrong or we were right. So I'm recommending that you go back to an occupancy level that would allow you to look for a permanent occupancy two years from now. Thank you. John Lantini, 1543 again. I probably have had the most interaction with Marsha with his owning administrator. Trying to call out, there was some question in the north side, which is a smaller area, which is depicted in your handout. When it first started, I had come down and met with his owning inspector and I said, you know, there's some clearing going on here. I'm not sure that will conform to a visual barrier and everything. And basically, you know, his owning inspector at that time says, I don't have the time to babysit every project. And I said, I'm just making you aware of it. In correspondence, back with Mr. Failor in emails, he states, okay, the north side, you know, is in conformity or whatever, but don't do anymore. I was late for some reason. I don't know what the connection was. He was told that it'd be okay to clear. I'm a little bit confused at that and that's the front part of the house now. So in that, I have another meeting here with Marsha and we try to get some understanding of really what's going on because we just, you know, we shouldn't be here right now. This really is an issue between the town and a permitted building, you know, to make sure that they can fall. To your regulations that you guys have on the books, which I think is pretty clear, a visual barrier, visual barrier in my mind is growth in the trees. In that meeting that we had downstairs, the zoning inspector looked at me and says, John, I can see Liz's house looking down the driveway and I just shook my head. I'm like, we're not here to see where you can see a house. We're talking about clearing a total frontage of a property and I might have, since then, I've now transplanted, I've purchased, I've planted back, just so that I don't have to hear that again from the zoning administrator over 25 trees come up and see what it looks like. You're all welcome to. I get frustrated with the town when we try to be good and try to point out things that might help them to prevent this whole evening and it really fell on deaf ears. You know, we're not trying to be unnably. We're just trying to say these are the regulations, you know, and it's between the town and Mr. Fale and to say, okay, we have to do, you know, what is regulated, what you approved, and we're here tonight. I'm hearing all about the prior to the prior applicant and barrier, visual barriers. I'm over there shaking my head. What, I'd love somebody on the DIB to write me back and explain what a visual barrier is. Is it just tall trees that you can see right through or is it a barrier that you can't see beyond because you need to modify your regulations? Because it has no meaning if this is allowed, if you can look at that picture. The other thing I took offense to was the zoning office taking pictures going up whole stage of our property and all the other properties that are about relevant to this situation. They're showing you every ad house doesn't have a visual barrier. It wasn't imposed on them to have a visual barrier. Why was all of these pictures sent to you of houses on the street? Is it to convey or maybe sway your thoughts? Anybody else? It's fine. Anybody else is like that. That's not the issue. They didn't have to abide by the regulation. I'm confused at what's going on in the town and luckily in some of the meetings of Medwood Melinda we've got good answers on how to properly proceed which luckily that was clearer for us. I don't know what else to say that we're not trying to be enabling. We're just trying to ask the town to do what they're supposed to get paid for. That's not frustration so. Anything else? DRB members, questions please. Let me start with Paul. Paul anything? The stop is not. It's not. Native, invasive and universal, people might want to eliminate signs and why their elimination was a little more aggressive than most people would expect but I'm going to be dating out whole rows between them. John Hemmelgarn. Was the bot board removed from that slide? No, I don't think so. Ask Mr. Fahler. He's on the line. Where are you going with this John? I'm just trying to find out whether there's whether the public feels that there's a havoc over on the side of the clock just along the entire point along the road. We're contesting the front. The frontage of old stage road. Anything else John? Just a couple of comments that we'll be talking about later, I'm sure. The submitted landscaping plan does seem like it's not the scale of not being shown to what extent it is extending along the front of the road. I think there's definitely confusion amongst all parties to definitions as the development group stated screening versus buffering versus barriers. What I'm not aware of is that the 55 natural buffer that is approved is typically whatever is existing at the bottom. So we all know that that and assignment is there. I don't know what that means. My point being that the offer is not necessarily full screen, I think. And I think there are some expectations that depending on what's at the beginning, there will be some fillet to see through what's behind it. So I think that the requirement is not necessarily to completely hide what is beyond. So these are all things I'm going to be considering if we have an operation. Okay, thank you John. Could I speak to the sign language please? Sure. Sorry. So you