 Legibly Emily will beat you if she can't read it Yeah, everybody in TV land right, you know, okay, we're gonna bring the meeting to order Welcome to the town of Williston's development review board for Tuesday, August 8th We're going to open up the meeting at 7 o 2 We've got three items on the agenda to our listed on my sheet and in there apparently is a third that popped up as well We're gonna review The final plan, so we'll talk about that a little later First up is DP 16-23 Lakeview farm, Inc Lakeview farm, Inc. Are you here? You're here. Fantastic. Come on up and sit at the table Once you get yourself settled if you would state your names and your addresses for the record, please welcome So we are going to let the staff go first Okay So this is a request for a discretionary permit for rural residential zoning district Properties located on the west side of Oak Hill Road down towards towards Lake Yerekoi and a little bit of an unusual wrinkle on this This request is that the subject property is a little over 13 acres in size in total However, there's only Permitting jurisdiction over land holdings in Williston. So our analysis is really going to be based on the the portion of the subject property that's That's in Williston So the proposal there's I should say there's an existing single-family dwelling on the property Today, so if this is approved it would create Two lots one would be approximately two acres second would be approximately eight point six acres And then there's a proposal to build a an additional dwelling unit So this is really the second time around for this request It went through our process back in 2009. However, it did not get growth management allocation. So it stalled out This time around It went through pre-application back in June of 16 and then received growth management allocation in March of 2017 In the report, there's you'll find we did a constraints analysis and a calculation of density There's a very small portion of land that we would consider to be constrained The maximum theoretical dwelling unit yield on this is five units. So we're looking at it basically two units So it's it's a pretty it's a pretty easy determination to make Because the portion of the land area in Williston is greater than ten and a half acres It's subject to the seventy five percent open space set-aside requirement So that would be one of the conditions of approval with that there would be a Minimum of seventy five percent of a lot area that would be designated as permanently protected open space And It was reviewed by the Conservation Commission Their recommendations include that there be a minimum seven point nine five acres for open space Which would meet the seventy five percent requirement that I just mentioned They're also making a recommendation that Watershed protection buffers not be required For the existing ponds on the property. So technically they're class three Our by-law says we may protect class three wetlands or not So unlike class two wetlands, which are required to be protected under state law So the Commission's making a recommendation that we just kind of leave the ponds as they are And that the new proposed house be situated in a way that minimizes visual impact from Oak Hill Road and then What follows is? Drapped it findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval for you to consider with a recommendation for approval Just a question you noted you noted in here that Staff recommends that the northern boundary of lot two and the southern boundary line of Lot two and below he shifted 35 feet to the north Yes, I May have misdrapped That was the existing line of trees on the northern side of white line to be enhanced by additional informal planning You're all set Ken. Yeah, great Your turn McIntyre from Summit Engineering. I think I Also read that last item that you noted about moving property lines and such and I believe that language came out and we discussed it at the last hearing and the Board had ended up recommending at the end of that Which was their recommendation number eight that the board recommends that the northern excuse me northern boundary of the building envelope a lot to be moved to a minimum of 50 feet from Excuse me the southern boundary of the building envelope to lot to be moved to a minimum of 50 feet And so that's what the board's decision was and that's what we've actually done So just Ken is that Driving with yeah, so, you know, I took the I took the staff notes from pre-app and so That was a carryover So that's I guess what that's what I'm trying to get to is what they're showing on their plan But I have here addresses that 50 foot I believe it does and I think that was part of what the conservation Commission was getting at in terms of Yes From one second, I apologize so We might want to put a condition because it sounds like there's a little maybe a little bit of confusion here We put a condition in that just says You and you and the applicant confirm that it is where it's supposed to be right Keep going That does that make sense Yes, because I caught it as well as I was reading the staff comments It was it was hard to tell it was hard to tell our notes whether you you needed to make the change or whether the change had been made I believe we have made all the change that the board has recommended thus far Okay, you want it you want to that second item that the board that the staff is Recommending about additional plantings. Is that something that's been covered? Yes, we had discussed not moving the property boundary, but adding additional plantings which we've done and the plantings are actually on Lot one. There's a lot more open space in lot one to be able to do those Landscaping improvements. So we've added additional plantings of various types