 Alright, let's get started. Welcome all to the Wilson Development and Review Board meeting of December 13, 2022. My name is Pete Kelly I'm chair of the DRB. If you are a zoom participant please sign in with your name on the participant toolbar. This is a hybrid meeting taking place at the police station and virtually on zoom. All members of the board of the public and communicating real time planning staff will provide zoom instructions for public participation. Before we begin, all votes will be 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 10 2023. This meeting by taking the rule called attendance of DRB members participating tonight. Paul Christensen. John Hemmelgarner. Scott Riley. Dave Turner. Here. Nate Andrews. Here. And the chair is present. So at this point I'll turn it over to Andrew for zoom instructions. So for folks in the meeting room, please keep your microphone camera and speakers off. If you're attending on zoom, there are several features on the toolbar, please keep your microphone muted, turning your camera on is optional. Use the chat for technical questions or if you would like to speak, please don't provide substantive comment in the chat. If you'd like to speak also by pressing the race hand button on the toolbar captions are also available this evening by clicking the dot dot dot button. We'll be using screen share this evening you can optimize your view by clicking the green toolbar and choosing side by side mode use the toggle bar to choose your priority as the screen share for videos. If you have a bad internet connection you can try turning on your video closing other tabs or programs, or use your cell phone as your audio device could be up arrow by the microphone. Again, if you have any questions tonight, please message Andrew myself or Simon in the chat. Thank you. Okay, thank you Emily. First up is a public forum. This is an opportunity for anybody participating in tonight's meeting to address the board on issues that are not on tonight's agenda. Is there anybody that would like to address the board. Okay, let's transition into the public hearing. Tonight on the agenda HP 23 dash zero one, which is a certificate of appropriateness at 23 old stage road DP 20 dash zero three dot to new hall at 4964 Wilson Road for a master side plan. I will be refusing myself on that. On that hearing my employer built the project. So there's conflict of interest DP 23 dash zero eight is also on the agenda. Okay, I'm going to go to the summit automotive partners also known as Berlin city Kia for an expansion and DP 23 dash zero nine, which is a subdivision on Ricky Vista and the ag rural zoning district. Okay, first up HP. I believe that that last one is not a deep but it. Okay, that's correct. Okay, that's a free app. It is a free app. In the, in the agenda. Okay. So, anything else john. No, okay, thank you. Okay. First up is 23 old stage road who is here representing the applicants. No, you said no, but I'm going to be refusing myself on this one. Okay, great. Okay, Andrew and Angie, please come up to the applicant table please and state your name and address for the record I think we know it but everybody into 2023 old stage. Great. Welcome, staff goes next. Yeah, this is a request for a certificate of appropriateness to construct a detached garage and accessory dwelling unit. This property is located in the additional review area of the village district. So tonight the DRVs focus is on the architectural design of this structure in the historic district. The house in town or garage and you would be permitted solely by this. The main house on the property is a green revival farmhouse constructed in 1840. It's seen a lot of modification over time. You can see an old summer fortune in this photo. The existing room to addition replace this older addition to the rear. And the photo also show shows an old dairy barn, which is approximately the location of the new garage is being proposed. So the height of the building being proposed is 26 and a half feet compliant with the height requirements, the building footprint is just under 2000 square feet, and the area is just over 1000 square feet. And the materials that are being proposed staff and the hack both recommends that they supply standing scene. James Hardy vertical sighting with a board and baton appearance. Windows are Marvin elevate the DRV may recall that the property got a permit to replace the main house windows. Those are also Marvin elevate windows. The interior doors will be wooden. The garage doors will be steel with a wood texture overlay, the lighting fixtures of black mat, and then a portico beam at the porch matching the wooden doors. The garage is proposed at the rear of the property or at the rear of the main house, complying with the setback. This is a really property that has three front yards to well as to road old stage road and church view drive. So it has three front yard setbacks and this structure complies. And here's some 3D models that show the size and massing of the building. It's important to note that the finishes shown in these drawings are not the final finishes in terms of the window mountain pattern, the side, etc. The hacks recommendation is that this complies as proposed in that modern farmhouse look, you know, emulates the old dairy barn that once stood on the site. And the location materials also include elevations of the three carbon garage and the floor plan. This entryway to the 80 year, the roof sticks out so it has about a three by eight covered porch as an entrance into the stairwell for the 80 year. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Emily. Can you go back to scroll back to your control. Andrew is okay. Okay. Which is a common state and so can you go to the, to the architectural plan that was shown. Yeah, go one up from that. Yeah. Okay, so I'll start off with a question. So this looks like a an actual drawing from an architect that you hired. But that doesn't show for bad sighting. Correct. Can you explain that maximizer time use of that architect we want to do additional drawings schematics. Okay. Okay. So you brought it to a certain point. This was like his original. Got it. Sharing guys knew that we could change materials based on our needs. Got it. Okay, that makes sense. Also in this first drawing, he has the two over one windows, but we prefer the two over two. Okay, which is in that model. That model that he drew up. I think the hack one or two over two right. The hack didn't comment on the window pattern. They felt whatever was proposed would be good. Okay. As, as the applicant, what would you like to provide that would supplement staffs report. You have anything to add. No. Please. Just one. This is a lot nicer than the one that they built off of south brown L behind that house. Is a lot nicer. Any questions. Okay, questions from the audience, or people participating in zoom. 711. I'm going to close HP 23-01. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP 20-03.2. I'm going to close HP 23-03.2. Who's got this one? That's me. As you said, this is a master sign amendment for you. That's fine. So you can state your name. Jeff Vane, 58 Howard Street, Winchester, New Hampshire. I guess I should open this very well. At least I won't make it before we close the video. So it's a amended master sign plan that's seeking to update the approved final plans to allow for four additional wall signs. They're shown highlighted in red there. They're for the sort of driving unload load area. And they're between 30 and a half and 23 and a half square feet each. We are recommending approval. We're finding these conclusions and conditions as drafted. My staff report has stopped working now. I'm just going to talk. The U-Haul master sign plan was approved in August 2020 with a special condition that imposed by the DRB. The total wall sign area not exceeding 755 square feet. The total wall signs do add 64 square feet in area, but it still remains below the maximum authorized by the DRB at 710. So what follows at the end of this report is a recommendation for approval. One thing that I would suggest is I didn't include the condition restricting it to 755 square feet. So I think that's it for everyone's sanity, if you could. Just to have some thought into that. That's it. Great. Thank you. These were just an omission that we should have applied for original. There was an error on our part. We didn't put any directional signs. They're not advertising signs for us. They just collected the customers where to go once they enter on the floor. The limit of square footage that has been presented by the board is fine with us. We don't have no intentions of having anything in the future of this building. It's just an additional 64 square feet total between the board. Is there any questions to ask? No. No, there's a lot. Thank you. I was just hearing it. 714. Was there, were there any comments from the audience? Thank you for coming out. Okay. Okay. Thanks, John. Okay. Next up is the P23 dash. 08. Who was here representing the applicant. You'd say your name and address please. Yeah. Hey, welcome. Who's got this one? Okay. I'm going to go ahead. Okay. I'm going to go ahead. The request for a discretionary permit to construct a building addition will lessen 5,000 square feet, reconfigure the parking and do a facade renovation at 580 since Marshall app. This property is currently developed in the car dealership and service center in three distinct areas. North and south of Marshall app. A third area of vehicle display lot is leased from an apartment building. And it's located on the south side of Marshall app. It's located on the south side of Marshall. So 585 is south of Marshall app. It's where a small 3,000 square foot building and sales lot is located. That's currently the details department. No changes are being proposed as part of this application. South side. North side where we're focusing tonight is 586 Marshall. And it's located on the south side of Marshall. So it's located on the north side of Marshall. The car dealership and service center for KIA. So this property is roughly. Five. Nine. 9.5, seven acres. The commercial use is existing and no change to use is proposed. It's located in the industrial zoning districts west. Where it was subject to design review and conservation commission review. Staff is recommending approval. The application considers approval. You must also consider no limited power to correct non-conformities per chapter 2.8. Particularly as it relates to pedestrian connectivity, outdoor storage and outdoor sales landscaping. We'll work through those in detail later on. And the DRB should remember that they can only require work that is reasonably proportional to the scale of the proposed development. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing their request. This property was created in 1996 and subsequently developed with car dealership with a few expansions since then. Conservation commission and historic and architectural advisory committee comments are included. As well as public works and fire recommendations. With the usual limitation on fire comments. No public comment letters were received at the time of mail out to the community. And there were no comments from the community. And we're going to see more by this evening. So a reminder on vested rights that the DRB's. Power to correct non-conformities is limited to required work that is reasonably proportional to the change. The scale of the proposed development. The uses of vehicle sales and repair maintenance are allowed. For the outdoor sales and storage. The lot south of Marshall have. Does not comply with the landscape requirements. Today, if that lot were proposed, it would need to have landscape meetings. No more than a rank of 24 spaces without landscape unions. The DRB must decide. If their power to correct non-conformity extends to this side of the property, which is opposite Marshall have from where the changes are being proposed. Similarly for outdoor storage. That's also allowed. We're on a site. We're shown on a site plan. There are two 40 foot shipping containers on the property. They're located on the far southwestern. Quarter of the parking lot. Typically after a storage is screened either with an extension of the building or with a fence or a landscape buffer. So again, the DRB must decide. If these containers can remain as is, or if they would need. Screening for both of those outdoor sales and storage discussions. We would need to edit conditions number three. 