 this is a hybrid meeting taking place in the Wilson Town Hall, virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and public can communicate in real time. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to January 22nd, 2024, although it doesn't appear anybody is participating by Zoom. So Zoom could crash and we will continue in this case unless somebody joins. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members participating tonight. Nate Andrews. He is not here. Paul Christensen is not present. Lisa Brayden Harder. Present. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Turner. Here. John Hemmelgarn is not present. The chair is present. We have four, which is the minimum required for a forum so we can proceed. Okay. First up is the public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone participating in the audience tonight to address the board on topics not on tonight's agenda. So this is the portion where you can address us on topics that are not warrant. Is there anyone interested in addressing the board? Hearing none. We'll segue into the public hearing. Tonight we've got four items on the agenda. First up is DP24-11, which is a pre-app for an 81,000 square foot commercial mini-storage facility on Shine Plague. Would the applicant come in fourth, please? Patrick and Nick, would you please state your name and address for the record, please? Yes. Patrick O'Brien, 193 Industrial Avenue, Williston. Nick Smith, 193 Industrial Avenue, Williston, Vermont. Great. Welcome gentlemen. Staff goes first. Now that's me. Okay. So this is a request for pre-application review at 269 Shumpipe Load in the ICDW, also known as Lot 5 of the Robes subdivision. The lot is currently undeveloped. How's that? Unusual shape you see in that grey blob there, surrounded by the what we call the conservation land and a flagpole reaching down Shumpipe Road. The applicant is proposing an 81,000 square foot mini-storage facility in Driveway. There are no on-site staff. Instead, customers gain access with the self-service kiosk entrance and or card reader and is proposed to secure the site with a fence and the slope of the land. So staff is recommending approval. The DRB should just discuss a couple of issues, landscaping and the bike bed lane, and amend the recommendations accordingly. The DRB may recall that about a year ago, they reviewed a pre-app on this parcel for about 50,000 square feet of commercial industrial buildings. That development did not proceed. We did get one comment letter from a butter, the UVM Medical Centre. The applicant did actually follow up direct. It will be a butter to iron out the minor issues raised and we did include that correspondence for your packet and it's online as well. So we anticipate compliance with the dimensional standards of the bylaw. So the likes of the by-limit, the road setback and the minimum lock frontage. Moving on to access and connectivity. There was a traffic study completed for the Robare subdivision back in 2019-2020 which estimated 39 peak trips associated with this lot. These mini storage facilities are very low. PM peak trip generators. So we're not recommending a traffic study at this stage because it's extremely unlikely that they're going to exceed that or in fact generate any significant trips. The applicant's proposing to build their very short segment of the multi-use path along Shun Pike Road that's gradually taking shape down there and then lastly, I'm not going to see from that image, this is a very long driveway about 450 feet from the curb to the Shun Pike Road, sorry from the entrance to Shun Pike Road. Last time around the DRB did recommend some sort of designated lane for pedestrian and bicyclers use. It's obviously a different proposal. One that generates fewer trips so that might be worth just seeing whether that's something the DRB wants to reapply or can dispense. In terms of parking, we do anticipate compliance with the standards. You've got a lot of discretion on setting parking requirements for industrial uses and the two car parking spaces they're proposing in line with what we've sort of been approving on similar things elsewhere and then just also as a minor point, we're sort of recommending you waive the bike parking requirements for this application based on the fact that most people will probably be transporting stuff so won't be on their bike. I guess we could ask for a cargo bike parking but it's not in our bylaw. So in terms of maintenance, again we do anticipate compliance. What I pointed out earlier, the applicant has corresponded with the neighbour at UVM Health and is proposing a minor tweak at discretionary permits just to resolve their concerns about snow storage. So I'll be picking that up when they submit for discretionary. Probably the main thing just for the DRB to think about is the landscape buffer to the adjoining property. So you can see the residential property to the south or the lower part of that driveway there. We do require between industrial and residential use is sort of a minimum 23 feet wide. That would be a type 2 dense planting. The applicant can reduce that by 25 cent by including a fence of at least five and three-quarter feet in height which gets them down to just over 17 which will fit within there. We are recommending both those just to screen the residential property from sort of noise and headlights. One thing to note is that they do have equal sort of width on either side. So they're 18 foot to the top side, the west side of the driveway. So the applicant might want to consider just shifting that over a little bit more breathing space between the traffic and the neighbour and also enable them to get some of their infrastructure in there on the bottom side of the road. Turning to the remaining buffers, generally speaking you've got a 13 foot with UVM which is acceptable. There's a couple of minor pinch points where the buffer is less than what's stipulated in the table of 36 feet. It's noted that there is a lot of vegetation here with the conserver lot and they're well outside the watershed protection buffers. So that might be something that we just want to grant a little bit of flexibility on a discretionary permit that it's really minor. It's sort of a at closest to about 28 feet against a 36 foot requirement. Recommending they provide a street tree probably just adjusting the landscaping closest to the street and forward in line with the other street trees along Robert. And then lastly on outdoor lighting they are posing security lighting for the units. These are all motion activated which is great. The discretionary permit just does set out that we'd like to know how the timers work and whether they're controlled by some sort of central software. And then lastly just another point, the bylaws for security lighting do set a limit of average illumination of one and a half foot candles at 1.8 so just bringing that down into compliance with that. So that's it. What follows is a recommendation to approve the syndraft recommendations for the DRB then. Okay thank you Simon. Can you display please that access road and the landscape buffer please? Yep. Great. Nick I'm going to put you on the spot. Let's do it. Describe what you're planning to do there please. We're planning to shift the driveway away from the residential parcel there. So originally we just we had set the road on the center anticipating for the utilities. This was kind of part of an initial design. We left it there and we wanted to make sure that the DRB was in agreement with us that because of the property to the west being a similar use that we could shift that, minimize that buffer, expand on the residential one. So it sounds like we're all in agreement. I think we're all aligned on that. Now describe what you envision for planting along the east side of that road. Yeah I think first off we've already internally adjusted this. It leaves a lot more of the existing vegetation number one which is nice. We still anticipate having the same buffer type that we're showing which is a pretty intense buffer type with the trees and the undergrowth and all that. And then if the DRB is making a recommendation on fencing between still being implemented between the residential I don't think we have a problem with that necessarily. Okay. Great. Do you have anything else to supplement staff's report? You know I would just maybe bring up the multi-use path, well actually not the multi-use path, the bike lane. I think we're providing 24 feet of pavement width. It's a lot of width for two vehicles, bikes you know I think it's sufficient generally. So we would ask that and we also don't perceive very many bikes using this facility. So we would ask for a waiver or to exclude the requirement there for that. You know again the same with the long-term, short-term bike parking. We appreciate that comment by the staff. I think we would also request maybe minor variation from the landscape buffer around the facility since you know as Simon pointed out this is totally encompassed by class 2 wetlands. So a pretty high priority one as well for the state so there won't be any development within that as a condition actually of the wetland permit with the Roebert subdivision. So and then as far as the outdoor lighting goes I think we're already kind of taking a look and we want to scale back on some of the lighting anyway. We looked at other facilities in the area. We're probably providing double the lighting that most facilities do so although it is you know going to be timer or motion sensor combination I think we can still scale it back quite a bit and be sufficient. So I think really that kind of addresses most everything at our end. Okay. ERP members questions? The only question I have is is traffic going to be both two way flows or both roads going to the back section or is one side going to be one way in and one way out? There won't be a connection to the in and out. Yes Scott staff mentioned that you worked out the differences with the hospital. I didn't see that in the back. It is online but just via email you might see it but but generally I'll just run through it really quick. Yeah they were a little slightly concerned about security. I read their letter. Yeah so we just kind of provided what we think we're going to have maintenance staff or security staff that just comes through once a day at least because we want to minimize anything that's not within a unit as well. You know we're providing fencing around the majority of the facility. The other areas really are inaccessible and then as far as the snow you know storm water we satisfied their comment there pretty easily and the snow storage was the big one that they had a hang up on and it really came down to we just said maybe we can add a catch basin capture anything that could possibly for some reason be trapped between our property line and their property and it could make its way there but we're like three or four feet of elevation below so I really don't foresee that anyway but you know how snow banks, snow storage can kind of get wonky sometimes so. Okay yeah all right. Okay good. Any other questions? Members members of the public any questions? ERB members any last thoughts, questions? Okay we're going to close DP 24-11 and 715 thank you. Thank you. All right next up is DP 24-12 Wayne Merrill and Company. This is a subdivision of a four acre parcel on James Brown Drive. Monab. Good evening. If you'd state your name and address for the record please. Ethan Merrill and 137 James Brown Drive. Brian Currier, a Larry Berksville Associates, 13 corporate drive. All right welcome. Next. Hi I'm here again. So this is a request for pre-application review at 137 James Brown Drive in the Gateway Zoning District North. The parcel is currently developed with an auction house parking lot and some storage containers which you can see there. The applicant is proposing a three lot subdivision with enough information to sort of review the site plan at pre-app stage for lot two. So just briefly what will become lot one will contain the existing warehouse on a smaller lot as well as a new access to James Brown Drive shared with lot two. Lot two will contain a warehouse with its own parking and also an access road leading onto lot one and then lot three will be a sort of blank slate. At present there's no detailed proposals for that lot which will have its own access. If it's subsequently taken forward as its own lot it would need to go through both pre-app and discretionary review. So staff is recommending approval