evergreens and just trees along that Point to that I think I see it, but why don't you point it out Right Okay, great The other thing that that was already mentioned is that we did consult with the state well in office regarding the ponds And we have also since our last meeting with you have obtained a state Wastewater system and potable water supply permit, and I didn't know if you needed that for any reason But that has been issued. So both of those subject systems have been approved by the state Can there was a note From Lisa Shelter Comments from the pre-application were not addressed I've been taking care of So I included in your staff notes her comments at pre-app what she said Was all utilities shall be underground and applicant shall apply for right-of-way permit prior to commencing construction now Lisa tends to be kind of picky about Applicants providing written response to all the things that she put on her list and If the applicant didn't provide a written response regardless of whether the issues were addressed or not we get this you're gonna get that so It's also Worth noting that Lisa added an additional thing on the list this time around which was to provide an erosion control plant so The the the applicant would be well advised to make sure they provide a written response to Lisa Shelter Otherwise you won't get her signature on the final plans checklist And that will help things to move forward. I have not seen the comments from Lisa Shelter. So can I get a copy of those? Yeah, well the only additional thing is is to provide an erosion control plant You can have this one if you want Again, you're gonna want to point that out to Lisa Shelter She will be satisfied that all of her conditions have been met. I will do that. Thank you Any other questions from the board? Let's care of the public works Wrap the wrap a rock with a peanut that piece of paper Any other comments you would like to know I think I'm good unless there's any other questions Any comments from the board or from the audience one final try from our illustrious board any further comments or questions? No, thank you. Good. Okay. We're gonna close DP 16-23 Lakeview farm ink at 715 Next up is DP 17-30 William and Annie are Spencer You again, mr. Bella. No, no, I'm sorry Melinda. It's you This is a request for pre application one one second. I apologize Names and addresses We are William and Annie Spencer living in 1171 Ledgewood Drive You agree with that missus. Yes, I do Okay, very good Melinda This is a request for Pre-application review to us to reestablish expired growth management allocation for single-family dwelling unit Three lot subdivision located at pumpkin Hill Road on the east side of South Road in the ARZV One of the lots on the subdivision Did not require allocation two units of allocation were awarded by the DRB on March 11th 2008 One unit of allocation has been used by constructing a single-family home on lot a And it was discovered in January of 2017 that the remaining unit of allocation had expired The applicant is seeking to reinstate allocation for one additional dwelling unit The proposed subdivision is identical to a subdivision proposed by the former applicant Scott Gardner and approved by the DRB in June 2008 under DP 0824 The DRB reviewed this project again in July 2010 when a boundary lot adjustment was made on lot to lot B Mr. Gardner submitted an application in May 2017 to reinstate the expired allocation That application was subsequently withdrawn prior to the DRB hearing The owners of lot B the Spencer's have submitted the application presented here today The subdivision that created the the subject parcel has been approved and plat recorded The applicant is reapplying for subdivision approval in hopes of establishing new growth management allocation schedule The bylaw has specific rules for re-establishing expired allocation a Subdivision may apply to have its previously awarded allocation returned without having to compete against other subdivisions if it meets certain criteria including There's a time limitation You have to request Pre-application prior to the end of the calendar year when the expiration of the allocation units Identified by the Williston planning office and this is important because Even though technically this allocation expired, I guess a couple of years ago The planning office didn't identify that it was expired until January of this year So they have met that The applicants met that requirement of the limit of the time limitation substantial progress a residential subdivision Applying to have some portion of its allocation re-established must demonstrate substantial progress toward implementing The subdivision and the applicant has met that condition as well Allocation re-established under these provisions May receive an additional five years to obtain administrative permits to begin construction Beginning on the July 1st immediately following the DRB hearing that re-establishes that allocation and they only have One more extension. There's no additional extensions allowed under these provisions. They get one extension and that's it The original conditions of subdivision approval shall continue to apply to any subdivision Awarded allocations under these provisions the DRB shall only impose additional conditions of approval in cases where it is necessary to preserve the public health safety and welfare In order for subdivision to re-establish some portion of its allocation under these provisions The DRB must find that the subdivision is in substantial compliance with the current with the intent and purpose of the current development regulations any Allocation that's expired under these provisions and was not re-applied for within the time constraints or that doesn't meet the