know that was my original point and I think one of the pictures that the appellants provided was the original. What the original looked like and then what it looked like for the rest of the frontage on Old State Road. And I think that what I stated in the beginning was that the what all of that was removed for the reason of buckthorn. But that actually by definition is not part of the one of the reasons why you can remove the existing vegetation. You can remove the existing vegetation if it if it hinders the permitted level of development. Maybe we need to add in in we need to add the buckthorn thing. But yeah so so the bylaw chapter 23 does say that you can you know it doesn't because you have a landscape buffer it doesn't preclude maintenance or thinning of that buffer it's just you know in this case it was spinned you know aggressively so it needed to be supplemented. My question is to Paul I think the other person before this one where he said he had to clear a lot when he's clearing is he taking out good trees because I think he was sent a video and again when I had stopped down to see the zoning inspector to come up and look at pilot debris I think he would have saw that there were some verges some maple I think the video may depict that. But again this is the non you know I guess reaction from the town not knowing what was taken to to basically feel that it was all buckthorn I think is kind of misleading or a little bit skewed you know in this and this is something maybe the DIB or the zoning board is going to take out when you say you want to eradicate the buckthorn does that mean where the roots are and any other roots everything leaves because that's what happened to you. Good good trees left and they shouldn't have. Now we're faced with this is going to grow. So that's that's all I'm going to say I mean if there was more action interaction between Mr. Phelan and the zoning inspector to come up and saw the pile that was sitting there you would have then maybe said well there's a lot of good stuff in here then we have to figure out how do you put back really what was taken out. It's not a clear cut case that everything that was removed there was all buckthorn because it wasn't. Mr. Riley. No more son. Okay. Mr. Saladino. Yeah that was a cheap question about often we have been side-cutting to a whole market. I guess I'm pretty likely the administrator's decision that we are. Is it the issue of the issue of the preliminary certificate or does it need to be from the final certificate of loss. It's it's the issuance of the final certificate. Right. Is the issuance of the final certificate of compliance. Okay. And that I think again this ownership of the time I thought what was that? It's the final certificate of loss. October 13th. So on the issue that was clear just missing the education with the fancy plan in place so what were being asked is does this plan need does it need to be required and it was this issue isn't just trying to make multiple multi-stage questions? I think I think Dave will be able to sort that out and deliberations. I think we'll be able to do that. I do have a question for Keith Bailin. I assume you're still on. If you would address please the question about taking out trees that were beyond the limits of the Buckthorn root system that's what the appellants are are representing and what what do you have to say to that accusation? Sure. Yeah. So the method that we approach the top set of the roof of Buckthorn is trying to get as much of the business that it is intertwined with that whole and it's wrapping around the trees is wrapping around this. So we try to pull out as much as we can and yet for the end you can see in the video today attached you know the excavator does not swing. The excavator does not have everything over but they would be very careful about getting in the spots to be able to do that. And so once out of the directness of 30 mature trees the other side of the we really try not to pull anything up. So a question for you. When it became apparent that the Buckthorn needed to be removed that it was very prevalent in that buffer did it ever cross your mind to call up the zoning administrator and have a meeting out on site before the mass removal of the Buckthorn? Yeah. Yeah. So you can see from the email chain that was submitted so we clear the sense using the smaller section and then you know the station was started and then pulled that same thing out of the works which was a much larger space and then you can see the email was really as the font was that as long as you know there were many trees left and then we allowed the next row back that we should be. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the DRB? Any comments from the public on this topic? Matt has his hand. I'm sorry, Matt. I'm sorry. Who does? Matt. Matt, if you would unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record please. Thank you. Sure. Captain Longer is the owning administrator of the town of Williston, 7900 Willis Road and I just wanted to speak to note my offensive of this hearing is to answer the questions that the DRB has for me related to the actions that took in this matter. I did not participate in the preparation of staff for this project and I will not be participating in any deliberations of the DRB regarding this appeal of the decision I made. So that's all I just wanted to make sure. I got it. Okay. Thank you, Matt. Okay. Would you like to come up? Name and address please. So