of the pre-app with recommendations. The DRB should discuss parking noise and landscaping to help finalize the recommendations for the applicant. We did receive two comment letters at the time of mail out which were included in the packet both from people on Shirley Circle raised concern over the lack of detail on proposals for lot three, any additional noise and disturbance in the warehouse activity on the existing property potential impact on trees and the visual impact. We do anticipate compliance with the dimensional standards of the bylaw. No outdoor storage is shown for the warehouse. One thing is that the existing auction house was its current site plan is somewhat dated and it doesn't have any outdoor storage areas shown. That is non-conforming. You need to show that on the site plan so you're probably well aware that DRB can correct non-conformities where they're reasonably proportionate to the scale of the element and we are recommending that the applicant can delineate those storage areas at discretionary permit just to make sure they're outside of any setbacks or buffers. Speaking of non-conforming because it is quite old it's non-conforming in several areas. These are discussed in more detail in the relevant sections of the report and we are recommending a few corrections for the DRB to consider turning to the administrative aspects or the bureaucracy. This is sort of one free app that covers the subdivision and the site plan for lot two. We're recommending that it takes is take forward three separate discretionary permits. One to cover the subdivision of the parent parcel and for the new driveway in lot one and any non-conformities that the DRB wants to correct. One discretionary permit for lot two warehouse and then three application review for any proposals for lot three once the applicants figured out what they would like to do there. Rehearsal access is taken directly to James Brown Drive which is compliant for each lot. WDV 13.3 does require development by safe access for bikes and pedestrians to at least one entrance. So the shared access drive does serve two parcels and we're recommending that a sidewalk be provided down the front of the warehouse building to link it to James Brown Drive. That sort of ties in with the historic and design advisory committee's recommendation and also our own recommendation on a sidewalk along James Brown Drive. So that green line there going down the front of the warehouse shows the sort of session and bike access. We're not recommending a traffic study as the auction houses existing and warehouses generate few trips. Lot three given the uses allowed in this area there's GZD N. It's pretty unlikely to be a bike trip generator but the DRB would have the opportunity to revisit that if they wanted. Parking. The existing auction house is going to be left with 35 spaces. That's pretty unique use so a discretionary permit which is recommending that the applicant confirmed that that is suitable and whether any shared parking is necessary on auction days with the warehouse. The applicants are also proposing 33 spaces a lot too. As I mentioned earlier the DRB does have a lot of discretion in setting parking standards for industrial uses using one per thousand square feet as the starting point. So I think it might be helpful if maybe the applicant just elaborate on how we got to that parking provision. The DRB might want to decide that you know either it's acceptable maybe it should be reduced or maybe they could use one of the measures set out in WDB 14.2.4. I realise in preparing today that a solar canopy is probably not going to fly in the Velco easement but EV charging stations might workable. So just one for the DRB to have a small discussion on there. Destruction and parking lot circulation. This again ties back to the green line we were recommending down the front of the building. We're anticipating compliance with the bicycle and parking and entry facilities. The new warehouse on lot two should include or should be fully compliant. The auction house probably has none of those because it was developed before these standards were in place. My suggestion for the DRB was to provide a short-term bike parking space but as there's no major additional change of use for the auction house. Sort of going inside that building to deliver long-term parking or an end of trip might not be reasonable. On-site infrastructure. The Department of Public Works has identified that the force main connection wouldn't be acceptable to them so that's something they have to think about. They might need to investigate connecting to the pump station which I think is located about two parcels north of them and is in private ownership. Something that's come up with the DRB a couple of times before is the you may recall it's the Sally's Way development on Mountain View Road. The applicant had to negotiate with Meadow Run HRA to get connections to their pump station so the applicant's in a similar situation there. The sidewalks might remember that blue line across the front of it. So the DRB Preston certainly recently and going back further has been to acquire this on on existing roads so we are recommending that that be provided at discretionary permit for each lot to provide pedestrian access along James Brown Drive. In terms of compatibility and potential nuisances this is something that's been raised by some of the residents on the adjoining properties on Shirley Way. So the bylaws do have nuisance provisions. It probably should be said at the outset that the use proposed by the applicant warehousing isn't allowed use in the zoning district albeit it does abut a residential zoning district. In terms of air quality the bylaws do control dust generation both during and after construction and uses that generate smoke. Our own bylaws don't regulate emissions from vehicular traffic and the applicant's not proposing any uses that would generate smoke or dust. In terms of noise Williston has a noise ordinance that deals with existing development. That said it is open for the DRB to examine noise on new development. The bylaw sets a sound limit measured at the property line of the receiving district which in this case would be the RZD of 60 decibels during the day and 50 decibels at night. The not too partial is some distance from the closest residential boundary and that would be one for the DRB to discuss with the applicant what sort of noise impacts could occur and they might feel that it's either appropriate to request a full noise study or simply identify noise contours on the site. In the end we are in the design review district. It was reviewed by the HDAC as they're now known. They changed their name to Historic Design Advisory Committee recently so they've made some recommendations for the applicant to incorporate. It was really just a site plan so those recommendations are pretty limited at this stage but just you know avoiding dead walls creating a sort of direct connection and ensuring the landscape parking lot is landscaped and then building a strong street line. And then lastly on landscape buffers. Part of the reason we do require this is to separate different uses so our bylaws do specify different widths and types of buffer which depend on the two uses that the existing use and the proposed use. One thing is that the bylaws do allow existing vegetation which can serve a screening function to be retained. Generally this is most commonly used out in the rural area where we have type one landscape buffers which is basically just existing buffer. You can use it in other situations and determining what type of landscape buffer is appropriate is an important exercise for the DR. So lot one is an existing use. It doesn't have any landscape buffers marked on its site plan. They do have some outside storage there which we're recommending is brought under a site plan. We're also recommending that they show some landscape buffers. So I think lot two given it's under the Velcro easement I think and it's separating two parcels in the same ownership. I think it doesn't seem a great deal of point of landscaping that. Lot three can be the applicant's choice. They're showing a 50 foot type one buffer but that obviously does take a lot of space and I think it might necessitate quite a lot of planting to bring it up to that standard. So they might want to think about reducing the width slightly and going for a different type of buffer would also give them more developer area that they could give to lot three. And then lastly Shirley Circle which is sort of the residential property you can see south of their parcel. It's sort of also wrapped around to the west. They do benefit from a pretty dense green of trees along that boundary. So my suggestion was that it's broadly compliant with the type two buffer and the type two buffer is a dense screening. So a line of dense trees supplemented with additional planting when necessary. So my suggestion was to delineate that on a on the site plan for lot one. Look to see where it needs to be supplemented where necessary and take that forward as a type two buffer while protecting those existing trees. The applicant might also want to talk about what screening can be achieved in the Velcro easement along that property line. And on recent applications a lot of applicants have done pretty well when they go direct to their neighbors about things like that. So that might be worth something exploring there to develop a sort of relationship. And then lastly sort of fairly standard recommendations on street trees along James Brown Drive. What should help helpful lighting and signs. So then what is a recommendation to proceed with recommendations as drafted. Great. Thanks Simon. All right. Ethan and Brian walk us through the project if you would please. Yeah. So it's Simon described it's a three lot subdivision. A lot one is the remaining auction house lot two we're proposing a small warehouse building on and lot three relieving is undeveloped right now. Some of the talking points that staff brought up. Municipal sewer. We understand that the pump station on Park Avenue is privately held. We do believe we may have right as the force main does go through a property. The Merrill's may have maintained a right to connect way back when that force main went in. Obviously something will research more as we get into a subdivision plot. But we are aware that's private. Our backup plan is a non-site septic system as the auction house and the warehouse are both very low users for for septic capacity. That may be a backup plan if a reasonable solution with the HOA can't be reached. But we are aware of that constraint. The parking that's associated with the warehouse building on lot two we're showing 33 spaces. This building is not meant to be a spec building. There is an owner in mind that we have been talking to. They're not ready for their name to be mentioned yet. But we will sharpen a pencil on the exact amount of parking that they feel is necessary when we come back for discretionary. So we know as a you know fairly basic layout parking on one side the building on the other we are likely over park for your standard warehouse building. So Brian stop there for a second. So I understand they don't want to the owner that you're working with doesn't want to be shared but I think it's important appropriate to tell the boarding you know what the building is going to look like in terms of truck access, loading docks, turning radiuses as opposed to I mean if that's what it's going to look like right here great. So currently we're not showing over any overhead doors so we're not showing any truck docks. So you don't anticipate that they will be in the final plan is that another way to am I interpreting that correctly? At this point in time they haven't mentioned that to be a necessity. Okay. When we come back for discretionary there will be a full site plan application showing exactly those needs but we expect the layout to generally be as we're showing in a sketch. And so you said no overhead doors? As of right now we're not showing any overhead doors correct? Okay. So is that a prospect a business that's active in the weekends? No the reason I asked that is because of shared parking arrangement. There was an active auction and it was the auctions are on weekends typically is that correct? Not traditionally anymore no. Oh they're not? Okay. No we're generally midweek and with all the online activity our parking demands have decreased substantially. Okay. And so you don't anticipate that