 Welcome all, the Williston Development Review Board of June 14th, 2024, Flag Day. My name is Pete Kelly, DRB Chair. If you are a Zoom participant, please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant toolbar. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in Town Hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken at this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to June 28th, 2022. Let's start by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmell-Garn. Present. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Saladino is absent. Dave Turner. Here. Nate Andrews. Here. And the chair is present. With that, I'll turn it over to Simon for Zoom instructions. Great. Thank you. So good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Development Review Board. Please take a moment to rename yourself to ensure the name is correct. You can do this by clicking on the participant's icon at the bottom of your toolbar, hovering over your own name, clicking rename and then typing it in. Or you can message me in the chat and I will rename you. If you're in person and you have a device like a laptop or a phone, please make sure you keep your microphone and speaker off to avoid any feedback with our AV system. And you also don't need your camera because you would be picked up if you're speaking and also on the meeting now. For those people on Zoom, we have a range of functions on the toolbar along the bottom of the Zoom window. On the left-hand side, we have the mute button which turns your mic on and off. Please keep yourself muted when you're not speaking. We have the stop-start video button. Video is optional. We have the chat button. Please use that to message me if you need technical assistance. We also have the reactions button. This is what you should use if you would like to speak during public testimony. Please raise your hand or wave in your Zoom window and we'll call on you to speak. Please don't use the chat by testimony as you do need to speak it. We will be using screen share this evening so that everyone can see the same documents. We do recommend side-by-side mode. Your Zoom should generally default to that automatically. But if it doesn't, you can switch to it by clicking the view options next to the green rectangle at the top of your screen, scrolling down and clicking side-by-side mode. You also have the option of adjusting the slider to change the respective size of the video or the screen we're sharing. Lastly, if you do have a bad internet connection, there's a few things you can try and try turning off your video. You can try closing other browser tabs or computer programs or you can try using your telephone for your speaker and microphone. You do that there by clicking the up arrow, clicking the leave computer audio and then dialing back into the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, Simon. Okay, first on the agenda is the public forum. This is an opportunity for the public to address the board on any issues that are not on tonight's agenda. People here in the room, are there any comments? And if you're participating by Zoom, please raise your virtual hand if you would like to speak and address the board. So we have no hands raised. Okay. Next up, item number two on the agenda is the public hearings. We have four items on tonight's agenda. We have a certificate of appropriateness. That's first up. Then we have DP16-05.4, Allen-Brook Development. Then we have DP22-10. Excuse me, JC Properties, LLC. And then we have continued from the May 10 hearing, appeal 22-02, which we will hear at the end of the meeting. I will be recusing myself for DP16-05.4, the Allen-Brook Development. My employer, DEW, has a business relationship with an entity that Al Seneca is a partner. And so due to that relationship, I'm going to recuse myself on that one. And Mr. Hemelbaran, if you will take the helm on that, that would be appreciated. First up is HP22-03, the certificate of appropriateness. Is the applicant present? No, they're not here tonight. They're not. Okay. Who from staff is going to read this one? I will be reading this one. But whatever reason, it's not letting me share. Like it doesn't pop up in my apps. You're not hosting, are you? I'm a co-host. So when I'm clicking share screen, it doesn't show my tabs. Simon, are you able to screen-term and staff report? I'm making you the host as well. Well, anyways, this is a request for a certificate of appropriateness for a room replacement at 8099 Williston Road. This property is located in the National Register Historic District of the Village Zoning District. And the main room is currently slated. Some of the other rooms on the property are architectural shingles. The separate barn has a standing seam room. That's going to stay the same. This property is listed on the Historic Sites and Structure Survey. It's a circa 1825 house with a gable front and clock board siding. The HAF recommended that changing the slate roof to architectural shingles complies as proposed. What the bylaw says is fairly vague, respect the original character and period of the building. So in their interpretation of this, because it is a gable front and that slate roof is minimally visible, because it's a two and a half story structure, they determined that removing the slate and replacing it, it would be minimally visible to invisible from the public road. So we're recommending that you approve it with the recommendation. They chose two colors, a state gray and slate stone gray or a similar gray. These shingles have some variation to emulate a natural slate rather than being monotone. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Any questions for staff from the DRB? I'm just asking if you have any questions for staff. Do you have a comment? Go ahead. This is a historic building. Part of what makes it this historic is the slate roof. It was built that way. The slate roof is integral to the building. Is that wrong? The number should not be touched. It should be repaired, put back into place. There are people out there who do that. If you went to Burlington, and we're not in Burlington, but if you went to Burlington and was requesting the vacuum out, this is part of what makes this building special. And to change it out, this is the roof which would properly cared for should last forever. It is a triosin. Actually, it lasts about 155 years because my one in Norfolk, I replaced that 155 years. I've got a bunch of them in Burlington, and they do take maintenance, but not a lot. I know they have a tree fall on it. Like you said, this is distinct to the house. It's part of the house. It's part of how they built these things. It's going to cost them as much. Were the porches slayed at one point? I just curious. Because if the porches weren't slayed at one point, who the hell approved that change? It was probably done back when they were worried about this. Ah, okay. For the fact. Yeah, I doubt the porches are original though. I doubt those porches are original to the building, but I don't know. There's a lot we don't know. Those used to be add-ons and ripped off routinely, but the slate I think should be replaced, if not maintained one way or the other. Is it with the slay roof damaged by the tree? I think it did sustain some damage, and they're going through an insurance claim property process for the tree that fell and damaged the roof, and I think some of the porches. What precedent is there with other requests from buildings in the historic district that have had similar requests to remove the slate? It varies. So more recently, there have not been many requests to replace roof materials. Historically, you know, before the zoning was changed, some things did go from slate to another material. Some people have changed their roofs without the benefit of a permit. So there are many properties in the village that historically would have had a slate that had become shingles or standing seam metal with or without a permit, or under what zoning is to be researched? I don't recall. I don't recall the years I've been on the board ever having a request to remove slate and replace something else. Okay. So Paul, you've made your position clear if I heard you correctly that deny and repair. Deny and repair or replace with slate again. David Turner. Kind of up in the air on it because of some of the shingle roof on the house. I do agree with Scott on the fact that it does make the house from its time repair. I'm fine with the shingles. I think I would like to see this slate stay. There was actually some reason that it could not stay. You couldn't find slate to replace a little bit that was damaged or there was no availability. I don't want someone to have a leaky roof, but I would agree that the large part of the character of this building being historic is the roof. So at least at this point, I would say I'd like to see an attempt to keep it. John, position. I'm uncomfortable replacing the slate. You know, slate roof. I know you said 155. Our rule of thumb is shingles, 25, metal, 50, slate, 100 years. It goes like that. And I know that when I see an old building, you say, hey, that's a slate roof. That's an old building. I don't have a problem with it being different. In fact, I think it's better if it's different than the porch roof because I think the porch was probably not as old as the house and it helps the house and out. So I guess I'd want to see a much stronger argument on why it's not feasible to do the slate. Okay, staff, help me out. Do we, on a certificate of appropriateness, do we vote on that, correct? You do. In this instance, and especially because the applicant is not here, I'd recommend you continue. I can relay this information in the meeting according to the applicant. And they can come back to another meeting. Great. Okay. So we're going to continue this until June 28. And we will continue the discussion at that time. Okay. Next up is DP 16-05.4, Allen Brook Development. Okay, I'm going to refuse myself. I've had it, John. Okay, thank you. So the folks that are representing the applicant to state their names and addresses to the record? Sure. Brian Birch, Allen Brook Development, 31, Commerce Ave, South Burlington. And I'm Allisonico, Allen Brook Development, 31, Commerce Ave, South Burlington. Oh, welcome to both of you. Thank you. Emily, I think this is yours. This is our quest for discretionary government to amend final plans. We can figure the number of one- and two-bedroom units in buildings B1 and C1 in phase one, with cottonwood processing. This application includes no architectural modifications to building B1. And it does include changes to building C1. There are no site plan changes proposed. Within phase one, the number of dwelling units will increase from 42 to 49. But because they are one-bedrooms, the overall dwelling unit equivalence will decrease from 37.5 to 32.5. Remembering that a studio or one-bedroom unit is half of the dwelling unit equivalent for the purposes of density and growth management. Overall, within cottonwood processing, the total number of units will increase from 202 to 219. But the dwelling unit equivalence will remain 173. Due to what? Huh? It ends with due, due to what? Oh, that should be a capital U for DUE, dwelling unit equivalent. Oh, okay, okay. Never mind. All good, all good. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is about 16.9 acres located in the mixed-use residential zoning district where it has access to state and town roads. It is subject to design review. However, this application specifically did not need conservation commission review. Staff is recommending that you take testimony and close, deliberate tonight and approve this application with findings and conditions as drafted. This is about architectural elevations for building C1. The DRB could choose to retain final plan review or continue the hearing for revised elevations if they didn't want to turf all those conditions off to staff review of final plans. This is the first time the DRB is approving this request. Cottonwood processing has a lengthy approval process dating back to 2007, but more recent permit approvals related to amending the architectural design for phases one and two in 2019. The historic and architectural advisory committee did comment on this application on June 7th and their conditions are recommended and included. Public works and fire also commented and their memos are included. No public comment letters were received at the time of mail-out or by tonight this evening, June 14th. In terms of the zoning standards for the mixed-use residential district, there's no changes to building footprint setbacks or building height, no changes to proposed use, and no changes to the site layout as it relates to development pattern standards. I do include here a note about vested rights on performing lots uses and structures. So last week the select board chose to warn a hearing on the TAF Corners Base Code, and starting this Thursday, June 16th, both the existing bylaws and the draft code will become applicable during the zoning vortex while the select board is reviewing the draft code. This application was filed prior to the select board warning of hearing, so this application is vested in the current bylaws, and therefore staff discussion about growth management and density are based on the current bylaws as a form-based code does not exist. I do note that as proposed for form-based code, there are some ways that the new standards of form-based code, new administration process for growth management could impact the future phases for cottonwood if they choose to make any significant amendments. Cottonwood crossing is proposed in five phases. Today we're looking at phase one, where a building is under construction, building C1 is proposed but not yet constructed, and another commercial building A1 is proposed but not constructed. Phase two has completely built out, that's where Community Bank and Junior's Pizza is located, and then phases three, four, and five are all residential. They have conceptual approval for street layout and building footprints but no architectural and site-specific permits yet. So substantial change, invested rights, there are some specific findings and conclusions for the DRB. In summary, changing the approved number of units or bedrooms is a substantial change, which does void the development's vested rights. And when vested rights are being looked at, the DRB looks at conformities and nonconformities. And if something is nonconforming with the bylaws, the DRB has the right to require a correction of that nonconformity, but only if the change is reasonably proportional to the scale of the proposed development. And when the DRB reviews of substantial change, they're limited to the scope of what's changing except for the nonconformities. So in this case with Cottonwood, they're doing a fairly minor change, just interior floor plan for the residential units and then some architectural elevation changes. So it's fairly minor when considering all five phases of the development. But it was approved under an old growth management score in 2016 with 88 points. And then in 2019, the growth management criteria changed. The growth management rules changed. And today, if they were proposing Cottonwood Fresh, it would probably score something around 68 points. And this is no fault of their own because some categories were reduced from 15 to 10 points. A new category was added and the energy efficiency criteria got much stricter. So while they're changing the number of units, I still think this upholds the offer housing choices score. If they were to come to the DRB and propose a more significant change that threatens the growth management score or wouldn't meet the 30 point minimum, then this would be an issue. But for tonight, I think that the DRB can approve this amendment with the score of 88 points. And what follows is a summary table where I compare their score of the old criteria and what changed in the new criteria and what an approximate score would be. So growth management, they scored 88 points and 173 DUE in March 2016 with 58 affordable long unit equivalents and 119 market. I have drafted findings and conclusions stating that this amendment upholds the overall score and continues to uphold 18 out of 20 points for housing choices. Final plans must specify which buildings and phases the affordable units are anticipated as well as acknowledge the slow build provision. In summary here, there hasn't been a detailed accounting done for cottonwood about the affordable units, how many need to be affordable at 80, 100, 120%. And in 2019, that new slow build rule came into play. So rather than allocation expiring and rather than having to build only what's available in that fiscal year, you can build everything across your schedule, but they lapse into slow build after five years. So in summary, I did this analysis and I prepared an Excel table both to help the applicant with planning future amendments, planning where the affordable units will fit into their project and help staff with the administration of the growth management score and the slow build provision. And what follows is a summation of their commitments that they made at growth management. Off street parking and loading, this one's pretty simple. We're recommending standard conditions and the final plans must include the location of long-term bicycle storage. They provide a shared parking analysis that supports 267 vehicular spaces. There's a mix of commercial and residential uses with garage parking and surface parking shared between not only the buildings in phase one, but a shared parking analysis looking at all of cottonwood crossing. Density transfer of development rights. So in the mixed use residential zoning district, the net density is 7.5 DUE per acre. And it can go up to 15 DUE per acre with the transfer of development rights. This property did receive a transfer of development rights in, I believe that should say in 2008, not 2018 from Keystone estates. So overall, there are 173 dwelling unit equivalents comprised of the density. In fact, there might be about three and a half dwelling unit equivalents that could go to this project if they were to amend in the future and activate that remaining density. Design review. So the hack recommendations are included in the next condition number three. They noted in their review that there is a drawing style difference between the 2016 originals and the amendments shown tonight with the shading that shows the depth of the structure. But overall, they disliked the new design because it lacked contrast due to the change of ratio of primary and secondary facade materials. What follows are some side by side comparisons. In general, the original elevations had more brick and specified a metal signing shingle. Now the new ones have more clappered sighting, less brick and the west elevation above the parking garage access. Or no, excuse me, the west elevation that has the pedestrian entrance has fewer windows on it than the original. Signs in public art. And note here that Cottonwood Rossing does have a master sign plan and all properties in Cottonwood must come into compliance, particularly with the portable sign sandwich board sign requirements. And impact fees. They're assessed at the time of administrative permit. Impact fees were paid for building B1 with permit number 20-0098. So only the new units in that building will be subject to the impact fees, whereas building C1 has not received any administrative permits and would be due all its impact fees. And this accounting can be done at the time of administrative. Before I close, I'll quickly whiz through the findings of FACT, which summarized the growth management score, the dwelling unit allocation, the number of units that need to be affordable at the various levels to uphold 20 out of 20 points, the transfer of development rights, as well as condition of approval number 3A, which is the hack recommendations where they look at each building elevation, as well as the hornest supports and private balconies and the lead depth for the building. Thank you. Thank you. So, is there anything you'd like to add to that summary? Well, that was really thorough. We weren't expecting this big of a stack report, but our changes, this request came about because we recently rented the B2 building. That's the building that's occupied now. It's a three-storey mixed use. And that building was built with four studios, eight one bedrooms, and 22 bedrooms. So that 32 units total. And we found that actually all 32 rented immediately, which was good. But we found a request for one bedroom far exceeded the request for two bedrooms. And that kind of surprised us, but it's what we found. And at that time, you're building the B1 building, and we talked to our architect. That's the building that's under construction now. We talked to our architect and asked if some more one-bedroom units could be added without making any change to the building. And he did some revised war plans that we included in the packet. And we were able to, by decreasing the number of