criteria That specified that I've just reviewed Will be returned to the pool of available units of allocation and shall only be awarded through the competitive process a specified under WDB 11.4 and 5 so the subdivision has met the criteria Under the first two criteria the time limitation the substantial progress The DRB will need to decide if the subdivision is in Substantial compliance with the intent and purpose of the current development regulations So you'll need to decide whether it meets the special findings criteria If you decide that the subdivision does not meet the criteria for reinstatement of expired allocation As stated above the DRB can require the applicant to compete with other proposed residential subdivisions for available units of allocation We have none of this stuff Okay, that's what I was afraid of I looked at Brian's and Looking at kind of looking at what Brian's got you don't have it. I don't have it. You don't have it You don't have I don't have it either. So I read what I read everything that you sent us But everything you just went through we have not had a chance to We have not had a chance to see any of that. Yeah, I'm familiar with it But in this case, yeah, and where it applies in this I don't have I we don't none of us here is Is it possible To run over to the office and get Yes, is it does it exist? Yeah, it does exist. It's just Obviously we had some pretty good. It's just a printing issue. Okay. I apologize. Well, that's fine Why don't how about how about if we take a short recess? Okay How about if we take a short recess? Maybe you can if you can yeah, let's get it And then when we go into a deliberative session we can yeah, okay, we'll read through it and we'll do So that the board at the board at 724 is taking a short recess we will reconvene in just a little bit. That's the worst So Melinda, I think what I'm going to request is For the sake of the fact that I like listening to you talk Gonna have you go through that again Okay All of us will follow along Yeah, we'll start with Melinda will start with growth the growth management Here we go, you're on back up. All right, go for it Melinda. All right so The Wilson development by-law has certain rules for re-establishing expired allocation a Subdivision can apply to have its previously awarded allocation returned without having to compete against other subdivisions If it meets all the following criteria one is a limitation of time You have to apply for reallocation Prior to the end of the calendar year when the expiration of the units was discovered by the Williston planning office And in this case it was discovered in January of this year that the allocation it expired So they meet that criteria Sub a residential subdivision Applying to have a portion of its allocation re-established must demonstrate substantial progress Towards implementing the subdivision and they've met that requirement as well and then the expiration provision just says that They have an additional five years Starting July 1st immediately following the DRB meeting that Reinstates the allocation and that no additional extensions of the time of time are possible Conditions of approval the original conditions of subdivision approval Shall continue to apply to any subdivision awarded allocations under these provisions The DRB shall only impose additional conditions of approval in cases where it's necessary to preserve the public health safety and welfare the special findings provision basically states that in order for subdivision to Re-establish at some portion of its allocation under these provisions the DRB must find the subdivision is in substantial compliance with the intent Purpose of the current development regulations And then we find that in this case. Well, that's a question that you Well the conservation Commission Feels that it does not meet the the Intent purpose of the current development regulations because the open space is Not really configured in a it's not it's not configured optimally as far as they're concerned So that's the the question I guess to consider um They've met The DRB must find that the subdivision is in substantial compliance with the intent and purpose of the current development regulations Did the development regulations change from the point when this was originally permitted to now? Yes, they did So now now you have the Habitat assessment, and that's in this case. I believe the principal thing So stated that becomes a question for the board to address Yeah, so just some Access is Still the same the proposed new lot will have access from an existing shared gravel driveway off of South Road On-site infrastructure the proposed dwelling will be served by on-site water and wastewater disposal Landscaping buffering open space and building envelopes were defined under previous town regulations when subdivision was created The open space currently serves as the buffer around subdivision The DRB you know decide whether landscaping needs to be revisited The main point is the review by the conservation Commission As a subdivision of a parcel of land 10.8 10.5 acres or greater This project is required to set aside a minimum of 75 acre 75% of the area of the parent parcel That's permanently protected open space The open space must include steep slopes wetland areas and setbacks and any other resources required to be protected under WDB chapter 27 Subdivision under 824 set aside 91 acres, which is 77% as protected open space When the WCC reviewed the project in 2008 the the WCC Concluded that the open space configuration is not optimal and recommended the entire southern half of lot C be protected open space This recommendation was not implemented in the approved final plans the conservation Commission's recommendations remain the same and