unless it's a unique situation you don't anticipate that you would exceed the number of spaces shown on lot one? It would probably be a unique scenario yeah. Okay. Okay. We're just showing the extent of the gravel area that's there now. We're not going anything additional. And what's there? Okay. Yeah. Okay. Oh that's helpful. Yeah I think the over parking was mostly about lot two. Yeah yeah I just was wondering if there was an active auction. What would happen? Because because I have seen active. Yeah okay. And then landscaping buffers staff suggestions we're okay with there's nothing major. We're currently showing a 13-foot landscaping buffer in the rear of the property likely the most important one given the residential component there is the benefit of a mature hedge that's already there. So the 26 feet would be inclusive of that hedge. We likely would need to add to the eastern side of that hedge to really screen more for lot two though there is a grade change pretty substantial grave change from the back of the habitat for humanity parcel and then there's approximately 10 feet across a lot two in the front there so we'll be cutting an additional five feet in the back. So the grade will hide a lot two fairly substantially but there is a little bit of a gap between the edge of the hedge and the southeastern property line of a lot one so we'd be amenable to increasing that that buffer over there. Anything associated with lot three we'd like to defer obviously until lot three gets developed right now it's just a undeveloped lots. I'm realizing that you're restricted on what you can say the potential occupant of the lot two warehouse can you make a statement relative to noise generation? Minimal. Anything else to add at this point? The last piece of it is the sidewalk proposed along James Brown Drive. Yep. It seems heavy-handed given the application in front of you those sorts of things are up to DRB discretion as you're well aware of there's no sidewalk in this end of town James Brown Drive River Cove the only pedestrian facility is really Route 2A being 700 feet it just seems heavy-handed now we're more than happy to paint a fog line give a easement for a future sidewalk but given the proposal in front of you we feel 700 feet is quite a substantial sidewalk the one that's also shown on lot two is an additional 100 feet approximately there is like I was mentioning before there's there's an about 11 foot grade change on lot two so once we kind of even that grayed out the only way to make a connection likely would be through stairs so I don't think that that connection is is really in line with with what's being proposed due to the gray changes I think a staircase there is again heavy-handed for the very minimal pedestrian bicycle activity that's expected in this industrial okay anything else nope ERP members quite well so now that you mentioned that the warehouse is going to be the separate thing I was was the outdoor storage in your facility still going to remain there that you're using yeah I mean I I assume so depending on what you guys have to say I've had the outdoor stories there for are the trailers yeah they're just roll-offs trailers and roll-offs yeah I think I think staff has asked us to designate them so in the future if they expand past this footprint that was a mechanism yeah I just need just needs to be identified on the plan where they would be yep that's because they're allowed of course yeah that answer your question yeah yeah okay I was just making the assumption that if it was their warehouse they might be moving those over there actually by no the other comment she'll care that yeah anything else no that's it for now Lisa I'm just wondering would there be any walk-in walkers coming into this lot too business uh walking walk yeah walk-in no everyone would be arriving by by vehicle okay let's segue to members of the public there were a couple of letters received those are part of the public package and part of the public record does anyone tonight would anyone like to come forth and address the board if you would please come to the public table here and take a seat and state your name and address for the record place is this on okay hi my name is Elizabeth Blakemore I'm the owner of 86 Shirley Circle and I I'll keep this short because I did send an email so mostly I just would request that the board do as much as they can to to get more information on noise control or noise pollution in general I find it's already difficult to enjoy the outdoor space that I have today with the F-35 flying around and the additional warehouse activity so I am just slightly well not slightly I'm very concerned about additional noise pollution in that area in addition to the other things that I outlined in my email so I appreciate you give me the time to speak today thank you any other members of the public hello there my name is Nora winter I'm at 64 Shirley's Circle and I didn't write an email so I'll take as long as I want um so my first question is the two lots that are on the other side of lot one they seemed like they were I mean I walk by them every day and I work with the department of uh what like basically Vermont wetlands and those are wetlands clearly I saw I heard we had the 50 foot buffer was mentioned I believe wasn't at all on the previous application yeah yeah the 50 foot buffer that you have to respect if there are wetlands present on the property well there's different types of wetlands but right there's like there's classes of wetlands but I was like I wanted to make sure I heard that there was the but the buffer was addressed I mean that whole that the little like you know that that whole like difference and um elevation between the back lot of uh the habitat for Huyeti and the lot there is wetlands there's a river that runs through it that's why there's that's why there's a difference of elevation okay so so address the board if you would please and uh so staff would staff please give an overview of how um wetlands are treated and delineated in the process please uh so you are correct that a delineated wetland has a 50 foot buffer around it the way our bylaws work is that um where wetlands are suspected um either on our own maps or the maps uh maintained by the uh by the state uh the applicants required to go out and survey them to identify where they are and to sort of define the boundaries I understand I I'm a permit coordinator for a solar company and I I work with them quite frequently so yeah I do understand the process but I was wondering I just I well I know so what I'm basically saying is I know when wetlands are present and there's two parking lots going right on top of one of them I mean I've checked there's there's no indication on anything that I've checked that those wetlands are present okay so you are working with the what the wetlands could service it yeah we check the information that they have available yeah so you've checked the information that you've had available but you since so you've had have you had a delineation with some with the state have they gone to the property well we we don't suspect wetlands at this stage so we okay so my then my follow question is someone can um residents close by can we request a delineation are you well you wouldn't be able to request a delineation of us um if you have some evidence that there were wetlands there okay we could certainly take that on board okay um but we don't we don't have any evidence of this stage in the body do you haven't collected any you haven't had a delineation well no correct okay so that was my first thing and then so so hold on yeah okay while we uh it's kind of big positive Brian um you spent time in the site um what's you as a professional little civil engineer what's your assessment of uh wetland presence on that site we are not expecting any wetlands on site there are some cattails in the roadside ditch along james brown drive that would maybe be associated with a class three or non-jurisdictional wetland um any roadside ditches that are maintained by the town generally aren't protected um but those would be the only wetlands that I feel maybe the neighbors uh so what would you consider separating the two lots then from the from the law brief of the backs of habitat insanity well let me let me let me interrupt you for a second and say Brian what's your obligation as a um a certified civil engineer uh to uh report a possible wetlands yeah um and as part of your duties yeah to the client yeah so this is uh this is an an active 50 uh jurisdictional parcel interestingly there's just 250 jurisdictions the north into the south of this parcel but this parcel is in existence prior to most of james brown drive being constructed so um generally speaking uh when you apply for wetlands permit uh you check a box that essentially says whether or not there's map wetlands on the pros on the parcel there's all sorts of online uh information out there hydric soils um wetland advisory layers class two wetlands wetland projects there's all sorts of indicators of where wetlands may or may not be um this parcel did not show any of those uh indicators again I mentioned the roadside ditches that appear to have wetland plants in them but whether or not they rise to the level of a jurisdictional wet wetland is uh doubtful in my opinion okay thank you continue um also just um I think she also brought up a great some great points about you know having we want to make sure that there is um not only light pollution noise pollution and like she mentioned you know we already have quite a bit going on there um I also am just curious to know um I mean I guess this is not something to bring to the board but just like it's kind of worrying that you know we're we're new homeowners these are homes that we hope to have for a while and I just I'm wondering what a like you know we have a very kind of wonderful quiet kind of community right now of putting a giant warehouse what that might do to our home property values like I just maybe I'm new maybe I just like these are three questions that know that you can't answer but they're questions I want to ask um so one of the one of the guiding principles that we follow as a DRB is that um is that in the most simple form is that we don't make the rules and so there's um there's zoning and there's allowed uses on different parcels and this particular uh the the Merrill family who owns this parcel has rights just like you as homeowners have rights and there's rules of engagement and the rules of engagement are the bylaws and if they're um if they're conforming within the um the the the bylaw rules which include like pollution noise pollution uh to name a few and then there's safeguards in the permitting process on wetlands then um then they are they are compliant and that's that's an approved use if they are uh adhering to all those standards and so there's there's it really has to be property rights on both sides of the ledger right my final thing my final note would be about the sidewalk I mean I would just you know sure there's not a lot of traffic but that road is quite often used by residents who live right behind them myself included I walk that road with my dog every day so I mean I might be the worst thing if you're going to put a giant warehouse to put a sidewalk for the residents who live behind it especially since thank you thank you other members of the public would you like to address the board if so come up to the table okay uh hearing none uh DRP members any final thoughts or comments I'm just wondering how many people live back in this community how many units are there well how many butters did we send them let's ask the neighbors both either yeah Well, there's been two dozen births coming to the score out on April 4, so really not a lot of officers open up their four units, and then the other is kind of beyond our own. We need to lower the units. So I'm set by a family of like four. Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. And I'll come up with that. Got anything else? Okay. Let's call for members of the audience. Brian and Ethan, any last thoughts on it? No? No. Okay. So one thing I would add for the neighbors is that this is pre-application. So there's a bunch of different levels that this approval has to go through. It isn't a foregone conclusion, but the owner of the property has their rights and they are well-described. But this is the pre-application level of the approval process. You will be notified as the process works its way through the system, and you're obviously welcome to attend the meetings, express your opinions, and be engaged. And I would, you know, recommend that you do so. It is your home and you have a right to do so to do that. So be part of the process. You will get a better outcome. Okay. And we are, and we are, I don't, I don't want to come off as Cole to, you know, to commercial, putting residential properties. We're very sensitive to that. It's just that it's not really our place to make subjective, subjective rulings. And that doesn't mean that we're not sensitive to what you have brought forth. It's just, it's just not in our purview. With that, I will close DP24-12 at 752. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up, Alanbrook Development, discretionary permit for adding a dumpster enclosure. And welcome to Brian and Alan. Right, Nicole. Nicole, yes, I remember you, Nicole. And okay, if you would state your name and address for the record, please. Nicole Sennacle and 31 Commerce Ave in South Burlington. And I'm Al Sennacle with Alanbrook Development at 31 Commerce Ave in South Burlington. And Brian Burch, Alanbrook Development, 31 Commerce Ave. Thank you and welcome. Okay, staff goes next. Thank you. This is a request for a discretionary permit to install a new dumpster pad to serve a new commercial tenant at 100 Cornerstone Drive. Also known as Building A in the Taff Farm Shopping Center. Dollar Tree has received an administrative permit for the interior fit up of the former Walgreens space. This is a multi-tenant commercial property, a little over 13 acres located in the mixed use residential zoning district, as well as the Taff Corners form based code overlay district. Where it has its access from a town road, Talcott Road. So staff is recommending approval with conditions as drafted. I also know that there are two conditions for the DRB to consider. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing the request. This property was developed in the 1990s. It was a subdivision from 1990 that created the parcel. And then there was another subdivision proposed in 1996 that never went through. The Public Works and Fire Departments received this application for their review. Public Works had no comment. The Fire Department did have comments. They are listed as a condition noted with their limitations that the Fire Department's plan review policy is a policy, not an ordinance. So it can only be enforced to the extent that it complies with and can be enforced by the unified development bylaws. Fire code is handled through the separate state of Vermont Division of Fire Safety. One comment letter was received at the time of mail out. That's included in your packets. That letter was from a commercial tenant in the complex that's supportive of this application. No other comment letters were received up to this evening. So this property is in the form-based code overlay district where the regulating plan map identifies a 30-foot parking setback line. So new sites, new developments within this district, parking would have to be setback 30 feet roughly from the edge of the road right-of-way. In this case, Route 2 and Talcott Road. Where the dumpster enclosure is proposed is within the existing parking access area and it is outside of that parking setback line. The setbacks of the mixed-use residential zoning district do not comply or do not apply here. Those setbacks are a little bit larger, but they're superseded by form-based code. In terms of development pattern, so this is an existing commercial property with four commercial tenants. The building share two existing dumpster enclosures. And the layout means that some tenants must go farther than others to empty their trash and recycling. What's being proposed here is a dumpster enclosure that would serve Dollar Tree, the new commercial tenant. The bylaws do not limit the number of dumpster areas a site may have. And while the bylaw can require things like shared parking, it cannot require shared dumpster areas. The landowner by allowing one of its tenants to have its own convenient dumpster may create a scenario where future existing tenants want their own dumpsters. That would be located behind the building, but visible from Williston Road. So the way this site is developed, it's non-conforming with our current standards. We would want business entrances facing Tauket Road and Williston Road parking to the rear. It was developed under an older bylaw where the main entrances face the parking lot and not the street. So while adding this one enclosure is permissible, more would be in conflict with the intent of form-based code and the intent of Chapter 22 design standards where the goal is a strong direct relationship to the street and that dumpsters are kept away from business entrances. That's why I'm recommending a condition approval that no more dumpster areas will be committed between buildings A and B and Williston Road and Tauket Road. So those would be the most visible areas if they wanted to expand or add dumpster areas on the northern side of the property. That would be okay. The highly visible area, this would be the last one. In terms of the maintenance standards of Chapter 16 that apply to dumpster enclosures, compliance is anticipated. They considered a couple options before landing on this separate location. So our bylaw says that the preferred location is located within or in addition to the building. That's not preferable to the fire department. And also for this site, it would disrupt the pedestrian walkway that circulates the entire building. So that option was thrown out. In terms of landscape screening, they are proposing a six foot tall vinyl fence. And the location is away from pedestrian sidewalks even though it's visible, it's away from sidewalks. In terms of design review, this is located in the four base code district where Chapter 22 is mostly superseded. And that bylaw chapter only talks about keeping dumpsters away from principal entrances. Chapter 16 also refers to Chapter 23 for landscaping. So this is the second decision point for the DRB. You must decide if additional landscaping should be planted around the proposed dumpster enclosure. A dense evergreen hedge is typically required, but the DRB may permit an exemption where space constraints prevent it. So this dumpster enclosure is proposed near a sloping hill and three large evergreens shown in the image on the left. The hill is somewhat steep, but could probably accommodate a couple smaller shrubs. So the DRB must decide if additional plantings are desirable here. Lastly, in my staff report, I include some information about signage. More is an FYI than anything else. This property has had some chronic issues with the multi-tenant sandwich board signs. And what I described here is an option for the applicant if they wanted to modify or refresh their freestanding signs. Even though form-based code doesn't allow new freestanding signs, they're vested in that main, most two main sign. So if they wanted to change the design, allow tenants to use their own fonts and colors, add more changeable copy or banner space. As long as they're not expanding square footage of sign area, that would be permissible and would kind of help with the tenant messaging that is shown desirable here. Lastly, what follows are findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval, including conditions number 17 and 18. Thank you. Okay. So before questions, any comments on proposed conditions? We don't have too much to add. It's, you know, this request is pretty straightforward just for the one dumpster enclosure. Al and I met with Emily back in November to talk about this. And, you know, we looked at a few different locations, but this location worked best for a number of reasons. First being that Dollar Tree, who's going to be rent about two-thirds of that building 100. They're renting about 9,000 square feet as they're loading and unloading area on the side of the building that faces Williston Road. So their entrance is going to be off the parking lot in the middle and, you know, where they're going to be taking their trash out of the building will be on the side facing Williston Road. So this area where we proposed the dumpster works well for that because it's closer. And it also works well because the area is maybe 10 to 15 feet lower than Talcott and Williston Road. So it's going to be actually barely visible. In fact, Emily, I'm not sure if you're able to put up the letter I sent, the cover letter. It had a picture from a Google Earth that I think is helpful. It'll kind of help me explain this. It's on page two. Yep. So, you know, everybody has seen this view of building 100. Those three evergreens were either original or planted when Al built this project in the mid-90s. You know, now they are gigantic screening trees and they're at the top of the bank, you know, from where they're planted that starts to slope down. So that dumpster would be located behind those trees and 10 feet lower. You can see it kind of slopes back to the grade that is more level with the road as you move east and you're still like barely able to see the top of the parked cars. And you're actually looking at essentially the roof of the building from the road. And it's similar from Talcott as well. So, you know, the stumps are will be kind of in that corner, but you know, it's going to be enclosed with a vinyl fence and screened by those giant trees and definitely, you know, won't stand out. So I know you have to decide whether additional landscaping is required, but I think that picture shows that those trees are, you know, doing a pretty good job of screening in addition to the terrain and they will stay. Other than that, you know, it's a straightforward application. So certainly here to answer any questions. The only other thing I'd point out is we're able to locate this dumpster in an area where the kind of the traffic curves around the corner and that portion was just happened to be wider than it needed to be. And I think that was at one time a snow storage area. But we were able to fit this dumpster in that additional pavement while still providing room for cars to circulate the parking lot. And so we're really able to build this without expanding like the imper, anything impervious that's there. We're able to build this on the footprint of existing pavement. We will cut it up and put a new concrete pad, but you know, so we thought it worked well for that reason as you know, as well. That's pretty much it. We did have a couple of questions on some of the conditions, but I can jump to that unless you have questions before we do that. Go right to the conditions. Okay. Sure. So, I believe some of these may be potential boilerplate conditions that, you know, may apply to some projects, but not all projects and I'll kind of skip some of them because they really do not apply to this dumpster application. But number seven, I wanted clarification on And number said number seven says any required vehicular and bicycle parking shall be provided as required by chapter 14. And then it goes on to say a parking table describing the number of parking spaces, including vehicular and bicycle parking. And a calculation for how the proposed parking meets the requirements of chapter 14 shall be included on the final plans. Emily. Yeah, that's a boilerplate one. I struck some of them, but not all of them. Okay. We take that one out. Okay. That doesn't apply though. That's what I thought. I just wanted to wasn't sure if they were looking for bike parking because. No. Okay. That would be strong. Okay. That's easy enough. Let's see. I guess number 17. And we'll, I will kind of get else thoughts on this. We haven't had a chance to talk about it too much. I think, I think I understand it now. I wasn't sure about it. But yeah, so it says no other dumpsters will be permitted in the future. And it says between buildings A and B, but then it also goes on to say Williston road and talcott road. So I think that means I'm like, can you tell me what you mean meant by that? Which areas? Yeah, I meant, so here's, this is building A and this is building B. So this parking area south of the buildings between the buildings and Williston road. And then talcott this area, like the drive aisle between building A and talcott road. So those highly visible areas. Yep. I didn't contemplate like if anything were to happen between buildings A and B. Okay. Okay. I guess what I would say to that is, you know, this is a, this is the dumpster were applying for the one dumpster. I don't think we're