two-bedroom units, we were able to increase number one, end up with four more units total in that building without making any change to the building itself outside. And then we asked them to look at the C1 building, which is going to be the next building we build. We're hoping to break ground on that building this fall. So the C1 building was approved with one one-bedroom unit and 17 two-bedroom units. And without making any change to the footprint, we were able to change that. So it now has 15 one-bedroom units and six two-bedroom units. So it went from 18 to 21. But the actual overall impacts assembly described with the dwelling unit equivalence has gone down. So with the one-bedroom and two-bedroom configuration change, we feel like the impacts have decreased over the site. And there are some permits to amend and some allocation numbers to submit to public works, which we started. And I think there's a approval condition which requires that. So we can make that change. So the second part of our request has to do with the architecture of the C1 building. And really, we didn't see it as much of a change. We did change architects over the past six years. And so six years ago or 2016, we were in for five buildings. We had this big, big project. Cottonwood was new. And we submitted a giant set of plans with elevations and floor plans for five new buildings. And this was one of them. But the building was conceptual at that time. It didn't submit with their application. But this was the floor plan for the C1 building in 2016. It's just shapes. It just shows you the blue are two-bedroom units. And then this yellow was a one-bedroom unit. But there was no bathroom layout. There were no bedroom layouts. No kitchens drawn. But the architect did draw this beautiful rendering of what the building would look like. But it wasn't based on an actual interior layout. So we want to build this building this fall. So we've now developed a detailed set of floor plans for a majority one-bedroom units. Those floor plans have looked at where the bathrooms are going to be, where the bedrooms are going to be. And so the windows and door locations all have to work with that. And so we gave this original elevation to our architect and we said, here's the building that's approved. We want you to design it like it was drawn in 2016. And so with the changes, the doors and windows did move. And so it couldn't be a perfect match of what was originally approved. And we also did look at adding more brick, less brick. And cost was a consideration. This building costs maybe almost twice as much today than it did in 2016. And that's something we need to be concerned about too. But we think this building is pretty close to what was originally approved. And there was a hack meeting on this last week. We didn't get noticed about that meeting. We would have been there. We've never missed the hack meeting. We didn't know there was one last week. So I think a lot of these issues could have been worked out with them, but we'll have to work them out tonight with this board. So I guess we just wanted to go through their recommendations and comment on each one if you guys are up for that. The other thing we wanted to just let you know that the brick color hasn't changed, even though the pictures, I mean there's no question when you look at the original picture and you look at this picture, it kind of looks like a different building. But the bricks are going to be the same. The siding is going to be the same. We're going to go with the dark gray siding. We'll probably go with the darker gray trim up on the top and around. We're still using the same brick. We've reduced the brick a little bit, mostly because, obviously, cost, but mostly because just to accommodate the new layout where the original drawing showed the decks, I believe, on the west side. Well, the way this one lays out, the decks are not going to be on the west side. And then the other reason, you know, one of the things was a blank wall. And we can go over all of those items, but the blank wall is because this bathroom and closets on that wall, it's very difficult to get a sizeable window. We could put some smaller windows. We didn't look at it with the smaller windows and it didn't seem to look much better, so we just left them out. We certainly would be willing to work with you guys, so take your recommendations to make some changes to things. And we certainly do not want to take away the quality that we've already put into the project by putting in a soil comp here. So we're using the same sider, same brick, and we just maybe have to manipulate a little bit to make it all come together. So whatever reason there was, you know, a problem with the printing of the colors. So the brick looks really dark and really red, where, you know, that's why we brought a sample of the brick. We couldn't get the color to print out just right, apparently. And then the other thing is, is you're comparing a 3D drawing from six years ago to a really 2D drawing. So there's, you know, so 3D drawing obviously looks nice with their shadows. I got an interruption to tell you that Al, I am incredibly disappointed that you didn't do the 3D walk around rendering that you did five years, six years ago. I mean, I was looking forward to that this whole week. We didn't think that. We still haven't had anything to deal with. Nobody here remembers that. I can, I still haven't. I could have been a bit on the screen. Right in the price tag. No need to show that right now. So I guess I'll start with a couple of questions here. So on the, the C, it's the C1 building. That's in question here. On the other hand, you've made similar changes to B1, but did not change the elevations. Is that correct? That's correct. So the B1 is still going to have the same proportions, the same elements in the same places as. Yes. We changed an interior only. We have one apartment that doesn't have a deck because we didn't add that to the exterior. We just didn't want to change anything on the exterior. Right. And I think that's, I think that's great. Yeah. This board, you know, we're, we try to do a thorough job of reviewing these projects and improving them. And, you know, I would say, at least speaking for myself, my expectation is that they get built the way we looked at them. And I appreciate you taking B1 and not changing that. I guess one question I have about B1 though is when. I'm assuming that the floor plan was equally developed on that at the time of the original proposal, or did you have a full laid out plan there with units? We had more of a layout plan. For B1. Because B1 and B2 were very similar. We did both of those at the same time. And then we only built B2, financial reasons. I see. So therefore you did not have to change the elevations of B1. That's correct. But. As you came through and put it into construction because you had a more detailed plan in place at the time. Yeah. It only impacted two units on each floor. So, you know, four units total. Whereas C building. We really, you know, we went from one one bedroom, 17, two bedrooms to 15 one bedrooms, 6, 2. So it's really C building was the interior here was completely different. Well, we didn't really have an interior to start with, but it was a big difference. Right. What I'm getting at here is I'm hearing that there's two pieces here that are causing changes to the elevations. One is this switch from predominantly two bedroom units to predominantly one bedroom units. But the other one is that the fact that at the time of the original review, there was a much less detailed floor plan that that's been developed further and that even if you hadn't changed the unit types, would you be in front of us asking for changes to the elevations on C? Yes, we would. Because, you know, upon further review of the floor, the actual floor plans with kitchens and math locations, it just didn't work where those decks were because there was there was no apartment layout with those decks, just an elevation of our elevation. And we've got, we can show you guys, you know, the floor plans that we had in that packet when we got an approval. I understand. Yeah. So I guess before I keep talking more, I'm going to open this up to other members of the board to ask questions or to press opinions about those changes. So what do you think about the changes to the elevations? In Scott's terms earlier, did that get it right or not? I mean, what I see based on these pictures, which like you said, I recognize it's not a great comparison because they are different. I think that the hack generally got it right and expressing their concerns. And that's because you guys did a really good job and set the bar high for yourself here. And I think it would be helpful for me to see images of these new building designs maybe next to the existing buildings. And I don't think it's unreasonable what hack is asking here to at least just be able to see it. If we're looking at it next to the other building, existing buildings in the same color format would be helpful. Yeah. Again, because you guys set the bar high for yourself here and people like what's there now and don't want to see a change. And I don't think you do either, but I do want to hear what they're saying here. And so we are, we got the staffs or the hacks comments as an approval condition. And we are okay with making some of those. We can talk about that. But there's a few that are, we don't think are possible. And if we went to that meeting, we, you know, we kind of probably discuss it with them, but Okay. So I'm going to allow the other members of the board to kind of weigh in if you'd like, or we can go through. No, I agree too that I think the hack got it right with the things. And I'd like to see a little more brick, probably like the initial drugs in 2016 were put on the cloud board and the entrance ways a little more pronounced was on the bottom, the fieldstone in the 2016, it looks like it was more of a golden color. And now it looks like you've gone to a gray color. I think, I think the just all the colors on that are totally different. So we brought in the siding and the brick to show you that we're using the same color brick, the same color of siding that's on B1 and B2. So same stone as well as well. I'm going to support the applicant on this one. It's a common problem that as soon as you use a different printer or a different monitor, the colors all look different. But I think I appreciate that you're still using the same palette of materials that I hear you saying. So I think if you saw the purple red