my name is Liz Neal and I live at 1543 Old Stage. So some of the what I really want to talk about is that, you know, the material that was presented by the staff strikes me that we've gotten to this place where it's neighbor against neighbor because the lack of direction oversight and follow-through of the town. Like we spoke about Mr. Veiling just cleaning out the buckthorn but the video show that it's a lot more than buckthorn and also the initial clearing was done on the north side of the driveway and it was brought to the town's attention by a complaint. The town proceeded to communicate conflicting recommendations to Veiling's about what to do on the south side of the driveway. Initially they said leave it alone and we will and let us come out and see the buckthorn and we'll talk about it and then that same day Mr. Veiling indicated that he was going to he'd like to clear that while he had the excavator out there within the next week and so that same day the zoning administrator said okay go ahead you can do the same thing. So just the conflicting information saying don't clear it wait let's meet and then clear it I think really makes it confusing for Mr. Veiling and the neighbors around. Additionally the provisions are the recommendations that the zoning administrator gave in regards to how to restore the property. Talking about a certain size trees 12 to 15 feet but the actual the actual plan that was approved only had plantings that would grow 10 feet at the most and there were only 12 plantings to be planted amongst that 350 foot section. So again conflicting information approving a plan that doesn't meet the requirements that our recommendations that were spelled out so that again is just it's confusing to Mr. Veiling he's the geese he's doing the right thing and then do every to everyone else saying well that that's not really meaning what the zoning administrator saying. So I guess what we really would like to see is the town to follow its follow and enforce its own regulations they've set for and not to send out these conflicting messages to the to people who are trying to do the right thing. What is the width of the lot of the frontage? It's 354 feet. Now what is that you want to confirm the format? Melinda? Yeah okay yeah it looks about. 354. Yeah and out of that out of that 354 feet approximately how much has been cleared? All of it. All of it except you know. So one of the pictures I'm looking at like and one of the pictures I see it appears like on the right hand side it's still a little wooded. That's my property. That's your property okay. Just I count there's 13. There's 12 plantings that they've on 354 feet. So we can talk about that in deliberation. Yeah. So the of the 12 plantings three of those are trees that will grow above the 12 feet that was recommended. The others are shrubs that only grow to 10 feet. And the other thing I wanted to speak to was the part I wrote a letter in after I read the report where I guess the in the staff report there's the con you know you can decide based on the context and and I think you guys have spoken to that it's irrelevant but if that is a consideration of yours the pictures that were taken were were up driveways and it was of of three of the houses that you know didn't have the requirement for the buffers and it didn't and I submitted some pictures that were on the other side of the road just if you are considering context and those houses are partially screened and that's the majority of the houses on that road are. So I didn't feel like the pictures in the staff report were representative of what's on that road. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional comments? My name is wife Leonard. I live at 1658 bold stage. I'm basically net store to the Uries and across the street from the property we're talking about. For me I guess I was here in 2019 and to object about both houses. We didn't want either house on the road and yet left this meeting feeling better because I had heard yeah there was going to be a barrier. No not a fence not something that totally blocks the view of the house but something that certainly is more natural and you know you talked about wildlife issues with other projects. This was a deer run so there are no deer because now it's an open lawn and you know we have we have quail those are gone that hit last year. So my concern is when you look at the front of this property it is all cleared but but corn and everything else all trees and small bushes have been planted that are now sitting in standing water. Yes we've had a lot of water but because the vegetation has been removed there's nothing to absorb so it's they're sitting in water they're not going to live and the trees that are remaining of which there may be 12 that are between the road and the house have been delimped so that you have a clear view of the house. So yeah there are a few trees there but but there's nothing breaking the view to the house. So I do think it's unfortunate that it has created a tension in our neighborhood which is unfortunate for the Falons because we are a friendly community and but I do feel like if the DRB you guys are the enforcers of those the planning commission rules and there's a there's there's an expectation that there's a barrier here and that that's not being followed so that's my concern especially when I hear it you know being brought up with other projects as well. If we don't adhere to those why are they bothering you