applying for anything else. And, but you never know what the future can hold. And this condition certainly limits that to the for the future. So maybe I would request that just the words, unless approved by the DRB be added. So if you know there was a need in the future and it would require us coming back to the board and really explaining why it would be needed. But I think that's easy enough to do. We understand that, you know, the town doesn't want to see dumpsters in the, in the front of the along the road. But we just not sure, you know, what would happen in 20 years and we would never know that that that is redundant. Right. Because it's got to be approved by the DRB anyway. Yeah. And so, well, so if this condition the way it's worded, it sounds like it could never be allowed. I think that's what that was. Okay. The purpose. So, so we don't anticipate it ever being needed, but we didn't anticipate this one either. So you might see us back here in 20 years looking for some. I won't see that. So, you know, it's not something we're planning to do. But I think with some with that with that kind of additional wording that that condition can work for us. Other than that, no, we have really nothing else to add. Okay. Signage. Signage. You don't control your tenants. I get that. We try. But you do try. You know, it's it's it's unsightly there and it's highly visible. And so, so. So what part of it is unsightly? You think the whole sign. No, no, no. Sandwich boards. I agree with that. The sandwich boards. And we've noticed and we can do another notice where we say we're going to find them. We'll just, we'll just, we'll just collect them and take them and we'll tell them that Emily came to take them away. Flame it on V trans. I would, I would respectfully ask that you, you be proactive on that. Okay. I'm not, I'm not in a position to provide operational procedures for you, but please, you know, please be proactive with that. It's a, it's a, it's a highly visible area. I will notice them tomorrow. I have noticed them in the past. They will just pick them up. We'll take care. Okay. Thank you. And I know, I know on, you know, as cottonwood, you were very proactive when issues were raised. And, and thank, thank you for your attention to this one. Okay. We'll do that. Okay. DRP members questions. I guess just one clarification. Is this going to be newly paved area or take out a current. Nope. It's existing. Yeah. That area of the parking lot is just, it was bill wider than it needed to be. I believe because they used it as an area to store stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I don't know how to, you know, take the snow storage and, you know, move it to a new space, but it just happens to fit the dumpster dimensions that, that they needed perfectly. Okay. And you have a snow storage plan. Um, So storage will is stored in various areas on the site. I can certainly add it to the final plans. But it's pretty much at the. Yeah. Yeah. So there's still be area for snow to be stored there next to the dumpsters as well. But it's on both ends of the parking lot is where we store the snow on that side. And there's various other spots on site that we do still, you know, snow storage. Okay. And just out of curiosity, are you going to sock up the asphalt and put in a concrete pad? Yeah. Yep. That is the plan. Yeah. Okay. Nope. Good. Uh, members of the audience. Any questions? Uh, state your name and address for the record, please. All right. My name is Dr. Bill Shank and a 205 cornerstone drive. And a business and a business there. And I'll direct my questions to you, but I do have some questions for the address the board, please. Okay. Hi, Al. Hi, Nicole. And hi, Brian. Okay. Um, I have some questions. Can you bring back up the, uh, the, um, the Google Earth view, please. So there you go. Okay. Um, can I point in here? Absolutely. You can hide right up to the screen. Okay. The picture that was taken from the road was actually taken from the frost here. And because it's low in the road, you don't see anything on the other side of the road. The advantage is place to take a picture of them at night. Right. But if you arrive on this side, you actually can look down the whole bunch of parks. Okay. So this is the view that you can see. You can do it right now. I'm sure you were, um, under, under two. You can see there. Okay. You don't see anything coming up from the top of the road. So it's, it would be quite visible from both roads. Um. Yeah. Good. Thank you. Much appreciated. Yeah. It does not look, you know, I'm going to leave you with a quick minutes and turn to ask for, you know, obviously we're here with, with this car is, uh, bigger than I think it is. Um, we've all seen that and, um, the nature of them is that they can accumulate stuff. There's a dump, I mean the dump, the dump's there for 20 years. Can you go and ask for the Google view of New York? Yes. So where's the dumps located? It's on the. There's two of them right here. Right here, yeah. Has been, uh, after the last 20-plus years, there's been no need for second, no, the third answer on the day. The women left here is the new tenant would not create any more trash than the new ones. In fact, it's all in the box that we mentioned. And we've prepared some trash. So the need for a dumpster is a question because of the kind of the need for 20-plus years. And I can tell because I'm close by the other dumpsters, there's people who are going to rent in a trash dumpster. They dump it in there. Not hard to box. It's their trash and full of garbage. It's the garbage stains. And this is actually, and I can do it, actually, all we've done now is disappear. Now our words are closed. We look at our own people's crap, we end up with it in the same way. So people that I rely on have to buy dumpsters, but perhaps in the future, very lately, we get broken again into words and words and words and it would smell and there's some trash there because no one picks it up who wants to pick on the trash. I'll just say that that's not correct. He can address the need, but I can't address him. I won't say anything. So he will address the board and you will address the board. Yeah, yeah, that's a fair point. Okay, so if, do you want to continue it or do you want Mr. Smith? I just want to make a point. Or hold on. Sure. Or would you like Mr. Seneca to address the board on the topics that you've heard? Or would you like to wait until the end? What's your preference? I just want to say that we do spend ample hours picking up trash that tenants don't put in the dumpsters sometimes, but we do spend a lot of time taking care of that. And I think there's evidence right there that there's not a lot of trash laying around and I've seen a lot of trash laying around sometimes. And as soon as I see it, we again, ask the guys to pick it up and take care of it. It's very difficult and you can run out of men real easy, try to pick up somebody else's trash like that. But we do do a pretty good job taking care of that. And one more thing, this particular tenant has said they will not go in to the building if they can't get this approved. So I guess from my perspective, then I have to almost 10,000 feet vacant for how many years I don't know. And I don't think that that's great for the complex either. So it's not my request, but I have to cater to what that tenant wants or else I don't get that tenant and then the lights don't go on and the distances are still due. And then to me, the complex is, you know, not as lively. I'd like that. I'd like that. So hold on, hold on, hold on. Would the tenant, we figured out probably the case. There wouldn't be much reason to do this otherwise. Would the tenant accept a cardboard only or recycling only? I mean, the majority of what they're going to be developing has got to be recycled. 100% agreed, I've asked them and I think I even thought the request was much. But they said to me, we won't even get a lease going. We won't even get anything until you can tell me I can have trash recycling this close to my doors or else we're not even going to talk to you anymore. So I'm stuck. And this is, you know, for me, I have to keep these buildings rented or else we have a huge vacancy. I mean, almost 10,000 feet in one building and I don't know what else to do. So anyway. Okay, continue, please. A question, could it possibly be that this dumpster didn't get slot for me, the tenants that used the dumpster had access to it? That was then they'd reserved for likely to be wouldn't. By the way, I took a picture of this dumpster on Friday and the door was closed, there was no code to have it put in his trash on the east side. From the leg makers and friends and his truck trash there, or the tenants there as well. Oh, by the way, my name would take a letter from those tenants that probably used to deny it by. So I'm not sure we got them. We got a lot of letters bounced back. I think we sat down about 275. There was a big letter stuffing party at the office but many came back. The doctor can't send a letter, I'm sure he probably shouldn't have a letter too, but he's the same kind of one. So just letting you know that it just didn't look like that. By the way, there was a big suck on the wall. Now, they all meant to put this, you know, by the way, it's sort of by the tenants that we have by the dumpster that looks slightly, it's kind of stinking, it's going to be broken sooner or later. It's just a major dumpster. There's no way that they can guarantee that it won't look like that. Because that's the major dumpster that it has. It's some way to control it, or some way to protect the family of it and the insight into the factory. It's not like I said, I appreciate that. And now I'm supposed to see you with this one of our technical clients. Sure. Have you considered a covered building with garage doors? We thought about it because we thought about under the canopy of the building itself, but then that's going to require somebody getting out of the truck, rolling it out of the garage, and they're going to be six yard dumpsters is what they're requesting. So a little difficult to do that with that side. Go ahead, Brian. Oh, okay. Well, we have that. I mean, we met with staff and understand their concerns about dumpsters not looking like a dumpster. So we proposed this dumpster that's on the site plan that's completely a screened enclosure. It's a screened with a fence. The door is actually also a vinyl fence material. So it looks very different from the dumpster that was there and approved in the 1990s, which is just chain link with green slats. So in the color of the fence scene was chosen to match the building. So while it's not a building with a roof on it, it's an enclosure that looks like a structure. And the only other thing I'll add is the property overall is close to a little over like 71,000 square feet of commercial space. Those buildings for your office is, they're two, three story buildings. So we have a lot of different types of tenants in there, all ranges of tenants and the two dumpsters. And it has functioned for a long time, but one more will help alleviate the congestion on the two that are there. This one tenant who's leasing 9,000 square feet of space will now not be filling the two existing dumpsters. And I think that will help the other tenants, for all the problems you mentioned, trash falling outside of them, smells because now they'll have a good chunk of the entire property now using their own. And so the issues of keeping them maintained, that's on Al as the property owner. And we do maintain these. It'll certainly be easier to have that particular dumpster maintained because there's only one user for it. And when it gets messy or gets out of control or gets broken, we can request that they get it fixed or they pick up their trash because it's unsightly. So it'll be a lot easier to police that one than one that eight, 10, 12 tenants are dumping in. And like Dr. Bill said, we have policed it. I've personally gone in those dumpsters to rip open bags that I know people throw their trash in. And I've called them. I mean, I can tell you some pretty unbelievable names that I've called to say, hey, you're dumping your trash in my dumpsters. We do a lot of policing with it because it's a crazy situation, just short of putting them in a building. We do that at the senior housing. We have our trash room in the senior housing and then we transport it out of that trash room for to be dumped. So it's a little bit more cumbersome to do something like that. Obviously we've