on the original drawings, that's what's still going to be there. And I assume they're similar to what you've been building out there now. So I think the colors themselves are probably not the issue here. It's really kind of the mix of them and the proportions and whatnot that that happens. On 2016 under the samples, though, like the brick says brick. And under the 2022, it says brick veneer. So was it break? And now it's brick veneer. It's bright. It's bright. Okay. This is I'll pick this up from the job. I can't imagine asking you to put windows and closets or things like that. I think that's unreasonable. But I think that what I want to see in the pictures is depth. And I understand that's because like you said, they're two dimensional. So there is the same depth. I mean, the brick picks out the four inches. Yeah. There'll be a cap on top of the brick similar to what's on buildings B1 and B2. So I think that's the same depth. You know, there's a lot of different dimensions. Yeah. There'll be a cap on top of the brick similar to what's on buildings B1 and B2. And then the siding is set back that, you know, four, four and a half inches or so. So there is that same depth. You'll see that it'll make that change from the first and second floor where the brick goes out. Yeah. And then it'll step back with that's not where the siding comes in. And as far as the timbers that that we were brought up, we agree. We should have looked that over a little bit. They weren't evenly put. So we will make sure we do that. And if it's size, I mean, there was no size of dimension put on the first or the second drawing. So it's hard to say what that size is or was. So we'll make sure we get a pretty hefty, you know, piece of hollow or wood to put up there. So Paul, did you have a comment? I want windows in the closets. So you do realize that you can actually put that in as a marketing feature to the women. So they sit there and say, you don't have to take clothes outside. You can actually see the daylight in your in your closet. We'll put a closet light in. But what we can do is put a window. It's very tricky, but we'll put a window over the toilet in the bathroom. So there are plenty of options here. So what I'm going to suggest here from from my seat is that that we continue this hearing. We give you the opportunity to meet with the hack. Is there more involved with these design pieces than the board here is so that we're not kind of going through these recommendations of the hack and kind of going through the same thing that they went through. I think you're right that you should have an opportunity to speak with them. You know, personally, I agree that I believe they got it right as well. I think there's proportional issues here that are not up to the quality that you showed initially. Well, we are in for a new. Review. You know, it's not an administrative change the way before the board. It is, but we're going to be held to a standard that was in the past that shouldn't all builders in town be helped as standards that they should be held to the standards that they got with the original permit. And at this point, I feel that that's not really what we're we're not looking to change that overall level of quality. Well, we're not even. And I think there's some there's something going on here that, you know, I'm saying we're using the same quality materials that we put on the first building. The same stone. Same brick. Same cycle. So now and now we're having a short, short of giving an impromptu architectural lecture on proportionality and. Yes. Mix of materials and sure. Dominance of one piece over the other and. And other kinds of. Composition and whatnot. Which would be. Which would be. First of another architect's opinion, but I'll let you through. So again, the five opinions that are up here. Yes. Are. Probably not equal to the five opinions in the audience right now. So we need to be convinced that you've done something that's that's equivalent. Could we go through the comments because we agree with. We can make some of those changes. There's. There's a few that. Just can't be made. And there's a reasonable explanation for why they can't be made. And. You know, we. Continue it wouldn't be the end of the world for us, but we are. You know, pushing to have this project. In the ground for winter. So we're up against like a tight timeline. And another. We meet again in two weeks. Right. Is that when it would be two weeks? Okay. Yeah. Okay. But we could have that. Yeah. The hack could look at it on June 21st. Well, it would be tight because we would, you know, need materials by Friday. That's going to. That's going to be a challenge on the 21st. Because we really would like to see some elevations. I think that are more. How come we weren't one that we were supposed to have. This information to the hack. It was supposed to go on their agenda and. It didn't and was realized at the last minute. So in an expediency of time, I recommended that they look at it and put their recommendations to the DRV rather than continue this whole hearing. For a hack review. The future meeting. Well, we're running into another problem because we combined these two. We have a building B2 that we're hoping to be able to put on August 1st. The apartments. And. I'm not sure how this is going to work. It looks like. We might be able to. Well, I think if we agreed on some of these conditions, there's still final plan reviews. I think we're going to be able to. We're going to be able to. We're going to be able to. We're going to be able to. We're going to be able to. Well, I think if we agreed on some of these conditions, there's still final plan review required. You know, I was going to ask that we get, have the DRV improve the project with conditions tonight. And then, and then we would submit final plans that corporate those conditions. And I was going to ask if we could submit that to Matt and Emily to planning and planning zoning. You know, a lot of times they can sign off on that without having to do that. So, you know, I'm just guessing when the next one would be, but. So, we're agreeable to half the tax conditions, such as adding more windows. Revising the timber location. Enhancing the. The can be's over the entrance. A lot of the major things they said, you know, we agree with, there's a few that they asked for doorway side. So, you know, we're going to have to kind of look at the floor plan to see, you know, why that couldn't be added because it's the, the interest of the building is kind of a narrow hallway. So, the double door with the glass is as large as, you know, that hallway can fit. The original building had, had side lights on the glass, but the original building also didn't have a defined floor plan. So, that was one thing we were going to ask to be struck from that. So, you know, I think it shows up in condition A and B. Private office. We were, you know, they act that we should add some privacy screens. We will, we'll do that. So I think we're in agreements on C and D. And then on E, it just says, you know, confirm the facade. They looked really two dimensional on the elevation. We submitted compared to the drawing six years ago, you know, that brick will stick out four inch above the clapboard. And then there will be a six inch limestone cap that separates the brick and the clapboard on the second, third door. So we really agree with them on that. So we agree with their conditions with the exception of the science paper windows. We've got that same cap and dimensional setbacks on the two buildings that we've built already. It's our, our intent to do the same thing here. So we may not have detailed that as well on the architectures as, as we can detail out the final plans. And those are pretty minor changes. We think that can be, you know, we can ask them to kind of revise the colors and we think we can get this building pretty close to what, what it was originally. I mean, that's, that's what we want to build. So to reiterate what I think I'm hearing you say. That if we approved these conditions, number three, as written with the exception of the door side lights, you would be, you would be okay with that. I think so. Yes. Yeah. And then you would re, you would submit the revised elevations that were consistent with these final plans that the board could retain that approval. Yep. Or we could defer to staff. And that would be our choice. We could just debate in deliberations. What do you guys think? Should we continue this or should we move through it? I'm okay with moving through it. I mean, we still, we still have a chance to look at everything. And, you know, it sounds like you guys agree with what the hack said really. I don't think there's any, it's just, We only agree because it was our intention to do that anyway. I mean, we're not, we're not changing that cap. It really just goes down. It's efficient. We should, you know. Right. I mean, I think we were going to put a little tweak to, you know, to fix up on the, for the timbers. We'll have some pretty sizable timbers. But yeah. So the only issue that's really of question is 3a. 3a. Correct. No. The more, the more windows stop. That's the only question that you have. I did have one other question. It's like related to the growth management stuff. We'll wait. I just asked that now. Okay. Brian, I want to, I want to put this elevation to rest. I think we want to get to the other stuff in a minute, but I don't want to get it too mixed up. So there was discussion of continuing this to allow you to submit a revised elevation. I understand what you're saying about your schedule. But, um, Paul, I'm not sure I understood what you were getting at when you said they are in agreement with everything except 3a. That doesn't make any sense to me. Well, the question, the question I'm trying to figure out is, is that if we say, yeah, go ahead and start up on building C. And then, uh, you say, we're going to retain the final. And for some reason, uh, the heck issue of that dead wallish space that they keep talking about suddenly becomes an issue. You know, that's going to be our, as I suggested it, that would become our review at when they submit final plans as to whether that's still a dead wall or not a dead wall. Well, I was basically trying to, trying to figure out is the only, the only thing that's really going to be our issue is going to be, is going to be 3a really. It sounds like they're agreeing to everything else. So if I can jump in here, 3a, we said that we cannot do the doorway side lights. However, we can do the enhanced, we'll