Staff suggests that the recommendations be adopted as DRB recommendations for this pre application Why they were not implemented Oh, I think So so a couple things so the original number was 0824 is that right? Yeah, so this is going back to the early days of The 75% open space requirements. So my recollection is this was going through the DRB process I may have been here by was I wasn't had been here for very long and so And and then the other is the land area for the original subdivision It's over 90 acres. So it's it's big and I think that the the building Onbelopes were defined in a way that was rather large whether I'm not so sure we would do it the same way today I think we would probably try to you know I think that's sort of part of the You know part of the tension here and then also I have some recollection that the original Applicant of the subdivision Scott Gardner. I think he you know kind of pushed and Like a lot of applicants didn't want conditions of approval that That we're overly constricting to you know all of his options, whatever those might be I Think all of those things combined let us to to the kind of approval that so can you Can you show me on the map where how? What that would look like Where the recommended recommended that the entire southern half of lot C be protected open space so So basically if you look at their I think it's page See to What the conservation Commission is recommending is that you basically draw a line from here over to that the Southern half of that building envelope and then this becomes open space Instead of having this kind of Building envelope that goes way down here and they just want to cut it off here and have this all be open space It's it's not exactly a building envelope, but it's not protected open space either I think the intention was to Kind of reserve the right to be able to build structures out there Comments you want to jump in on only one comment that is we're looking for an allocation for a lot B to be specific It's the middle one that's a shape like the letter L There's a lot that like a letter, so it's it's this one here Yeah It's 16 acres with a two acre envelope lot C in question is a much larger parcel next to ours So if we're looking for an allocate re-establishing of allocation on lot B B As in boy as in boy Do you own that lot? Yes? You do not own lot C. We do not how the heck are we going through? How are we going to do that if the app if the application? I Understand there's a conundrum here, but how do we how are we going to implement that? If that is owned by somebody else and it is not part of this application although it is part of the overall subdivision Can we enforce a rule on a? on a separately owned separately owned lot at this point Not here to Talk about this well We might want to get a legal opinion. That's one thing, but it becomes so I guess the first Question is whether or not you are willing to find the subdivision to be in substantial compliance We can talk about that. Yep So depending on your answer to that question what happens after that changes dramatic procedurally So if you if you were to determine that it isn't substantial compliance with the intent purpose And what the applicants would have to do is they just have to get the allocation Re-established if you say no Then basically they got to go back for growth management They have to compete and then they're gonna have to file a new subdivision plot so the way I the way I'm reading this and maybe I'm reading it wrong is that We can find that they are in substantial compliance, but the conservation commission is suggesting that we Do something else in my reading that wrong right part of it part of the problem is that? Say when you have a lot and it hasn't been through subdivision prior since prior Since after 1990 So in this case they wanted to split into three lots They need two units of allocation They get one unit of allocation for the property because you always get one That unit of allocation wasn't tied down to a specific lot It's basically the property owner gets decided Well, it's to be determined And so we have this case now where the original applicant says no, I'm not selling that one. I'm keeping that one for me and Is leaving the person that has bought this lot They're on their own to get allocation back. Whereas we have the conservation commission is Doing battle over a lot. That's not part of the allocation. I don't know that we've ever had the situation come up before I'll ask you again. Do you own this or do you have a contract on it? We own it Lot B we purchased it from Scott Gardner And I think the reason it's not L-shaped you have an old version and the property lines changed that you had mentioned But it's the one that's in the middle is this This site plan This so in it's L shaped Yeah, yeah Oh There's two C2s in here approach the bench Show me show me what your lot is is it is it this right here? Let me alright myself here This is lot C in question. This is the south end that wants to be blocked off. This is my lot So it's oh, it's added to this is the L portion of right there. It's like this. Yep. Yeah, that's right So I'm seeing here. I'm seeing it here here That's B lots B. This is lot C and that and he runs a little and his lot runs Here this is all yes, then the then the other lot is this thing in here It's already Part of the reason why it's hard to read is because of all the topography that's there And so you have all those topo lines that are all plus together because there's a big giant slope as it goes up to the To the bridge. Yeah, that was a skate plan to the town of Richmond. I think What's why are the two sheets C2s is that Was it was there an additional piece of property added on in this lot So he want right he wanted to be