hired people to do that for the seniors and it's just more work. It's hard to do it for the commercial tenants that way. I think it'll be a lot easier to police a single user in a dumpster situation like that. I can, we've actually, I've had this conversation about people dumping their personal trash in there many years ago. And there's also the Vermont Seafood, I mean Seafood that's there. They would probably use the dumpster too? No, they wouldn't because this'll be strictly for that one tenant. Got it. So they could put a lock on it. They could put a lock on it. And like I said, it'll be very easy to police it if there's trash float around or things get broken. We can certainly go to them and have them fix it. Okay. The lock might be a good solution because if it's just one tenant using one dumpster it's easy for them to lock it when they're done whereas couldn't do that with the other two because so many different people are using it and you never know who's, it's hard to police because you never know who's the one over filling it on, it spills over. So whereas this will be much easier because we know who it is. And they're paying for it themselves. So they intend to lock it because they're gonna pay for whatever the removal is. And that won't be obviously by the camera or anything like that. So it should be easy to keep an eye on it. So I'll stay for the record. I want to see them be continually successful. And hopefully this is a tenant that actually is there for a long time that serves you. I want that to happen. We'll certainly take a phone call from you if you see something. We'll be happy to do that. Oh yeah, I want to pass to you at least. Yeah. Okay. I'll go to the board. I'll just note that our bylaw isn't as fine-grained enough for the DRB to condition a lock mechanism as part of their approval. So that can be something that. It is, it is not. It's outside of your purview. Our bylaw doesn't get as fine-grained as to tenant management of shared dumpsters and locking that sort of thing. So something that they're welcome to do on their own but it's not something the DRB can require. It does to sandwich boards, yeah. Oh yeah. We do have more say over sandwich boards than to sandwich. It does the trash. Okay. Thank you. Anything else? No, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Any other members of the audience who would like to address the board? The DRB members. I just have a question. Thank you. Now the house of the size of the dumpster won't be able to wheel them in and out of the unit. So the trucks are gonna be backing up too? No, they'll pull right in. They'll be front loader trucks. Front loader trucks, okay. Yep, yeah. They'll get out to open the gates and then they'll dump them, close the gates and leave. Right. So that, yeah, that location works perfect for that reason. Okay. Anything else? Nope, we're good. Okay. I'm gonna close DP24-13 at 8.26. Thank you. Thank you, Q. Have a good evening. Sweet. I'm here. However, should I or? Yeah, maybe you can be closer for the board. It'll be a better camera angle too. Stop is deal 24-02. Good evening. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Alex Goodrich. 11, 1021 South Road. Mary Saiful, 1021 South Road. Thank you. Okay, staff goes next. Melinda. Yeah. So this is a deal of the issuance of this notice of zoning violation. The subject property is at 12, the South Road. The notice of zoning violation was for RVU succeeding duration limits. And so as provided by the Williston bylaw and state statute, any decision of the administrator may be appealed to the DRV and the DRV hospital public hearing. The DRV may hold modified for over time the decision of the administrator. In every case, the DRV shall adopt written findings and conclusions supporting this act. And the DRV's decision on an appeal and the appeal to the Vermont Environmental Board. So the property that's the subject of this appeal located at 1250 South Road in the agricultural residential zoning district. There are two existing dwellings on the Saiful property that have assisted since the 1800s. There's been a bunch of permits issued on this property. The last one was issued in the early 1990s. The administrator's determination. The deputy zoning administrator determined that two zoning, well rather three zoning violations have occurred on the subject property. One recreational vehicle on the property has been inhabited for more than 17 consecutive days and or 28 cumulative days. Violation of WDB 20.15.2. Two a mobile home has been installed on the property without obtaining permit. Violation of WDB 4.0. Did you say that again? Excuse me. A mobile home has been installed on the property without obtaining permit. Violation of WDB 4.1.1 and WDB 2.6.3. And third, the mobile home is within the 50 foot front yard setbacks. The violation of WDB 31.3. The appellants have submitted a statement basically just saying that they placed the trailer on the concrete pad to work on not living and that they intend to apply and fill out correct paper work. No public comment letters were received by the time of fact mail-up on January 4th, 2023. We did receive a comment letter today which I have included or I've distributed to you and a legal opinion has not been requested. So dealing sort of discussing the first violation of the recreational vehicle. So per WDB 20.15.2, recreational vehicle may be used as gas quarters on a residential property for no more than 17 consecutive days and for no more than 28 days cumulatively during a calendar year. And that's under regulations of residential, correct? Right, correct. Recreational vehicles may be used as temporary living quarters for the resident household during the construction or remodeling of a dwelling, but that use must cease when a certificate of compliance is issued or the work is completed. Staff have received multiple weeks over the past several months about the RV and have observed an RV parked on the property within the front yard setback. And- When you say within the front yard setbacks, what are you stating there? How many feet? So 50 feet from the property line. So some email correspondence has indicated that the RV's been present on the property for longer than 17 days on it. And the RV's presumed to be occupied. Staff has- Are there any exemptions? Sorry, Melinda. No. There's no exemptions to that for agricultural. No. Okay, continue, please. Staff's recommending, as stated in the notice of zoning violation and the follow-up letter, that this violation can be rectified by removing the RV for the property or by ceasing occupancy and removing the RV from the front yard setback. An unoccupied RV may be stored on the property, but it can't be within the setbacks. If the mobile home receives a permit, then the RV may be occupied during the relocation or renovations to the mobile and removed and unoccupied when working on the mobile on this page. So the RV should discuss and decide whether or not the zoning violation regarding the recreational vehicle is properly issued and whether or not you agree with the corrective measures. Should I move on? Yep. Number two, mobile home. This notice of zoning violation states evidence that a mobile home existed on the property from the mid-80s or earlier to around 2011 when it was removed. Planning staff have not been able to locate an original permit from the mobile home, but it was listed in the 1992 grand list. Vermont law establishes a 15-year statute of limitations for municipalities to issue zoning violations and this statute of limitation applies both to the use as a property and structured improvements that violate municipal zoning regulations. The footprint for mobile home and 1250 south roads located within the 50 yard front setback, 50 foot front yard setback measured from the right of way. Therefore, the form of mobile home that was removed in 2011 was a legally non-performing structure because it doesn't need the town setback regulations and because it has existed for longer than 15 years without the change in zoning violation. So are you saying in the past that that was an illegal bot for the house, the old trailer that somehow it got permitted, someone went there and approved the lot being within your setback, like we had got a reverence over that permit in the 60s or the 50s? I mean, it could be or it is, I'm trying to figure out what applied for it. We don't have a record of that permit. So it could have been having the same violation if you didn't have a record. And we definitely didn't put it there overnight. So we're trying to find original permit. Hold on, we're gonna have lots of opportunity to have an exchange, okay? So if we could afford Melinda the right to give her staff overview and trust me, you're gonna have lots of opportunity to have back and forth, okay? These are Vermont neighbors talking to Vermont, I mean, Wilson neighbors talking to Wilson neighbors, okay? I know neighbors talk to us, we've seen the board. So continue, please, Melinda. Okay, so the mobile home was there for more than 15 years and then it got removed. It was a legally non-conforming structure. Most of the mobile home, west of South Road, there's an existing barn that's been added onto over the years with the most recent construction permit issued in 1991. This structure is also legally non-conforming because it's within the foot front yard setback, but its original construction predates the zoning regulations and setbacks. And permits were issued for subsequent additions to the barn. So the installation- So why are you raising the barn issue then? Because just as an example of another structure on that property that's legally non-conforming and that I thought you might have questions about why the barn was so close to the road. Okay, thank you. So the installation of a new mobile home on the existing footprint of a former mobile home would be a violation of the Wilston Unified Development Bylaw because, one, it constitutes development for which a permit's not been issued. Two, the mobile home's location encroaches into the 50 foot setback from South Road. And three, the landowner no longer has the right to replace the former mobile home in its original location in the setback because it was not replaced with any year of being moved. Staff recommends also stated in the notice of zoning violations and follow-up letter that these violations can be rectified by removing the mobile home from the property for a client or a permit. The mobile home can be approved with an administrative permit with submittable state waste water and wastewater permit and a site plan depicting the compliance with all applicable dimensional standards and setbacks. Okay, so the important thing there, I think, is that, is there is a path for approval but not in its current location? Okay, so I'm just making that point. Continue, Melinda. Melinda, I get one question for you. Are you using recreational vehicle and mobile home as interchangeable terms? No, you are not. There's two different structures. Yeah, one is... Okay, all right. Yeah, okay. Okay, so also I'm recommending that this mobile home can be approved administratively, neither discretionary permit nor growth management review is required to approve this mobile home. And that's chiefly the way that the bylaw defines parcelism that this parcelism where the mobile home is placed right now is on a parcel that doesn't have an existing dwelling on it. So it would be allowed one dwelling just like any other parcel. Okay. And because the cycle properties by South Road and East Road, it actually consists of three separate parcels. So, let's see. I think I've pretty much gone over where I need to go over there. Yeah, and through conversations with staff, the appellants have raised a couple of different points saying that they are renovating the mobile home and not living in it. But the definition of a dwelling under WDD 4635 does not distinguish between unoccupied and occupied dwellings. And even if it's not presently occupied, the mobile home is still a dwelling under regulations, still requires permit. And then they've also asserted that farm worker housing is exempted from local zoning permit requirements. And that for that reason, the mobile home doesn't need a local zoning permit. From an agency of agriculture, food and markets, definition of a farm structure excludes dwellings for human habitation. And so that one. So dwellings are not basically not exempt from local zoning, every other type of structure is, but not dwellings. So the DRB should discuss and decide