enhance the entrance and we'll take a look at the additional brick to maybe widen the brick out, less side, you know, that kind of stuff. We can't do the side lights because they just don't fit. Well, I understood that part because basically I was going to, I wasn't going to vote for that part. And we'll even throw in the bathroom windows on the second and third floors only we can't do it on the first floor. So Scott, did you want to say? I guess, well, one comment is that me sounds like 6a doesn't want the other in terms of timing, you know, if it's, if you agree to do it tonight and it comes back to final or approval still come forth forward. Well, I think, I think there is a difference in that essentially what we're saying if we approve this with these conditions is we're looking at that elevation in the future, but that allows them to move ahead with the new floor plank configuration into. I would assume that would happen. Well, it's, it's happening. Kind of as we speak, we didn't think it was going to be that big a deal to change to, to, you know, there hasn't really been any discussion amongst the board about not doing the. Together, it's shown in the approval. We don't, we won't be able to August 1st. I will, I will add say this, but. 10 years ago on the second building and we built over any crossing 88 home, this exact same subject came up with a little, the dead wall with a little, we ended up putting if you go to look at it, there's a whole bunch of one by one. Yes. Windows that were stuck on the end of the building in a, you know, three, three rows of threes for this exact reason. And they're in closets. Is that where that came from? So we can, it lasted one building before we killed it. So what I'll say is that there's the same thing. There are a lot of things other than windows to put on an elevation to give it interest and variety and changes of material and color and whatnot. And I think that there's a lot of ways to be consistent with what you had given in with the level of detail, the proportion, the result, very pleasing with those previous designs that you brought before this board. Yes. That I think you can, I don't see that there's any reason why you can't do that. We just want to, we just want to see it before you, before it gets put in, I think. So I think that, I think that puts the rest of this elevation question. So Brian, you wanted to add something about. About growth management. Yeah. I mean, this is minor, but I guess it would make sense to go to page five. I believe it is. Five. Yes. Page five. That second paragraph that talks about affordable housing and the 2016 growth management score. Our approval was for 54 dwelling units affordable. And, and so that would be the remaining. 119, I believe we're a marker eight, but then. It says in the staff report. To uphold 20 points for affordable housing with 173 dwelling, it's 70 dwelling units must be affordable. And so I'm not sure. Emily, if you know where our approval was written for 54, you know that number 70 got in there. Yes, I do know. In the completed questionnaire that's filled out to participate in growth management. It talks about affordable housing and it has. 70 units total at and below 120%. And then within those 70, 35 at 100%. And I think that's where we're at. And I'm 18 at 80%. Am I. So to uphold the 20 points, it is 70 points where the 50 youth four units came from is a little confusing and vague in the record. It was allocated 54. Dwelling unit equivalence affordable in 2016. And I think. It may have been staff confusion and writing that initial report. But I think it meant the growth management allocation. Because it got 54. D we allocated, but it means 70 total to be. To meet that 20 point threshold. Yeah, well, I do remember at that growth management meeting that there were some changes that were talked about at the meeting. And I guess we'll have to go back and look at, you know how what we have in our file button. It sounds like if the approval was 54 affordable units in the rest or market rate. The funny thing is, it's all our apartments there. They're all affordable. If you look at the numbers, you know that we're running a two bedroom unit for $1,800 and affordable unit to bedroom can be rented up to $2,400. So our units are affordable, but we just want to make sure that the finding of that references the correct number from 2016. But I would like to know how standards could be so high on the affordable side. I mean 70 out of 200 units is pretty high percentage of a project that has to be affordable. Right. So to meet the 20 points. Affordable category. Is that what's required in this district to meet 20. Yeah, to get 20 out of 20 points. I don't believe that's what Alice asked. It's in order in order to meet the growth management scorecard. Yeah. Of getting 20 points out of 20 points. You have to, you have to have that high percentage. And you go and you as I work on top of my head, you had 86 points out of 100 something along those lines. If you reduced, if you reduced your affordable housing on it, you wouldn't score as high. Still score. Yeah. But you don't score as high. So how do we get from 54? It's 54 is the number that we've always heard. Yeah. For the first time, we're hearing 70. So 54, what was what was allocated at growth management, but to uphold that score of 20 points. It needs to be 70. So what you're saying is that from the original growth management allocation, which you don't get everything at once, you just get an initial trench of units. Yeah. 54. You've got 54. There's still more coming when you come back for more units. Am I getting that correct? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. We'll have to take a look at that. It is absolutely confusing. And again, I would suggest that you spend some quality time with Emily. It's really nice. Because I think there's more issues in that. It gets even more complicated because of this change to the form-based code and what you're vested in, what you're not in this change to the slow build options. I think there's some things you want to make sure you get yourself tripped up on there as well, just because of the scope of this project and the changes that have made. So I would, I really think it would be to your benefit there to understand that as best as possible. Yeah. And I don't see any major, you know, deal breakers here, especially expecting that some of the existing units probably meet some of those affordable threshold as is. It's just making sure that the accounting is done so that, you know, when you get to your final phase, there's no surprises. Well, we've been surprised tonight. We want to try to avoid that. Yeah. Pretty great. It's impossible. Yeah. Going forward, we try to do this level of accounting with growth management in the score at the original approval. The original approval in 2016, the approval findings were probably more vague than they would be today. We'll go to the last level. I think I'm hopeful that we can get this solidified. Certainly in the next several months. It does seem based on the staff notes that you've got 18, you've got 18 walling units at or below, you know, at or below 80% of area median income. It seems to me, maybe not to you, but it seems to me that those are the ones that would be the, would be the ones that would be most limited in terms of how much you can rent the apartment for. The remainder that you have, 17 rolling units at 101 to 120 area median income is higher than market. Right, Brian? I mean, you said so a minute ago, I would tend to grieve you. And then you, and then you've got 35 rolling units at 81 to 100, which is effectively market. So if you're going to be concerned about anything, it would be the, it would be the up to 80% or 80% of the wall, that, you know, that you have to rent at what is the problem with the wall market, but the other ones, everything else is either at or above. And I have a question for staff. Is there a point at which the applicant needs to designate which units are going to be affordable and where they're going to get built, or do they hold those to the last 54 or 70 units? They could hold those to the last. It would be documented there in their administrative permit. Or if they want to, you know, retroactively dice, I made some existing units, that would be an administrative permit where it spells out which units and which doesn't have to be specific units, but within be one, there's 10 at this level, 10 at that level, et cetera. Are there, are there, are there affordable units that have been allocated and the permit's been issued on that does, that is, has moved into the slow build phase yet? Because it's certain, a certain number of years after you get the permit that it, if they're not built, if the permit hasn't been drawn, then it goes into slow build. Right. So it's to be determined. I think that can be accounted for administratively. We can determine if there's any, in the affordable category that are in the slow build that we can't allocate to what's been permitted, then they would be looking at renewing those slow build units in the future. But given that there's likely going to be amendments to Cottonwood in phases three, four, five, that can be accounted for in the future. It's not a deal breaker at this point in time. It just, it seems like it's in no one's interest to how that come up at some point where everyone wants to build them, everyone wants them built. And the rules are saying you can only build three a year. Right. Or four year or whatever it is. Yeah. When, when units slaps into slow build where a project has more than 20 dwelling unit equivalent allocated, then you can only build three a year. And then you can only build three a year. And then you can only build three a year. And then you can only build three a year. So the slow build provision that if you start getting off schedule, smaller projects with, you know, a single family house or a duplex can creep along at that rate and not be held up, but a larger project with an apartment building, you can't pull four units a year in an apartment building. You pull it all at once that those types of projects go together. And then you can only build three a year. And then you can only build three a year. And then you can only build three a year. And then you can only build three a year. So if this happens in the future when form based codes adopted, or based code allocation happens administratively, rather than have so rather than having to wait. For a hearing in March. That allocation could be shifted administratively with the certificate of conformity. So. So that could help. That could help some of the streamlining of growth management with. Just to make it more confusing house. It's on the record. Growth management will help. So. Much as that. Yeah. We'll probably be back in for growth management. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, and I will note that those 18 units at 80% AMI. So in that 2019 change. Those units no longer need to be shown at the table. So the, the units at 80% AMI can be built at any time. They're not subject to the soul bill. They're not subject to the soul bill. It's only the units at 100% and 120%. That are shown in those affordable columns on the table. So it's not like, even though you have. I think you should have made it. Do you have. Do you have. Do you have a PNZ phone number, right? Yeah. So, okay. Is there anything else? No, I don't think so. Do you have anything else? So, um, any other questions from the board on any of the other subjects that are in play. Good with everything else. I think, I think we're good. Anything else from you guys? I don't think so. I think we read through it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. This was approved. I think we can come back with final plans that meet those pretty much those conditions. No, we'll still meet with the hack. Is that correct? Or just changing plans. If it goes to final plans, it would not go to the hack. It would just be the DRB reviewing the. Just get you that. Okay. It's up to you. Whether you want to go back, you know, go to the hack. If you think you might get, you know, you could convince them to come up with some different plan. No, I think if we, if we do what we said, the only thing you can't deliver is that sidelight. We can change the, you know, the, I think the board is understanding that the floor plan sometimes grows. Keep, keep you from performing some of these things. But I think overall the hack was correct in saying that it can, it needs to be more, it's more similar or more reminiscent of what, what you had in here. And I think if we had the opportunity to go there, so we wouldn't even almost have at least discussions. I think that's probably true. We'll, we'll talk about that. Okay. Okay. I need to open up to the audience and anybody on online who has a comment or has a question. Do you raise your hand if you've got a comment tonight? We got no hands raised. Great. No, nobody out there. I can see lots of shit. So it could have been worse. No, you could have been like, I didn't go to the court. So I thought, did you have another question? It's kind of off conversation. I could tell. So I'm going to close this hearing at eight. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. You did catch that story, didn't you? I guarantee you do. We'll never miss a court page again. All right. Thank you, John. Next up is DP 22-10 JC properties LLC. Jeremy, you're up. Welcome Jeremy and Doug. For the record, Doug and I are living in, we're neighbors. We live in the same development. I see no conflict with that. For the record, if you both would state your name and address, please. Jeremy Mitnowski, Trudeau Consulting Engineers, 478 Lerner Park Road. Doug Goulet, Trudeau Consulting Engineers, 240 Southridge Road, Wilson. Thank you. Staff goes next. That's me. So this is a pre-application request 478 Lerner Park Road in the Business Park Zoning District. The applicant is proposing a 5,000 square foot office building, additional parking, utilities and landscaping, all to complement an existing office building occupied by Trudeau Engineers property. Staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony, close the hearing, and allow the project to proceed to discretionary permit stage. And we have drafted some recommendations. We didn't receive any public comments on the proposal. We did receive both Fire Department and Public Works comments, which were included as memos to the staff report and as conditions. The proposal meets the dimensional standards and development pattern in the Business Park Zoning District. I'm going to focus on the recommendations we made in this. It is, as Emily mentioned earlier, the platform is form-based code is scheduled for hearing on July 5th, and it's anticipated that it will be warmed on June 16th, which is this Thursday. This is pre-application stage, which means the board should focus on the current standards of the Williston Unified Development Bylaws when writing the pre-application recommendations. Further bylaws, projects are vested in the current version of the bylaw when a complete discretionary permit is filed. If the DP is filed after the form-based code is worn for a hearing, then it must comply with both existing proposed bylaws. Obviously, that means this development will be paused for the duration of the hearing until the outcome of that is known. So I guess the sort of upshot of that is the board should use the current bylaws in making their recommendations, and the applicant doesn't have a huge amount of time to file their DP. Okay, so Simon, backtrack, please, to rewind to the overlap of current bylaw, warm-based code. Here we sit today. It's June 14. It's before the official warning that is anticipated to be issued on June 16, which would be Thursday this week. Correct. And go over more slowly, please, what that means for this application and how this body, this board, and this applicant is going to be judged at the DP phase of the process. Okay, so the select board hearing for the form-based code is scheduled for July 5, and the warning for that hearing will be issued on June 16, which is Thursday. As we stand, we must apply the bylaws as they currently exist on this time by Tuesday, and the board should make their recommendations in line with current bylaws, and I'll make them in line with future bylaws because that hearing has not been warned yet. So what that means is that they will have these recommendations, and they must file their discretionary permit in line with those recommendations essentially tomorrow. If they don't do that, then any discretionary permit be considered complete for the duration of the public hearing, which I think is 150 days, has to comply with both sets of bylaws. So the current bylaws and the form-based code bylaws. Now, because those are very different bylaws, it wouldn't be practical to do that. It would be impossible to do that, which essentially means that the applicant would have to wait until the outcome of the select board hearing that they don't make that deadline tomorrow. So it's from a practical perspective, they're in no man's land. Am I hearing that right? They become vested if they, in the current bylaws, if they file tomorrow. If they don't. Yeah, they'll be tomorrow. Yeah, but this, but the meeting minutes from tonight's meeting will not be ratified until our next meeting. And so what we talk about tonight will not be official until we approve the meeting minutes on June 28. And so they, there's, it's not, they wouldn't be able to file a DP. Okay. Tomorrow because they would not have had, had gone through and had an official pre-app documented and memorialized by approve minutes. Do I have that right? There's nothing in the bylaw that stops someone submitting a complete discretionary permit prior to receiving their notice of decision. Okay, let me just ask you, are you going to file a discretionary permit tomorrow? Yes. Okay. Is that, is that leading the witness? From a practical college standpoint, you know, you can do two designs. In reality, you're probably just going to pick form-based code in front of that. Does it sound it? Well, I can speak to that. Yeah, our, we can get into this. I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm sorry, I just kind of, I don't know if they're pretty light. There's not a lot of, but I saw that was a product, but essentially this was a concept that I had been in front of the board with in 2016, where we said our business was growing. And you know, we'd like to consider adding another building on the property. We went to the same sketch level and stopped. And we're back here again. Our business is growing. And I think this is a good use of this land And then we had a conversation with staff about the schedule kind of conversation with my staff staff about the schedule. And we thought we could get this in under the wire under the current code. And as it's written in the staff report, then we have the option to look at both. And so that's what I would really like to have. I like to have options. So. We'll wait till the, I don't think I'm building this before form these code gets adopted. So, you know, we'll be able to look at that code and apply it and determine whether we move forward with the design that hopefully is approved under the old code, or whether we think it's better to go into the form. Have you, have you, that's not the way I understand this process. When does, when does form based code start to dictate. How the applicant moves forward with the zoning administrator has to apply both the current bylaws and the form-based code. So, you don't get a choice. You have to apply both. You have to apply both. So, for minor things like sign permits, change of use, very, very minor additions or shed type things, those types of permits will be able to go through under both versions of the bylaw. It's major things that the form based where you can't meet both at the same time. It's basically called the zoning vortex where large stuff freezes during this review process. The staff precedent has been with, once something has its free application hearing will accept that discretionary permit application the same way as will accept final plans and permits while something's still in its state appeal period. It's kind of at your own risk if permits get appeal or minutes get changed that you'd have to, you'd have to rectify those things, but will accept a complete discretionary permit. Okay, from a practical perspective, though, and, and my apologies because it doesn't apply to your project. Um, um, an applicant is not going to be able to comply with both sets. And, uh, both sets of wrecks. And so, um, doesn't that, uh, doesn't that in essence just, um, just suspend d r v activity for a period of time. For, for projects in the top base. Right, right. We're a form based code is limited to. So, um, so, do our, do our future. Agendas on the, in the, on the d r b, are they, are they, are, are they just, do they reflect that reality? And are they, are they pushed out until. A point in time where only 1. Set of regulations dictate