23 and 24. Access. So no changes to the regular access are proposed. In terms of bicycle and pedestrian access. The applicant is proposing. To extend the sidewalk to the main customer entrance. That's highlighted in yellow. In this diagram. The DRB must decide if the sidewalk should be extended. A long Marshall app. Between the existing sidewalks. So today, if this property were developed brand new. We require sidewalks. On the entire frontage of Marshall Avenue. Balancing that nonconformity. They are connecting what's existing to the main customer entrance, but should it go all the way to that. That crosswalk. The DRB would need to edit commission over 25. And in particular note. This connection would need to be within the public. Street trees, snow storage, et cetera. We are not recommending a sidewalk to the west of Marshall app. Shown in this picture on the left. There's an unnamed stream that is very constraining to this property. So connecting that sidewalk wouldn't be feasible. And it wouldn't go anywhere because the town has planned to and has that multi-use path on the south side of the road. So that pedestrian connection to the south. Provides that out of access. We don't see any for it. To the west of their driveway. And public works is requesting. A pedestrian crossing system. You know, the blinking lights. At that crossing between the main dealership. And the detail department. Drive-throughs. Typically drive-throughs are prohibited. Perhibited in Williston. They are allowed for banks and service of heavy bulky objects. So they, they are provide proposing a service bay area where a customer would drive in, drop their vehicle off for servicing. And then they would bring it around to the service department. So we're recommending a finding and conclusion that vehicles are having bulky object. For that provision for a drive-through. In terms of on-site infrastructure and maintenance. Standard conditions are included. In terms of snow storage, final plans. We need to identify. Snow storage for the entire parcel. And that it must drain into an approved storm. Water system. Right now that storm water or that snow storage area. Is between the park service parking lot and the wetland buffer, but no storm water system has been identified. Off-suit parking and loading. Compliance is anticipated here. They are overall reducing the number of parking spaces. And their parking count includes spaces that are used for vehicle sales storage. Whereas our parking calculations are based off of customer and employee spaces. Final plans would also need to show short-term and long-term bicycle storage parking. As well as an end of trip facility. Right now, the floor plans are showing locker rooms and bathrooms for the employees. That floor plan would need to be reconfigured to. A shower. So overall parking supplies based off of an industrial. Use calculation. Final plans. We need to show. End of trip and bicycle parking. We tell them the mechanical screening. Condition number 17 is included. Basically they would need to show that rooftop and ground mountain mechanical equipment will be screened with edges, fences, or an architectural extension of the roof. I will note that following the hack review. And up until up to today as well. The applicant has demonstrated that they can meet the sidewalk recommendation. The airlock. Providing an awning over the building canopy. And we will be able to see the ground mountain mechanical equipment will be screened with edges, fences, or an architectural extension of the roof. Our design review, the hack review, this application under the team. Their recommendations are included. They can be. Some of those changes are included in your packet. Today Dan provided for my site plan showing that they can meet. All that hack recommendations. Airlock. And you wait. Landscaping complies as proposed with the buffers. making to comply with the nine foot type three buffer along the east side of the building. Street trees compliant as anticipated. There are existing street trees at that required 40 foot spaces. Final plans would need to identify species and many of these are ash trees. Today we wouldn't allow the planting of ash trees that are prohibited species. So final plans would need to include a maintenance replacement plan. What we're not recommending here is if all the trees are ash trees, if they get cut down and replaced immediately, it can be a phasing plan or maybe there's a few that they would want to treat. But today we wouldn't allow new ash trees to be constructed or be planted. Conservation areas complies as proposed. There's some habitat or habitat on the area. However, it overlaps with the watershed health. Compliance is anticipated as well with watershed health. So currently there's some gravel parking area within the wetland buffer. They are removing that parking area, reseeding it and then bringing that parking lot behind the service center into compliance. So there would be no more encroachment into the wetland buffer. For the conservation commission recommendations, they would need to demarcate the buffer as well as include some plantings on the site plan. Signs in public art. Final plans, before final plans would be approved, they would need to submit a master sign plan for this property and a condition of approval is included. On December 6th, the applicant did provide photo documentation that non-conforming temporary and portable signs have been removed from the property on both sides of Marshall Avenue. But there's several non-conformities for their permanent signs, internal illumination, more than one freestanding sign, the point of access, some upward illumination. So this whole property would need to be brought in compliance before we would let final plans move forward for this application. Lastly, impact fees would be assessed at the time of administrative permit. They are creating a new service area with about six new service pages. So there's anticipated to be some new vehicle trips associated with the service area. And outdoor lighting, compliance is anticipating. Anticipated, we would need some information on the final plans about the entire site lighting, including a compilation for security lighting and parking lot dimming when the business is closed. Well, what follows is findings of facts, conclusions of law, conditions of approval. The very last ones are the conditions that the DRB would need to edit or delete. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Emily. Okay, Dan. Welcome. I would like to hear any comments that you have been a global major. And then I would also like you to point out any proposed conditions of approval that you are concerned about on conditions of approval, one through 22. And then I would like your position on proposed conditions of approval 23, 24 and 25. Yep, okay. So the floor is yours. Great, thank you. I think Emily did a great job summing it up. I really don't have too much to add. It is existing automotive dealership. We'll get 586 Marshall lab. There's two new additions, one on the south, one on the west side of the building. That is a reception day where cars would drive in, drop off the car to the service. The addition on the north is the additional service base. There are some parking lot modifications. Around those expansions. Yeah, pretty much everything we said. Is exactly it. So I don't have too much to add there. Be happy to pop into the conditions. Okay. So starting with condition three. As Emily mentioned, I did forward revised elevations today based on half comments. The next main comment is that they wanted. Permanent protection over the entrance to make the main entrance more pronounced. So I don't know if it's possible to pull up those elevations. We've worked with the architect. We've worked with the architect. We've worked with the architect. On providing a bump out at the main entrance. Which would define the entrance more, which would provide protection from the elements from above. And just kind of make that entrance a little bit more clear. So those elevations have been revised based on comments. We also provided a floor plan and there will be an interior and a space for a temporary. Edition. 