whether or not the zoning violation regarding the mobile home was properly issued and whether or not you agree with that. Okay. Okay, your turn. So where is yours? We weren't, under any understanding, that we were in any violent violations of compliance over a 17 day moving over the camper, someone staying in a camper on our property until just this October. Camp has been there since April. This is just being brought up as of October. So the whole 17th thing, we're really glad you brought it up to us. But for our seasonal help, and just like Vermont having trouble with their seasonal help in halving, the Vermont AG has been pushing forward with the state about giving us compliance for our seasonal help to show up whether it's RV, just for the seasonal picking apples as a governor up to Vermont in the summertime. As far as trailer goes, instead of we were repairing it, we had this pad, it's already existing locks. I understand that glowing has been gone since, no, 2011. The concrete pad has not been able to power outlet that came in there and the septic that existed. So I was under the understanding as far as that concrete has stayed in there than technically that blueprint of that lock exists. Last I knew we would have to come in and get a permit to put a trailer on there when it was time to actually apply for occupancy. But considering we don't even know if this trailer is staying there, we weren't really coming in to live there. This was just simply dropped off because it's a 70-foot trailer or a 70-foot pad. It won't get stuck while they're working on it. We would like to see something go up there and we obviously see that there's a pad existing in conformance, otherwise I can't imagine the town would have permitted and take taxes for over 20-something years on the property, including the driveway cut that you want me to apply for. Now that's already been paid for and been used for the last, I don't know how many years that's been going in and out of the day, while the whole 60s are being used. All right, so that driveway's already been there for, so I'm a little bit irritated to be charged twice for something that's already been paid for once or even asked to. I don't think any of you have been on our property to measure that particular yard because it's right at 50 feet. So I don't understand this compliance. You guys are upset about our pad being there. It's been there since, well, we didn't get a notice when you guys put in this law and what 2000 and when did this law come in that after we take something off its foundation or destroy a foundation, then you only have one year to replace it. When did that law get moved? Was it before or after the trailer was removed? Any historical perspective on when that provision and the bylaw was implemented? Definitely in there as of 2008, but it probably existed in prior iterations of the bylaw because state law rules around non-conformities are probably more long-standing. And I'm sure that the bylaw before that had similar standings of once non-conforming structure goes away. There's a limited amount of time. I can't speak for Williston, but I know South Burlington has the exact same law. It's in states. And that's been in existence for decades. Really long time, yeah. So. So hypothetically if they, to kind of drill down a little bit on the pad that you brought up, if there was a residential property that was non-conforming, and it was demoed, but the foundation remained, what would that welling be considered to be completely gone? Or. That's why I knew the foundation was in the ground kind of moved. Hold on. So. That's my understanding that, I mean, our bylaw says when it's destroyed, then if it's gone for longer than a year, you don't have the right to replace it in its current configuration. So it's about, so the foundation remains, it's considered the structure is considered completely gone at that point. What do you think? My understanding is the house is considered gone. So you can't rebuild the house. The pad is still there, but the house is gone. We could, you know, if you like, we could get a, we could request a legal opinion about this. Can I say something? I can't talk very loud. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I do have an email from Bruce Hoare telling me that the right away on South Road is 49.5 feet. So from the center line of the road, the right away is 24 and three-quarter foot to either side. That trailer is beyond 25 feet from the center of the road. It's not the center line. So again, you're not measuring from the center line. That's what Bruce wrote to me. That's the right of way, but then the right of way. You have a row, correct. You have a row in the center of the line, you go left to right, you have 50 feet, which would mean you have 25 feet to your left of center and 25 to the right. I understood. So once we throw that line out. Can you please explain to me why? That's a simple right of way of the road. It's not the setback. I get that. So that's 25 feet. And then from that 25 feet, you're saying 50 feet beyond the part, the 25 of the road, which last I knew we were about two and a half feet from that mark. Has anybody been out there yet to measure it? Anybody on this board been out here yet to measure this bad? So you're telling me that I'm out of compliance. That is the job staff, the board, the board. When I'm asking the job staff is here along with the board. So I'm asking, has anybody yet been- You won't see the board out there measuring your- No, I asked, I did ask for a site visit though, from the board. That probably didn't get passed down to you though. That was the day I'd mentioned where ag normally has a little bit more lean weight. But as we came down here, and I haven't seen anybody yet, coming look, we've invited it. I'm sorry, I'm gonna get to memo. So I have a question for staff. What measures were taken to determine that the existing structure was in the right of way? When I issued the original zoning violation, my research was based on using the parcel data online. That yellow line, would that be your setback, just that 50 foot on both sides? Yellow line. I'm aware that those yellow lines are approximate, because it's a digital file overlaid on aerial imagery. It's not 100% accurate. Where that concrete pad was, it looked like it was well within the 50 foot setback. Last week, Mary did come into the office and we talked about the right of way measurement. I found a plat recorded in land records that shows south road to be 66 foot wide, right of way four rods, with that line going through that existing willow tree. So those were the measurements that I recommended working off of to find where that edge of right of way is to then measure that 50 feet. And you measure the 50 feet off of the approximate yellow line. Off the approximate yellow line, yep. And to the east toward the road, that is the right of way of the road. That is not a right, so you don't measure from the center line of the road, you measure from the setback. And so there's a question of where that yellow line is on your property. But it is, you're not measuring from the road, you're measuring in the center of the road, you are measuring from well off the road, 50 feet back. I understand that. Okay, all right. Yeah, so I just drew a line to basically represent We can all clearly see the pad that's still existing. It's not removed. It's not been ever removed or replaced, dismissed, dismantled. But nobody's living on it. I get that. Okay, but that's really the kicker. That's the trigger. Sir, hang on. That's the trigger. It's not, it's not, the house is gone, nobody's living there and you got a year. We'll follow more of that. Because like I said, normally when you have a foundation at your house, at your blueprint, it doesn't matter about what's to be on the ground up, got to walk up the CP first. So I get to the foundation on your footing. Absolutely. So we're gonna get a legal opinion on that topic. And because it's very germane here. Very what? It's very germane here. It's very applicable. So we'll get the questions in a moment, sir. So we will not forget you. Okay, so, Laura's still yours. And I do now, I have a question for you. About where that green line was. You're saying green or blue? Right there, there was a, was that where the RV was? It's correct on that pad. On that pad. And that's gone? The RV is just up to us. We've moved it, it's not gone. Okay. Decide it now. Is it, is it part of this discussion still or have you, you know, is it still? I mean, they're using it as an office. Is it? Is anybody living in it? Living in it? No, using it as an office? Yes. All right. And that's part of this, that is still part of. But again, if they're not living in it, the camper can stay, correct? Last I knew. It's not to be outside. It's not supposed to be an occupied wall. I understand that. Whether it's an office or a. Out of the setback. Yeah, and it's gotta be out of the setback. Well, that one's definitely out of the setback. So we, that can move. Where is it? Is it still nearby? It's nearby. It was on the pad, now you're. It's out of the 50 foot setback? Yeah, absolutely. Okay. We'll get over this one. Back in there. Yeah, okay. Okay. All right. Anything else to add before I open it up to the RV point? You guys want me to move my barn back too? That's not part of this discussion. Well, yeah, actually it was. It was, it's cause it's within your setback. The only thing that we touch is within a setback. It's not part of the zoning violation. So if my barn blew down and I don't take the concrete off, but my barn gets blown down by the 70 mile hour wind tonight. It takes me three years to come up with the money. As long as I apply for a permit within the first year, we can put it back up. But if we don't have the money in the first year, it's tough shit. It's on that. I think as long as you apply for a permit within the first year, then you would have the right to replace it. The barn is a tricky one too, because a true agricultural barn does have some exemption. So say the house blew down. You have a year from that date to get a permit to replace it. And then that permit's good for three years. So non-conforming structures retain their right to their footprint. Same size, same location. If it's gone for more than a year, then that footprint besting tends to go away. A barn, because it's an agricultural structure, can be exempt from local rules. At what point was this thing ever conformed? Proper. It wouldn't. So everything is always a non-conforming? Yep. That's correct. That's correct. It's non-conforming. As long as you keep on using it, as long as you keep on using it, you're farming it, and you're running your farm out of it, yeah, you can keep on using it. But the minute it goes away, and it goes away for more than a year, and I think that's the question we're gonna ask the attorney. We're laypeople, we're not attorneys. But we can read the bylaw. But the attorney was going to weigh in on that. That's the answer you're going to ask. A lot of us, when we take our buildings down, and for whatever reason, if we do decide to remove a building, we leave the foundation in for strict reason. Understand, but that is something that the attorney for the town will answer. DRV members, questions? Dave? Lisa? Good. Anything, Scott? Good. Okay. Sir, if you would come up to the table, please, and state your name, your... Go on a milking. Your name and address. My name is Denny Lewis. I have a farm that abuts their farm. I own 200 acres. I own 120 actually, on the south side of the interstate. First of all, I think it sounds like that parcel has an address. Is that correct? Okay. So my farm, I have a sugar house, I have other things. There's no other addresses. It's just one where my home is and where my barn is. So I'm not sure why that parcel has an address if it's not a parcel. The other thing is, I do believe if that concrete is there, that's considered part of that structure. That's my opinion. And obviously you sound like you're gonna find out legally what the deal is. The other piece, these folks have worked their life for this farm. They've conserved 300 plus acres in Williston, and they've sacrificed a major amount of money to do that so that they could continue to keep this in agriculture. That whole parcel is never gonna be developed because it is conserved. So all the property around that trailer or mobile home or whatever is never gonna be developed. So it isn't gonna affect anybody else because it can't. I mean, it's conserved. It's