the top corners. Area pretty much. And if we're based code gets adopted, then those permit reviews will happen as a certificate of conformity. So the, if more base code is adopted, the d r b would review major boundary line adjustments or subdivisions and flats for streets. But they wouldn't be reviewing, you wouldn't be reviewing architectural design. Within more base code overlay district ever again. Unless an administrator's decision is appeal, which would be appealed to the d r b. So you're the grand finale. Great. Have you, have you been in not to take anything away from. Staff that is here, but have you been in and talked to man. About this project. Yes, absolutely. And in conjunction. Or in relation to. Or base code and how it relates to this. Yeah, our understanding is that we have the option to proceed. If we can get discretionary permanent, if we can get free approval tonight. And then we can submit our db application tomorrow on his team to complete. We believe we can give pre app approval. Because we're not voting. It's got to get more. You can't do that. But what do you mean? Well, we can, we can, we can, until we get the minutes back and vote upon vote on the minutes. We don't know you said it yourself. Pre act doesn't get doesn't get put into force into force. You can't the board can't grant a pre application approval without going through the process of voting on the minutes. So what I what I just heard was if we come out of the liberation. And, and we. And we approve this. This this preliminary in front of us. The applicant has the option of taking the risk. Then nothing's going to change when we approve. The minutes in 2 weeks. That's what I just heard. Do I have the right stuff? Right. Yeah, they get, they get the break ground. And then if someone decides to appeal them. Then they kind of go. But if nobody appeals, okay. You're not talking about. We're not talking about. We're talking about the 2 week window of a risk in our approval of the meeting minutes. That's all we're talking about here. Well, and I think that the other the other thing and Simon brought this up and I think that. I guess I'd like to echo it is that, you know, the applicant does not need to go through pre act. The applicant can go directly to discretionary permit. Without pre app and take their chances for it up or down, but pre app is the pre right pre app is totally there to get some guidance from the board. Right. Right. You have the option of coming into the front of the board for discretionary permit. And showing that the board what you're going to do and you take the risk of, you know, up or down. There's nothing in between. Pre app allows I wasn't aware that I had that option, but you do happen to. So, I mean, if you can get a free app, you got to get, you got to get the discretionary permit in front of the board. Which we don't meet again for 2 weeks. No, it's just wouldn't. No, it's just, it's just a matter of having it received by the town of Wilson tomorrow. It's worth it. Prior to the warning. Pre application doesn't have to be in front of us. We don't have to hear it. It just has to be on file as being committed. The paper we dropped off. Yeah, so the risk though is right. If we change anything. The risk is, is that is that we come out of deliberation. And, and we have. We either accept these recommendations or amend them. And, and they're listening and they're taking the risk that what we say tonight verbally is what's going to be represented in the approved minutes in 2 weeks. They're assuming that risk. And if it's not no recourse. Well, but they could always go through a D. P. hearing and then you could, you could have the option of continuing it if there is still something. That need to be discussed. Right. Yeah, right. That's, that's really outside of. I hear you. That's really outside of what we're talking about tonight. We're trying to understand. How the applicant can file their D. P. tomorrow and what that means. In terms of the regulation. That will govern and what risk they're assuming by doing that. And I think I'm clear. I think, I think the risk is less that we're going to change the minutes because that's something wrong. And I look back at the recording and whether we said it or not. I never have. I don't view that as a risk. The bigger risk is that the D. P. That comes in. After limited opportunity to respond to the comments that you get tonight might be such that we would not then approve that project at the P. Because it's not responsive enough to what we say tonight. I think that's the real risk because if that were to happen now, you'd have to put a new application in and it would not have made it in by tomorrow afternoon. So what are we going to continue? Pre application review for this type of development for application review is required for a discretionary permit. If they submit a discretionary permit application tomorrow. That does not meet some of the pre app recommendations. That's okay because pre app is just a list of recommendations. It's not approval or denial. Now that does mean when they get to their discretionary permit. There might be some continuances or adjustments made. But because if they file a discretionary permit tomorrow, they're vested in the old bylaws and that discretionary permit review that would be taking place. I'm probably in July would be based on these current bylaws and it's happened several times or projects, you know, they have their pre application review. And then within a couple days where there's no DRB hearing. So the minutes are approved for the month and they file their discretionary permit application. We're just calling to light these, you know, semantics, because the form based code is such a major thing that could have legal ramifications for the town. Okay, I, I'm clear. Are you clear? Absolutely. Okay, I assume staff. I mean, this is all based on state statute as far as the process. I assume the staff is following state statute with what we're hearing tonight. Okay. Do you do a good job? I'm fine. I think you need to guys probably just have a spot in the office that says bang head here. You mean the same sign that we all have our respective offices. Okay. Okay. So with that being said, is there is there any more before we go into questions of the specific specifics of this application? Did Simon? Did you finish Simon? Well, I got up. Wait, wait. I, I, I, I so derailed you. I'm so sorry. I'm just, I'm going for Emily and Melinda right here. Okay. Okay. Continue, Simon. Okay. So I'm just going to touch on the recommendations, which is not submit a traffic study to provide us with traffic generation data in terms of chapter 13 on access connectivity traffic. On parking, there is a recommendation, sorry, the applicant was proposing two additional short term parking spaces based on the maximum parking requirements. We are suggesting they provide three, which sort of net result means they need to provide an extra two based on them having forward existing racks. And they should also be providing one end of trip facility. In terms of maintenance, they have shown solid waste storage in an appropriate location based on our bylaws. There's a minor conflict with the retained maple tree that should just be clarified. The fire department have made a recommendation that the trash enclosure is sited 33, 30 feet from any, any structure. Just the point that the development bylaws do not require this. So in terms of the development bylaws, it is acceptable where it is. But the applicant is encouraged to discuss the location with the fire chief to try and come up with a acceptable location for one of you. There's a recommendation that the HVAC and solid waste enclosures both be screened. The proposal was presented to the hat last week. In general, they found that the building did comply with the bylaws. They noted that the original building was constructed some 40 years ago. And therefore they made the recommendation, which has included that some variation of color and material be included to differentiate the buildings to make them complimentary. On landscaping. So the recommendation is that they submit a plan that demonstrates compliance with the bylaws. So they're proposing a type three, nine foot buffer to the west boundary, which is the top boundary that you see along here. There's some good screening to the parking lot, but we're going to recommend that they provide a bit more additional screening to meet the requirements to buffer adjoining the building. On the northern boundary, the buffer is constrained by the overhead wires. And with the recent construction of the high density residential, it does change that buffer to a 23 foot buffer, given the sort of limited scope of development at that end of the property. And that the buffer actually provides some pretty good screening already recommending that that's left with no additional planting. And then lastly, the sort of east and south buffers, which is a type four buffer, so a parkland setting down in the southern corner where the new proposed building is. It provides good screening. There's roughly 200 feet there. So it meets the requirements for type four buffer with enough mature trees. I was going to suggest that the African clarifies as part of landscaping land that that gas pipe sort of here that's rooted with a canopy of avatain tree just does affect the integrity of the buffer. Moving further along to the north. There is a notation here that the utility box might need to be upgraded. If as a result of this development that results in a larger box that does need to be screened with a bylaw. And then this area here is sort of fairly open at the moment we're sort of looking at over 200 feet of road frontage. And there's only sort of three mature trees on there at the moment. So that's something really to discuss. In my view would be helpful to have some additional cheer trees there to strengthen buffer and meet the type four requirements. And then lastly, I think we just have a couple of additional recommendations on erosion control and outdoor lighting. So in somebody summary is recommended to see to discretionary permit with the recommendations as drafted. That's it. Okay. Excellent demonstration of patients Simon with with the chair and thank you. Doug and Jeremy for the informality of that discussion we were in an area that we're just not familiar with. So I wanted to make sure I wanted to make sure that the board and you understood. Absolutely. And so that there weren't any surprises. So that was that was that was what I was trying to do