14. I'd like to be removed. This is in regards to obtaining necessary sewer allocation. There is no increase in employees associated with. Proposed addition. There is existing allocation. For maximum 20 employees and in the proposed condition. The owner and applicant would have no more than 20 employees on site. So. I don't believe condition 14 with. It's required. I think if you read it, it says the applicant, the applicant shall obtain any necessary sewer. Output allocation. Okay. So. We can keep it in there. I think it protects the town. Yeah. But if you don't need it. We don't need it, but we can keep it in there too. And. I'm good with the other conditions through 22. Condition number 23. Emily brought up the existing. Parking law on the south side of Marshall. Which is not. Part of this proposal, but owned by. The same owner. There are spaces. There are more than 24 spaces in a row. As Emily pointed out. Without. Parking islands on site. We request that parking islands not be required at this time. If and when that lies developed in the future. We understand that we need to be brought into compliance. There's also existing mature. Street trees along Marshall lab, which do provide some screening. But. Yeah, it would be our request that those parking islands not be required at this time. Condition number 24. We've worked with the applicant and they're in the process of removing the shipping containers. They've been moving the shipping containers in the past several times. Two many storage down the street and. They've notified the shipping company, so those shipping thing or should be opposite within. A month or two, I think. And so we'd be fine with any kind of condition of approval. Or prior to a certificate of occupancy that those. Containers be removed, but they should be removed. starting construction? It would be spring 2023. Would you have any angst if the condition or removal of those shipping containers would tie to your building permit? Yeah, we would be defined to tie that to the administrative permit. Okay. Like I said, they should be gone. Not occupancy, the permit. Yeah. Okay. And then condition number 25. I don't know if it's possible to pull up Google Earth and look at what's going on with the sidewalk along Marshall Ave. But based on how comments we did provide connectivity from the main entrance to the existing sidewalk located at the southeast corner of the site extending from Garner Supply. So we are providing connectivity from our site to that sidewalk. We don't feel it's really necessary or warranted to extend that all the way to the entrance because as staff notes and recommends that we wouldn't need to extend that further. So by extending it to the entrance, it's creating additional impervious surface and there already is pedestrian connectivity to the sidewalk. And there is an existing crosswalk located right by the Garner Supply entrance. I've also been working with the applicant on potentially removing that sidewalk and crosswalk at the existing entrance. We understand we would need to work with DPW and feedback from the board too. But by eliminating that sidewalk and crosswalk, we would be reducing the amount of pedestrian crossings along Marshall Ave. So I think it would be a benefit to remove that since there's a crossing just to the east. That's very close. But how would your employees, assuming you have both sides are owned by the same by the same company and are in the same company, I assume you're going to have people walking back and forth. So I talked to the applicant about that today and there aren't a whole lot of people walking back and forth. They could still walk back and forth. They would just need to go down to the Garner Supply crosswalk and then walk back up. So it wouldn't be as direct. But I think it would be better to minimize the amount of crossings along Marshall Ave. Can you slide down to see, I'm having a hard time picturing where that other crosswalk producer front is. It's the existing crosswalks at that Stumpland Garner Supply and Caravans. Is that thing? I'm trying to get a sense of where it is. Is it right behind me? Yeah, it's right behind the Zoom window. From this one? Yeah. I'm just trying to get a sense of the full scale here. How far that is. Asking people to go the opposite direction. You got to go east. There you go. All right. So I think what was implied by someone on the board was that it's all well and good to ask employees to go to that crosswalk, but they won't. They're not going to go that far. So this removal of that crosswalk is not part of this application, correct? Currently, as submitted, no. It's not, right? So it's really kind of a move point for discussion purposes. Well, if the board would be open to it, we could work with this board member. This board member would not be open to it. Okay. Well, we can certainly keep that there, but we would request that the sidewalk not be extended to that entrance. So when you say to that entrance, can you just get up and point that out? I'm a bit confused here. What else are you trying to accomplish other than reduce impervious surfaces by eliminating that sidewalk? Are you trying to move the car? Well, I mean, we are providing connectivity down to this sidewalk here. There'd be a proposed sidewalk here going up to the main entrance here. So we are providing connectivity here. Sorry, which were you saying you wanted to eliminate? We were talking about potentially eliminating this crosswalk here. I thought you were talking about the other employees could drive back and forth, minimize the crossing, but if the board isn't open to that, that's fine too. Well, no, not the board, just the just one. Okay. Well, number two, yeah, two. Okay. The staff recommendation was extending the sidewalk here within the righted way, but they made the comment that they don't recommend extending it further this way as there is the stream and the wetland onsite with some challenging slopes and it wouldn't be certain much here. Okay. So staff, are you