know why are they there? Thanks. Thank you and I thank you for you're all volunteers and this is not a fun job and it's 10 o'clock so sometimes it's fun. Any other public comments? Not seeing any oh Keith Bayland has raised his hand. Okay so Keith if you'd like to talk about meeting yourself. Sure and I'm not sure what to do now but so just a few things so the landscape plan so we drew that out from the length of the area. It's not the whole scale it doesn't show all the other vegetation. So again there's 30 trees on the balance. There's 10 trees full size trees to the right side. So we are keeping up new plants to the bow of the area. People have a landscape order except for once a year they need to be blackened out so the drainage is much. And so we know to remove the bug guard and now we're going to allow the natives to see if they can grow up. We're not going to continue to have to have them and love them so encourage them to have little patience for the nature to allow us to restore to the native vegetation that we all are. Also they've gone about keeping them. The context there is that a lot more goes into the long-term 15-week level that fills all the rinses of the native so it took all the rinses and I didn't have anything else to talk about. We just needed to give the nature a little bit of patience to come back and then you can see on the right side there's a bunch of native sedatives that are already growing and we'll take them back. It's just a little bit of time. Just maybe four months for growing them. Can't even hear you. So yeah we have the six doggoes above the ground. On the right of the ground we have spanded loaves on the land. We have loolos that are going to form a barrier for the land. So those are going to grow up to be five to 15-foot heads. That covers that entire section. So yeah, there are a lot of nations that this is going to grow back. Okay thank you Keith. Any other public comments? There's no other hands raised. Any last words from the appellants? I guess this night didn't have to happen unfortunately where I think some of them are able to get confused talking to Keith, saying that Tom's okay with everything and yet having meetings right after with the zoning inspector and his exact words where I didn't tell. I didn't say that. We were left with why is this all continuing and that's why we're here tonight. That's why we're all here past 10 o'clock. I'd rather be one of my two dogs be honest with you but you know hopefully we can come to an agreement. Thank you. Any last words from the DRB? All right it's 10-18. I'm going to close APP 21-01. Thank you all for coming. Thank you. May I just ask what the procedure is now? So we are if you just hold on one second. We're going to now go into the deliberative session at 19 and we'll come out after deliberations with our decisions. So what happens next is that we go into a private session. It's called the deliberative session and we're going to be talking about as a board all three topics that were on the agenda tonight. So the two church property applications and then this appeal and we will come out of deliberations back into a public forum and we will in essence announce our decision on each of the three. We'll also approve the minutes of the previous meeting and that'll conclude tonight's business. So your choice if you want to wait out in the hallway for us to deliberate and then come back you're welcome to do that. It's the post-deliberative session as a public session or you can depart and you can call staff in the morning and they will brief you on the outcome. It's your decision. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. The DRB is out of deliberative session. We are going to meet and continue our deliberation on the topics that we heard tonight. We are going to meet on November 30th. We will read into the record our decisions at the next formal DRB meeting which is December 14th. The only order of business left that we're going to do is to approve the meeting minutes of November 9th, 2021. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Sure. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Their motion to approve the minutes is their second. Okay. Paul seconds it. Is there any further discussion? Yes. There was one thing. I know a while back when we were here, we were instructed to give reasons why we're using ourselves as a meeting. I think the minutes should reflect those reasons. I agree. Okay. What specific page, John, is that? Oh, gosh. Well, the last meeting you both got, I'm confused. I don't know if it's the hearings. So, John, you recused yourself for the DP 20-18, okay. Right. We have page two. That would be on page two, right? I go run out when I refuse to stop. Okay. So noted. Simon, you got that? Yep. Okay. Page eight. Okay. Okay. And so, Scott, you're going to be because you have a financial interest in the project? That's correct. Okay. Okay. So, there's good catch, John. So, there's a friendly amendment. Do you accept that? Yes, I do. Okay. Paul, do you still second? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or discussion? Okay. We'll do a roll call. Please indicate yay or nay for approval of the minutes, please. Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. Saladino? Yay. Chair is a yay. Motion carries five in favor. None opposed. Is there a motion to adjourn? I'll make the motion. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Happy Thanksgiving. Amen. And appreciate it.