able to make sure there was sort of Had access to that this second this second C2 page was pre boundary line adjustment Yeah, I think that map was the one that was at the conservation commission meeting I went to This one without the L shape that you own is pre boundary line adjustment. The L shape lot map is the boundary line adjustment Post boundary line adjustment in the additional property came from lot C Made it slightly smaller and made lot B slightly larger Is it the L shape or the L shape the L shape the smaller boundary line adjustment changed the shape of this lot Oh, yeah So Let's go back and one more time And please anybody anybody anybody who's on the board here, please jump in If I'm not making sense We're being asked to reinstate a Single allocation for lot B We're being asked as part of that we need to find that As part of reestablish the application we have to find that there are Seven criteria that have been met as part of that Conservation Commission is suggesting that we make a change to somebody else's lot that is not here That is not part of that's how I understand that is not part of this even though That's not part of this law, but it was part of this but it was part of the approval part of the approval Don't we think that that person will be screaming bloody murder if he finds out that we made a change to his open space And he's not here and hasn't been notified Butter but but nobody would probably figure out through this that That was what was happening. He he actually came to the Conservation Commission meeting one year when Mr. Gardner submitted his application in May So he's aware of what the conservation Commission's concerns are and what they had recommended So so on eleven six point eleven six point one point two substantial progress They meet those three criteria Yeah, at least one dwelling right there's a new house there's a house in there So one house been belt been built and pumpkin Hill Road, which is a private road has been constructed so So and you know this situation is a little bit different from some of the other You know when you've seen these growth management allocations come back because typically they've been Two lot splits where nobody did anything and the clock just ran out So here's one where the applicant actually did something they constructed the road They built a house they stalled out for one reason whatever reason they you know the clock ran out on So as I see it as I see it as I see it right now The board is going to need to decide whether we agree to re-establish the Based on the information that we have the board is going to need to decide if we re-establish the allocation and ignore the conservation Commission or Take into account the conservation Commission in which case I'm going to suggest that this is asked for a legal opinion or simply Pended forward a month so that it gets it gets cleaned up And all parties come together in your office to figure out how It moves forward so that's my that's my Suggesting that we talk about Anybody have any comments on how that how I phrase that Will it affect the timing on the allocation? We wouldn't We wouldn't decide on it if we went What was the time frame that they would I would think that we're in the clock we've stopped the clock so If they were going to have to reapply for I guess I would hope that because we because we're here talking about this it stops the clock But you tell me about The allocation for lot C is the has been determined or been selected by the original owner here To be the grandfathered Right If when they want to put a building in the envelope here on lot C will we see that as a DP? So This is our only buy at the apple once once somebody gets a subdivision approved DP is approved They submit final plans Then after that they get an administrative permit, so it's all just handled administratively We why are the applicant to give us a copy of the final plans? We looked at it and they got to tell us that they're going to put the building inside of whatever building envelope was designated And if there are any conditions of approval, they have to you know, they would have to meet those conditions of approval Right at the top of the hill lot a it's been bill But not but not see but he has he still has his allocation Essentially the conservation commissioner want this building envelope slid Not the building envelope, but this open space whatever This buildable land they were basically recommending that it stop right there Is the other person's lot that's not here right see that I have a question. Yeah, please if the owner of lot C were not to capitulate to that request The only thing for you to hold hostage would be our allocation at that point. Yeah, we're not Trump Please we're not trying to well bad terminology. We're actually I'm actually sitting here trying to figure out how to get you What you want and bad terminology then but if we try to get that Accomplish or if you try and get that accomplished what the conservation commission wants and they are interested and they don't need to Their advisory their advisory to this board And we try to follow their recommendations So I'm asking little questions, and I hope the rest of the board are asking questions the questions to to try and figure out This is I have never seen anything like this before I'm happy to bring it, you know And then the other kind of frustrating thing with this is if they were to be pushed back to growth management to get any points It would have to be permanently conserved open space Right in the ARZV. You can't get points just by designating something open space there on the open space provision That's correct. So they would have to get points They would have to not only get theirs protected, but all of it all of the ability