recommending orange? Yes, and that's included. That's included. Yeah, that's what we're recommending is included in your conditions to choose from. And that's the last one. It's number 25. Number 25. I think it's what they're doing. Right. Right, I got that. Okay. And is the path on the other side of the marshal, that is constructed there, is that right? That exists. That exists. That exists. That's that multiple. Right. Yes, exactly. Right. So far now, and is where the fuchsia line ends, where the employee entrance is? Yes. Well, that would be the main entrance to the building. And they would be, are those employees that are moving back and forth occasionally using the main entrance? I would need to check with GM. I think the GM, Dedricks might be on Zoom, he was planning on being here. I am here. So would employees be using the main entrance to go back and forth between the sites or is there a separate employee entrance? The employee entrance is out front, but all my employees do park at 585 and walk across that sidewalk there. Okay. So we can keep the crosswalk. So that's, that's fairly active. Yeah. I was talking about the employees are there. 60, 64, 60 to 64. It's more than 20. It's more than 20 across the street, too. I have drivers that I'm talking about in the building is probably around 20, but with drivers and everybody else with recon, that's a two different buildings. So I guess that leads to one of my questions, which is the building across the street in that parking lot. Can you, can you go with me more specifically what that building is used for? Detail and vehicles. So it's used all the time? Correct. There's additional employees in that building? Correct. And there are no improvements being made to that building? No. No. But that's where all of the people are. Well, and that certainly makes sense to keep that talking with the construction manager today. We talked about removing that, but I didn't realize that certainly makes sense. I mean, I can see removing that small piece in the back, smaller parking lot. I don't know that doesn't get any good. You asked me the students name. The person online. Dedrick Casab. Thank you. Now, what's your address, please? General Manager. Your address. Oh, 586. My home, my work address? Work. Work is fine. Okay. You're good. No problem. All right. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay. So let's go, let's go back to the gardener supply. Intersection where the proposed pedestrian crosswalk upgrades are. And, and that's, and that's for safety at that intersection for general population. Correct. Because, because really it's not about employees of the business. It's about people using, using the pedestrian walkway and the sidewalk. And, right. I think the request for the flashing weekends was at the, the driveway crossing between the, the detailed apartment and the main department. The crosswalks, the gardener supply or traffic light that already have, you know, timing programed into the traffic light. Yeah, the rapid flashing beacons would be at the existing entrance to this site. To 586 and 535. Not the gardener supply intersection. It would be at. It would be right over here. Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. Because that's where I was saying that thinking in my mind that they were needed. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense. Okay. Okay. DRB members questions please. Based on the discussion I'm fine. And the issue of the containers that secured. Yeah. What's mine do. Yeah. And the signage is, is, is conditioned in here to be, brought into compliance at later date. Yep. They'll need to get a master sign plan before final plans can be approved. And that's, you're, you're understanding that. Yes. Yeah. All right. Okay. Is there, is there currently a right away on the West side where the town was thinking for not extending the parking lot or not extending the sidewalk because of the extreme that was there? Is there currently a way there for the town? We, we do not have proposed access right away on the front. There's a pretty big dollar that goes through there. There's a drainage easement over there, but there's no access. Okay. They were kind of that road through like they proposed years ago then they might follow that. Yeah, right. Then they may need it. Okay. Members of the public, any questions? So yeah, one, one quick question here. Is this, this is the area where you were talking about adding sidewalk. Is that right through this tree? You have to know that I wouldn't name that tree. If the tree was eliminated, we would, yeah, we wouldn't point that out. Yeah. Okay. Members of the public, any questions? No chats and no race pants. Okay. And can I, Dan, I just want to add on those shipping containers, they are empty with the shipping tanner company does require a 30 day notice and they were notified two days ago. So they will be gone in less than 30 days. So we're fine with that. That's great. Okay. Thank you, Dan. Last call. Good. That's good. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to close DP 23-08 at 747. Thank you, Dan. Okay. Next up, DP 23-09. Boardman pre-app for two law subdivision. Brian, welcome. You would say your name and address for the record place. Brian Currier. Oh, Lee Burke, civil associates, 13 corporate drive. I had the pleasure of meeting Brian's dog on the bike path this weekend. Very nice dog. Okay. Staff's up next. That's me. So this is a request for pre-application review of the two law subdivision at Ricky Vista to create one additional dwelling unit in the ARZD. Staff are recommending approval and allowing the project to proceed to growth management with recommendations as drafted. Just a little bit of background here. The lot was created as part of the nine lot that has subdivision in 2001. Just to orientate you, this road here is Walker Hill Road. And this is Route 2A running down there. So as part of that, this lot was created. Zoom in there. And it preserved an area of open space for the southern part of the lot as an agricultural conservation instrument. It also created an easement for the joint lots to have their septic systems. So that's lot four, lot five, lot six in there. And then it created a trail easement along the top, the north of the lot there. And then finally, as part of that approval, they did protect some class III wetlands on the parcel, which is in the bank there. So moving back, we didn't receive any public comments turning to the development standards for the district. The property has a 40 foot frontage onto Ricky Vista meeting the requirement there. It is an open space development, which means it needs to protect 75% of the parcels open