always gonna be conserved. It can't be changed. So I just feel like that should be taken into account. These people are trying to do what they can to keep the farm going, to keep it open for everybody in Williston's benefit, not just theirs. And I think that should be looked at highly. It's pretty impressive for anybody to do that in this town. I'm 66, close to 67. I grew up here in town and I've actually done the same thing with my farm. I conserved the farm because I didn't want any more development in it. And these folks are just trying to get by. They're not trying to do anything crazy. They thought they were doing the right thing. They thought that because the foundation was there that they had the right to put that trailer in. I think you have to be able to work with them. I think that's what they're looking for. I think they can sound a little testy because they feel like it's their property and blah, blah, blah. But I think they're very open to trying to work it out with you folks and try to figure out what can work for both parties. And that's what I would like to see. As a resident of Wooliston for a long time, I really feel like there's no reason people can't work together to resolve an issue. And that 50 foot, whatever it is, if it's a foot one way or the other, I don't see that as a big deal. When I grew up in this town, we had five members on the select board. We didn't have this board. None of this stuff existed. And that was probably prior to that mobile home being there. And half of those people on that board were dairy farmers. You don't hear of that anymore, but please listen to what I've got to say and I thank you for your time. Thank you, all right. If any brought up something I want to reiterate here, the law is the address. You guys sent a letter to that address knowing that it wasn't even an existing app. Obviously, there's no mailbox there. There used to be a mailbox there. It has four points because it was taxed. It has four boundaries. We would be the other three sided landowners of that four sides from the road. So mailing people 20 letters for something that already pre-existed and it's already been approved and it's been there. Mailing all around the 320 acres seems a little foolish considering that it's already been lost. It's a parcel, I mean, it's got a tax ID number. It has to have some sort of acreage behind it. It definitely doesn't overshadow the 300 acres of the property of 1050 or 1033 would be the full farm complex. And then we have three lots inside of that. The White House being a lot one, which is actually not conserved. That's a five acres out of the conservation. The Green House would be in the conserved lot and then that is to be if the farm was ever divided. Mary wouldn't have to sell her house. The Green House would go with it with that side of the road and that that trailer lot goes to the east or the west side of the road for housing if they were ever to divide in their plan on retirement with coordinates with Vermont Land Trust. These are even predetermined. We have it all. We have it all. I don't understand why you guys don't have it, but we already have that in writing. So this lot is key and it was a big key when we did sign over the rights because that was, again, it is the lot there for our help. It's been there from day one. We did not remove everything. The trailer left on its wheels. We put one back on it on wheels, but the concrete, the foundation has never been removed. I know that states and been redundant. As Denny said, we didn't realize that when you took a trailer off of it and to my knowledge, foundation is concrete. It's the ground. Anything above it is structural. So be it, but we have not removed the foundation of that house. And that is like that taking into consideration. I don't understand it. If it was been ripped out, all field septic had been ripped out, removed and the power had been straight from that. And you guys say, well, one year we have the right to retain and take it all back from it. And that lot doesn't exist anymore. I'm curious, can we actually get some lot rights on this? I have one more question. Okay, go ahead, Mary. Sorry. On June 1st, my dad will have been there for 50 years. If this trailer lot was such a big deal, why wasn't it brought up sooner? Staff? I mean, you mean why wasn't this notice of violation? Hold on. Why wasn't this notice of violation issued earlier when this was had been in place for years? Is that your question? Yes. Staff? Because it was non-conformant. No, I think they're talking about once the trailer was removed. Always living there. Because when it was removed, it wasn't a violation until something's put back. Right. How long has the trailer been, was the current trailer put back in place? No, in the spring, I'm guessing. No, the camper was put in the spring, which is where the initial violation came in, which didn't get brought up until September. So we're talking April, May, June, July, August, September, we almost got six to seven months of nothing. And then we put a trailer on that pad. And then we got a notice within two weeks of being on violation of the camper. Not to make light of it, but the wheels of government move slowly. Yeah. Sure didn't seem to move slowly from there. Mary, to put it in the context of 50 years is unfair on your part. That's representing, that's clouding the issue unfairly. But because it's still in the town setback, that is what the big issue really is. The issue? At one point in time, when the trailer was there for 50 years or however many long years it was, it was a, It was an allowed non-conformance. That's exactly right. It predated the town zoning as an allowed non-conforming use. Right. And it's kind of the third or fourth time around, but the minute that trailer disappeared one year after, it is no longer allowed. Understand that we're talking in circles at the moment and that this isn't going anywhere until we get a letter from determination from the attorney at which point we can pick this discussion up again. So I think, correct me if you see this differently, but I think because we're doing a do loop here, I think this is a good breaking point. I don't think going any further. Would you agree with that? Correct. Okay. Members of the audience, any further comments? No? So this will be determined by the attorney? No. That, that- And there's no other way around any of this to make it happen. There's, there's, I was just telling you about variation in the fact that we have simply, you know, using this as an interpreting, I think it's what's in the back. Well, there's, there's several factors in the, in the zoning violation that the DRB has to rule on and one of which is pertains to this foundation. And so there's, it's, I would not characterize, characterize our, our decision point as being solely dependent upon the legal opinion. It's a component of multiple facets that we have to consider. And- Will there be another hearing? There's not going to be, there's not going to be another hearing. We're going to actually, let me ask staff how, how that works. So, so we're going to ask, we as a board are going to ask for a legal opinion on the foundation piece. So if you could walk the board and the appellant through what happens next. Yeah. So the board can decide to close the hearing if they felt like, if they feel like they have enough information from you and from, and have given the public a chance to be heard. And they can, you can go into deliberations getting a legal opinion, or you can decide to continue if you would like to discuss further with the applicant once you have that legal opinion. So, so we're going to continue and request that the staff get a legal opinion and then when that legal opinion is, is received, then we'll, then we'll get back together again. Do we expect the legal opinion to be mailed to us as well? So, recent recommendations from town council is that the DRB does not need to make, and in some certain circumstances should not make the legal opinion public because it's attorney, client, privilege attorney, client communications. Attorney, client being the town, being the public, correct? The town and the town attorney. So the development review board and the town attorney would be the client and the board. So the DRB does not have to make that. That came up recently. That came up recently with the NECS thing. So it's. I'm going to go on record to say that's sheer idiocy. Thank you. That's dumb. You're talking about somebody's property rights and you're talking about somebody. And whether we, whether we all know how this, you know, how this is going to come out or not come out, you're still talking about somebody's property rights. I mean, to just clarify that, staff can summarize the legal opinion. We can tell you what it is, but we just, we've been advised not to share the correspondence and not to share the actual written legal opinion as that subjects us to having any legal opinion not be considered. We will, we may be considered to have waived our right to privacy, or if we could. So last I knew the town was municipal to the public. I didn't realize you guys had, you know, privacy. You're not, you're, you may not see the actual correspondence from the attorney, but you're going to know what it says because we're going to tell you. It's not going to be verbatim, but we don't make this stuff up. That's the reason why we're asking for a legal opinion. Okay. And so you're going to, that's going to be a guiding template that we are going to share the principle of what the attorney's opinion is, but you're not going to see the document. We don't control that. The DRP doesn't. Okay. You can disagree with that. That's the way it is. That's news to us. I'm actually on right beside Scott Riley on this one. Last I knew the public hires the town as public people working for us. I didn't realize this was an entity that you get private, legally advised that you get legal, privately advised to your town without giving it to the citizens, makes, boy, no report at all. I mean, it'd be like having a sled war with no minutes. Find that just hard to believe and I agree with Scott Riley. I guess that's what I'm saying. Jesus. Sorry. I'd like to go to bed. I'd like to go to bed. Okay. So, so we're going to continue to a data insert. It's nine 10. And we're going to request that legal opinion. And then once received, then we will reconvene and we'll notify you when that would be. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're going to go into deliberative session at nine 10. Okay. Welcome back to the Wilson Development View Board. It's nine 49. The DRB is out of deliberations. Is there a motion for DP 24 dash 11? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I David Turner moved the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony of the public hearing of January 8, 2024, accept the recommendations of 4DP 24 dash 11 and authorize this application to do forward to the discretionary commitment review. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Lisa seconds it. Any discussion? Oh, actually, I'm sorry. We are going to strike 2B on that. Okay. Lisa, is your second still stand? Yes. Okay. Any discussion? Hearing none, yay or nay. Lisa? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. The chair is yay. Four in favor, non-opposed motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 24 dash 12? Yes. As authorized by the WDB 6.6.3, I Lisa Braden Harder moved that the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application at public hearing of January, 2024, accept the recommendations of DP 24 12 and authorize this application to move forward to discretionary permit review with the one comment on item 3D we want to retain item 3D. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second it. Scott seconds it. Any discussion? Hearing none, yay or nay. Lisa? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. The chair is a yay. Four in favor, non-opposed motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of December 12, 2023? Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve it. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? I'll second it. Lisa seconds it. Any discussion? In favor, yay or nay. Lisa? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. Chair is a yay. Four in favor, non-opposed meeting minutes are approved. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Is that, no? No. Is there a motion to adjourn? I'll make the motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you all.