Seems like You're assuming You're assuming that they wouldn't qualify for an exemption You're also assuming that they wouldn't get sufficient number of points on the other criteria So remember the open space criteria is only one of the criteria So given where this property is located is there the possibility they could score points for invisible development? I would say highly likely So so they may be able to get the 30 points anyways even without dedicating open space number one and then number two of course You have for exemptions each year that you can give out So so it doesn't necessarily guarantee that they would not get allocation I'm not saying that they would of course because you guys make that decision not me, but it wouldn't necessarily precluded No Nobody up here. You lost me in that I had to I had to that point so growth management is competitive There's a scoring process Depending upon what it is that's proposed Your your project scores more or less points one of the ways in which you can score points is if the open space is Protected by some form of a conservation easement just designated it on the plat It's it meets a by-law requirement, but it doesn't get you any points in growth management, which is an incentive system so In growth management you have to score a minimum of 30 points to potentially get allocation However, the board can award up to four of its 80 units each year Regardless of score. That's the exemption provision. So that's what we were just essentially just sort of talking about. Thank you Yeah, there is is there other let's hope we don't go there. All right, that's Okay, so Three months we bought it from Scott Gardner who I believe intended to build his own home there Clearly it didn't happen for a long period of time and when they determined that it was never going to happen He sold the property to us That expired We became aware of it this year. We just became aware of it this year There is a house on C, right? Hey, that's a big no Lot a is my brother. That's not involved Lot C was a little bit more in a hurry to build so We offered them the available Allocation that didn't have a time limit on it. So we're the ones that are going back to apply You know, we had to determine who was going to get it So there is a house up on a yes up on top. Yes Yes, quicker than we are Melinda did I have did we cut you off at all? Did you work your way through? Pretty much except that The fire department submitted Is That's their new hot button Yeah, so the other departments Basically the only other department that had concerns were the fire it was the fire department about the driveway grade Just Yeah, driveways Have a clear and unobstructed height. We'll have a minimum inside curve radius of 30 Did you get did you you got copies of the staff notes? Did you read them? Did you understand them good for you? And the recommendation for a fire pond I Guess I would just sort of just Repeat or restate one of the options that the board has Rendering a decision Which is that one of the options is that you can make a finding that this subdivision of 90 some odd acres With three houses on it is in substantial compliance with the intended purpose of the buy one That is an option that's available to you I get that Okay Do we have any questions? Where are you planning on building on your lot or any bill date in mind? Was as soon as possible next year Based upon whenever you're allowed as soon as possible next year that sounds like every other statement I've heard That's the truth Okay, do you have any more questions for the we have none for this or for staff When do we find out what your decision is? You can hang out or you can call the best thing to do is to call staff in the morning go there They're they're they're there bright and early at 6 30 or 7 in the morning and Call them up and they will pick right up Actually sleep You have any questions Audience member he's what you're with them either architect. Yes. He's your architect great Well one last time any questions So one more thing do I want to close this or do I leave it open? Close it after our deliberation Well, I'm asking you it were me. I would close the public hearing. Okay, we can do that Fine, we are going to close DP 17-30 William and Annie Spencer at 758 Okay, that's a good thing forces up to make a decision Have a good evening. Thank you. Thank you for coming So the board is going to discuss DP 10-35 amendment number two maple tree place conditions of approval final plans review That is what they submitted To So now now the plans are substantially Complete or in accordance with the conditions of approval that the board issued Which shows up in all of the applicable plan sheets There was also a recommend condition to have crosswalks at all four intersections That street in there So they have done that I'm reading this upside down so They've got a detail on on the bike racks. They've shown the locations of all Fine sheet So there was also Quiet for street trees Along some of these new parking areas So this is the parking the new parking area, this is maple tree place So this is additional parking so they're calling out the street trees there as well as some trees within Those trees are shrubs because it's under Velco Velco easement right there Yeah So they got to be seven feet or less right something like that Mixed mixed species Yeah, if it's in if it's in the we're if it's in the Velco easement, it's can't be higher than seven feet I believe So they see some green things inside there Something you might want to look at. Okay. What else color we have paint Couple of colors of paint correct White and off-white. Okay. All right. Very good. So we'll take a look at we'll take a look at that It says it's 805 and the board is going to go into a