space. And the applicant's preliminary site plan does show that protection. The property is largely covered by conservation areas, a strategic wildlife habitat area and a viewshed and is probably subject to watershed protection buffers. So during discretionary permit stage, the open space will need to include though any warship protection buffers that's delineated and the maximum amount of those conservation areas consistent with their ability to develop the site. The proposed open space that they showed on their preliminary plan does pretty much cover the agriculture easement that was protected in 2001. Save a small curve in Ricky Vista and small sliver of land along the southern area with existing property that are not incorporated. There is design standards for homes, new sites in the ARZD. They do need to designate a half acre building envelope and the bylaws do seek to minimize visual impacts in open areas, particularly where the house cannot be screened, which does apply in this case. So in this case it does state that the property should be the eventual building should be visually absorbed into the background and no part should be outlined against the sky. That is a view from the streets looking at the property and I've shown approximately where it's going to be located with the red box. You can see the existing stable barn next to it, which sits reasonably well against the tree line. So that discretionary permit stage, the applicant will need to demonstrate that they have minimized visual impacts and they haven't broken the skyline. WDD 31.8.9 does allow them to propose additional screening and absorption measures that can help with that, such as height limits, screening, and careful choice of materials. So we do have a recommendation that they explore those and propose some of them to the DLD to approval. The new and existing lots will have access onto Ricavista, which is a residential driveway, taking into account the existing property and lot six of the undeveloped work has subdivision, which has a right to access that driveway. That's only three potential drainage units. So it does comply and we've included a recommendation that they demonstrate that the driveway does comply with the construction standards of our bylaws. On-site infrastructure in terms of their wastewater water supply and utilities is fairly standard for an ARZD lot. We have included a specific recommendation via the application look app and look into the rights of the joining properties, the joining lots, to demonstrate whether those have been relinquished in the period and that the development will not preclude them exercising that right. Density is fairly simple in this case. A rough estimate indicates that they are entitled to sort of up to 12 units on this parcel. They're only present two and we have recommended that they include a density calculation as part of the discretionary permit. Landscaping in the ARZD, landscape buffers typically consist of existing vegetation. Chapter 23 and the guidance on developing new lots in the ARZD do give the DRB considerable discretion in determining sort of the width and what type of landscape buffer will be appropriate. The guidance is really that they provide ample buffers. So we have recommended that they do provide buffers to some of the joining properties east on St George Road and to the west on Ricky Vista. The existing frontage does have some strict trees. A rough estimate sort of indicates they exceed the 40 foot spacing. In this case, the southern part of this parcel is actually designated as a scenic viewshed. So that's what we are running along the southern part there and this area in sort of yellow is a scenic viewshed. So the southern part of the property is designated as a scenic viewshed and WDP 26.1.2 does allow the DRB to waive the requirement for street trees to preserve the scenic vista. Conservation areas, the property is subject to wildlife habitat designations. You can see it there, the lots ring in red. So it overlaps onto the green which is co-habitat and this sort of hash brown which is wildlife travel corridors and it overlaps with a small cleared area there as well. The conservation commission did review this application as well as the standard recommendations to prepare habitat service assessment and to minimize the extent of clearing with an updated building lot. They have asked the applicant to investigate moving the post lot southwards to reduce or ideally avoid any clearing in the woodland but the recommendation proposed does recognize that some of that area is needed for septic systems. So really it's for the applicant to investigate that and move it as far south as they can consistent with that constraint. And then lastly we do know that there are properties in wetlands on the property so we recommended a delineation, the discretionary permit stage and because those classically wetlands which have actually in the intervening 20 years seem to have fallen off the delineation map were so protected under the 2001 subdivision. We recommended a function assessment which means that if they come back as class three we can actually determine whether or not they're worth protecting. They might be just stuff with the basis in which case there's no point in protecting them. So I think that's it. That's what you have is the recommendation to allow sleep growth management with recommendations as drafted. Okay, thank you Simon. Hey Brian, do you have any comments on the proposed conditions of approval? I only have one, I'll do the picky, but 4D talks about a wetland delineation by a professional vet and scientist. It just mentions that it's done on the entire property. Now we know there's going to be wetlands south of the current drive. We know they're to the east and likely the northeast, but I think we can delineate the vicinity of the proposed development and still show that we're meeting required density, still showing that we're not going to impact any wetlands while not delineating all the way into the northeast corner of the parcel that you know is hundreds of feet from where we're proposing to develop. So yeah, that's it. I understand. Do you have any members? Questions? Is there anything that shows where the conserved area is? The site plan. The site plan is it? Sorry, it's a yellow. So everything that's hatched in yellow in the open space development has to be on the parcel. Everything here that is yellow? That's correct. 75 percent is about a 30 acre parcel, so it's over 20 acres. Did staff verify that? I've checked the calculation. Does it play to be correct? In the map, the map lines are accurate. Comparing it to the existing agricultural woodsmen. The conserved area matches what's here when I call it along. This came before board about 10 years ago. It is based on tax maps, so we will be submitting the plat as part of discretionary. So if there is a discrepancy between now and discretionary, it would be because we're going to be looking at a survey boundary rather than a tax map. So I would ask that the staff just take a look at that and verify it and make sure it's correct. What's the distance of the proposed building envelope from your manure pile at your barn? You're sort of curiosity. Maneuver pile. Well, there's horses in that barn, right? Yeah. Where do you, where do you, where does the manure go every day? I am not sure. I'm not sure where it's located, that's right. I believe Stacy Farton is in the audience. If she wants to comment on where the manure is stored within the barn, Stacey, where is it? I believe it's typically right behind, right behind the barn is where I recall it to typically be. So directly behind the barn, behind the barn relative to Walker Hill Road, behind the barn relative to St. George Road. Behind it, on the back side, like headed toward the back car, yeah, right there. So if you walk around, so it's behind relative to Walker Hill. So in other words, it's the closest point you can have to that proposed building block right now. What's the distance between the manure pile and that proposed building block? I don't have that. I don't know. The reason I asked the question is because you can't drill wells within 200 feet, is it? Of manure pit, manure pile? I think it's 200. I think that's what I dealt with when I filled my well. Yeah, and there's a mound system just east of there. So we'll be looking at isolation distances when we apply for a state. So that's on the outside of the DRP. That's with the state and wells and septics and all that good stuff. Other questions? Yes. So do the adjoining lots have septic fields on this plot? They do not. I don't believe they do. We still have to look into there is an easement on there for them to use. We believe when we do the plot, we'll obviously learn more once you do a deep dive in the land records. But we believe that the abutting landowners have an easement over the property for a septic system. But when those lots were developed, they got their own WW permanence to put their own systems on their own lots. You know, it's a fairly good distance, long waits to run a force plane. So it seemingly, at this point, appears like the neighbors have their septic systems on their own. You might want to try to get those easements over. Right. Well, yes, we're aware of these. Refridation to see that. Yep. And we're aware of that situation. That's the only, the only question. Okay. So you're saying to see John. Yeah, the discretionary permission show that development will not include the adjoining lots exercising that septic easement. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Other questions? Okay. Members of the public question. Quick question. Okay. If you could state your name and address for the record, please. Sure. My name is Fran Stoddard, and I'm just, I'm mainly wondering where can I look at these documents to just get out? I think I, I think I get it, but to have a better understanding of, of what's going on. So are they accessible online or how would I take a look at these documents? Sorry, Fran. The documents here, a lot of the documents are available on our websites on the DRB page. Okay. If you, if you, yeah, Emily's dropped a link in the chat. Great. If you have any problems accessing them, you can always give me a call or send me an email. Tomorrow I can help you find them. My name is Simon Miles, NYLES. Okay, great. Thank you. That's pretty, it's pretty straightforward. Go to the town website and then make your way to the planning and zoning and the development review board and then meetings and tonight's date. And you'll see all the information for the, for, for everything that we're going over tonight. Terrific. And it looks good. And I'm not surprised and they're good neighbors and all that. So, and I, and I take it just another quick question. The two lots, the one is the existing house and the other lot is the new lot. Right. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Did you get the address there or did you? It's okay. Okay. Other questions? Okay. Doesn't look like no raised hands. No raised hands. No messages to the chat. Okay. Okay. Last chance for questions from the DRV. Brian, any final comments? Do you know? Okay. All right. We will close EP23-09 at 807. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. The DRV is now going to go into the repetitive session at 808. Welcome back to the town of Rolston Development and Review Board for Tuesday, December 13th, 2022. The time is 8.25. Is there a motion for HP 23? Well, there wouldn't be a motion. So, yeah. There's not really a motion for HP 23-01. It's just a, yeah, it would be rep. That's right. Okay. So, is there, is there a motion for HP 23-01? Yeah. I stopped rightly make the motion to approve in the Wilson Village Historic District and Certificate of Appropriateness in accordance to WBD Chapter 42. The Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee recommends approval as does the Wilson Development Review Board, a certificate of approval, certificate of appropriateness for Andrew and Angel, come forward. Application number HP 22-01 or HP 23 should be 22. 23. Yeah, we're going to have questions. Okay. So, HP 23-01 for a modern farmhouse style detached three-bed rod with second level auxiliary dwelling unit, 80. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave seconds it. Any further discussion? Yes. Yes, you will sign it. I will sign it. Yes. Yay or nay? Paul Christiansy. John Hemmelgarner. Thank you. Scott. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. Chair is a yay. Five in favor. One refusal. Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 20-03.2? Yes. Authorized by WDB 6.6.3. I, Dave Turner, move the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and I'll come to the material including the recommendations of town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law having heard and really considered the testimony presented at the public hearing on December 13, 2022, set the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 20-03.2 and approved discretion and permit for master or a master sign plans subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek administrative sign permits which must proceed in strict performance with the plans in which the approval is based. We are going to add a condition number six which states total wall signage shall not be increased above the 755 square feet. Okay. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? I'll second it. Scott seconds it. Any discussion? Hearing none. Yay or nay. Paul. Yes. John Hamilton. Yeah. Scott Riley. Yeah. Dave Turner. Yeah. Nate Andrews. Yeah. The chair is as recused himself. Five in favor. Nonopposed. One recusal. Motion carries. Next up is DP 23-08. Is there a motion? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I need manager's move with the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all company materials, including recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board's required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development bylaw and having heard and being considered the testimony presented with the public hearing of December 13, 2022, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 23-08 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above with the following modifications on item 23, strife included, sorry. It's just struck in its entirety. Struck in its entirety. Number 24, the shipping containers at 585 Marshall Ave shall be removed prior to administrative permit. Number 25, extend the sidewalk along Marshall Ave from the dead and sidewalk on the east sales display lot IV 07-069-012-000 to main driveway of 586 Marshall Ave. Approximately 200 feet. Okay, thanks. Oh, sorry. This approval authorizes the applicant's file plans obtained approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance to the plans under system proposal. Second aid. Is there a second? Second. John seconds it. Question. Any discussion? Yeah. Paul? Item 21 makes the crosswalk system included. Is this correct? The public board's requirements be satisfied. Is that it? That makes the, that makes the flasher system required. Correct. Yeah, condition number 22 refers to the public board's number. It's 21. Yeah, so 22 and 21 kind of work simultaneously. Oh, that's what you're saying, you're talking about the, yeah. I just want to make sure that that was included because I didn't see this up. That's on you. Okay, any other discussion? Okay. Hearing none. Yeah, or nay, Paul? Yeah. John? Yeah. Scott? Yeah. Dave? Yeah. Nate? Yeah. Chair Zia? Six in favor and unopposed motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 23-09? Yes, as authorized by WGD 6.6.3, I, John Hemmengar moved the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all company materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development, by the Wilson Development By-law. And having heard, really considered the testimony presented after public hearing December 13, 2022, except the recommendations for BP 23-09 can authorize this application to move forward to growth management. They're going to adjust recommendation for D to read a wetland delineation for the proposed development must be prepared by professional wetland scientists and the site plans submitted to discretionary climate applications shall show all wetlands within 50 feet of the proposed new lot property boundary. If the delineation identifies class III wetlands and functional assessments of both wetlands shall be provided. Okay. Thank you, John. Is there a second? Second. Paul, second to any discussion? I mean, did you complete the motion? Please complete motion. I'll finish to that more here. Okay. And authorizes this application, I said it, and authorizes the application to move forward to growth management for me on them. No, no, at that moment, I'm not going to get it, but I'm there. No, I was thinking the same thing because, because they actually did it a little different and so, you know, different sequence. So I actually thought the same thing. Yeah, with the DG versus the. Got it. Got it. Okay. We've not been on our best team. I was again tonight, we made it hard. Yeah. Okay. Any other discussion about our topic? Okay. Yeah, your name, Paul? Yeah. John? Yeah. Scott? Yeah. Dave? Yeah. Nate? Yeah. Jersey, yeah, he said some favorite non-opposed motion carries. Okay. Meeting minutes of November 22nd, 2022. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes? I didn't know. I was just, I just recognized that fact that you said that it would not have happened. Ah, welcome to the floor. Okay. Please, sweet. We're going to have to wait on that. So let's talk about that though. Yeah. Because there's quite a delay between now and the next meeting. And I pushed the boundaries of the 45 days. So we... Are we available to follow up? Yes. The other option is that we could do this by unanimous consent. And if everybody's in agreement after having adequate time to review it, then we could approve this by unanimous consent. But I don't think it's in the spirit of just throwing it on the screen. So how about... So I think that's a good idea. How about we email them to everybody and then everybody emails back to you consent, be your consent or not. Right. And then I don't think we need... I don't think you got a voice for that, Steve. No. No, unanimous consent is basically just I approve by email. So if everybody's in agreement, then it's unanimous consent. So everybody would need to respond. So everybody would need to respond. That's here. Well, since we're all here for the first time, and I don't know how to write it. So staff can email the minutes out. Okay, I do that. Tonight, tomorrow, whatever. And just reply to all your consent. Your approval, if assuming you approve it. And if you notice anything just... You're all just have a little word with you, which you notify. Well, that's not unanimous consent. And we don't have to say it's that point. Then people act back and forth. You can't go back and forth in that form. Really? No. You can't go back and forth. Exactly. It can't get kicked down the road until January that night. Or we call a special meeting. Okay. So Friday unanimous consent, if that works. And the reason why you can't do it by email is because you can't have a discussion debate in real time. Question. Does the 45 days start from the meeting or from the time that we go to vote on the meeting? It was closed. But it's the closing of the hearing. So that's what we would have to do for the 45 days of the 22nd? It's just not fair to applicants, regardless of whether we're pushing the boundaries of the 45. It's just not fair to the applicants and who are looking to advance whatever initiative they're working on. And so I'm sorry. And growth management. So email the minutes out. We'll try for unanimous consent. If we don't then get unanimous consent, then we'll take it from there. That's okay. Okay. Is there any other business to bring forth to the board tonight? Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you all. Thank you.