there. Thank you. And so with that, I'd like to turn it over to you to talk a little bit about the project. And also, if you have any concern about the recommendations that are in the staff report. All right. Thank you very much. So as I said earlier, this is a concept plan that we had thought several years back and the economics just weren't right at the time. So I let it simmer in the background and then the circumstances were such both with the economy growth of my business. I think we need for more. I think good office space in this park. And just kind of my vision for what to do with this property. The stars aligned and we pulled this back out and I looked back at the design that. Louisa company had actually come up with formal architects, but I was. Happy with the concept plans that they developed at the time. I think this was a few years ago. Originally, when we came in, I think we had a more. Generic type office building similar to the ones that are across the street where. Remember the other bit of the speaker place. They're kind of generic. So we were originally going to emulate those. But, but like I said, was created a nice job with a contemporary. Design that I thought played off of the. Very unique contemporary building that we occupy now. Little history left and that was the 1st building in Blair Park. And I've been told it was the 2nd office building in half corners. The 1st being Brian's just still there. I've got pictures through it. It looked like. There was literally nothing between this building and the interstate when it was built. So little context. If you think about all the stuff that's been built now, it's pretty amazing. We've been there since it was built. I pictured how built that building with. Find the 1st law from the Blair's develop the park. Like I said, we're using as Doug can attest to we're using every inch of this thing, office building and then some. And so, you know, trying to prepare ourselves for future growth. I'd love to think that I can occupy 100% of this office building on day one. The reality is it probably needs to be a multi kind of space. But that hasn't been decided. Well, down to the economics and when we actually pull the trigger on construction is if granted the approvals to do so. And again, so we we've looked at the site. One of the biggest challenges that we've always had with this site is sort of the dead end. Dead end parking lot all service vehicles. At the. Especially anything of any size, that's actually back down all the way into the property, which is not ideal. So if I was like this idea of having a circular circulation pattern to the site. I think it'll primarily act as a 1 way if it was a single tenant. Business, but we've designed it so it could be 2 ways circulation in case there was a reason not to go around and just access. Say a different use in the front building. Parking is a premium just because we're also using every inch of the building. So we're adding parking. The type of business that we do, we have a lot of extra vehicles. We have survey vehicles, company cars for various types of technicians. So we find that we're challenged off in the parking, which is why we're asking for a little bit more than the minimum and designated some spaces for storage. And we occasionally have to use trailers for vehicles and having the ability to store those in an appropriate place. Usually they're inside the garage, but occasionally we need to store those. So that's why we've had this little storage area. The storm water, we've actually designed back when we. The state or more or in blocks and we also have this concept in place. So we have a storm water permit already for all of us impervious. We just haven't pulled the trigger on constructing the new pond that would be behind the garage. And for the new building, they said there's there's some conceptual plans here. I think we obviously need to. Work on means if we move forward with with construction, but I think they're suitable for getting the concept that I like. It's a 4,200 square feet with a mezzanine level. And I wanted a more open concept. The existing buildings vary 80s box. You know, everybody has rooms as offices. So this is a much more of a flexible or plan where we hope we can. Accommodate different uses over time without having to move rigid walls. Yeah, so, and then the only thing that's not clearly depicted here, I don't think is that we're contemplating maybe adding a full basement to it just because. Again, the type of business we have, we have a lot of platforms. So we're coming out of places to put boxes. So we've contemplated adding and I think it's shown here a staircase on that west side to. Access the full upgrade level and that would primarily be storage not intended for. At this time anyway, I don't think it would be. Office space. Obviously, we wanted to preserve as much the 40 years that this building has been sitting here. All of the trees, as I understood it were transplanted from Jim McCullough's property. My picture down self and tracked it over here and planted and now some of them are bold mature, very dark, beautiful trees. So. We've got smokers and maples, big white pines. And yes, we're not going to put the gas alarm through the light. We're going to reroute the site plan. And screen the transformer or all of that. We didn't see any real objections to the staff that I saw trash, trash location where we're contemplating a change where we might move that adjacent to the garage. In that little back area, we could do a little enclosure there. We don't need a dumpster. We occupy the 6,000 6400 square feet now with just a couple of recycling bins and a single trash roll away. I wouldn't envision needing much more map of a new building. So we'll just. Apply with the recommendations to move that away. And another note, and if you haven't driven by the way, we just did a very major upgrade to this building's building was tired. And in very, very full shape. So invested a significant amount of money in improving the structure, making it energy efficient. Replaced all the windows place all the siding did full envelope wrap. Air sealing and, and reduce the amount of glass. That was because it was originally designed as path solar. So if you get a chance. The project that you guys approved a few years ago in 2019 is now complete and we're pretty proud of it. No, I think in general, we've gone through the staff report and made the plan changes to reflect what was requested. There would be landscaping lighting. It's a full set of civil plans are going to be submitted. That address all the staff. So, yeah, I don't think we had any. Issues with any of those comments with regards to technical aspects or anything else. Okay. Thank you. DRB members questions. I just wanted to comment the bill. I like the design of the building to look sharp. And I think it'll be a nice touch to that area. Will you have any EV parking or looking at adding any EV parking to the parking lot? Absolutely. Yeah, I believe it'll be a requirement of our active 50 anyway. But we don't have any now, but I definitely think that's important. We might not address. We need to put on the plan. I'd like to someday have a electric car. So I've been working here for a long time. It would be a good place to charge. And we actually do have one employee that has a full electric. So it's a great suggestion. Thank you. You need an elevator for your ADA compliance to get to your law. I'm not sure that's true. I'm not sure that's true. But I'm sure that their design team will be looking at that and keeping them in full compliance. Interesting. There's square foot triggers. And it's not necessarily a second floor that just triggers it. There's plenty of time for it. Oh, okay. So you don't call a lot. You call a lot. You call a lot. There's very specific rules. Including maximum size. But that's, but as a point of clarification, that's outside of the purview of the air base. Any other free architectural advice? We try to avoid that. No, we don't always succeed. No, thanks. Good. David, you're good. Paul, you're good. John. So this is the night the brief guided site. So are we clear on what's front, front setbacks inside and rears? I think I just like to establish that now. So that as we go into the future. Yeah. I would get the front scene, the curb one, I would say it was the front, right? You know, it's along the street. And so then it begs the question. Whether that should have street trees. And that was, I know Lucy, our landscape architects has been working on. Okay. Good. We'll see some street. All right. So, and now at the risk of getting into the architectural. Please, you know, that is it is a contemporary building. It's, it's one that I think has, has gotten surprisingly little, not I shouldn't say surprisingly reassuringly little. Criticism over the years, you know, it was a very nicely done building. I think that people are, you know, they recognize it as a, as a contemporary building. And, you know, I think it's great that you've, you've upgraded and kept it kind of consistent with what it always was. I'm looking at the site plan and the new building looks to be significantly bigger footprint. Is that right? It is, but it's not when, when, so that's why we included the, those renderings. Right. Yeah. Okay. So I think, I think scale. You're right. The new building is. The larger footprint. Right. But massing. I felt like when I look at all the rendering, I will think to a 3D. Right. So, Yeah. I felt like when I look at all the rendering, we actually have a link to a 3D site where we rendered the whole thing. But my hope is that by, you know, you know, our existing building is almost three stories tall, plus a very large passive solar tower. So it has this large mass to it. And I wanted that building to still be the outcome. And this would be the base. And that was part of not wanting to go. And my first blush at form base code and have to have some massive three-story building right along the front of a curve road where this one has more flexibility in terms of not being a true to story. And being hopefully able to fit into the landscaping because one of our primary goals here, if you've been to our property, it's, it's really mature. It feels like more. I mean, the kids from the day they come up and picnic on our lawn because it feels like a part. Right. So while this will eliminate some of that internally, there won't be quite as much lawn area anymore. We tried to maintain as much as possible the landscaping burns that have been developed, the mature trees along the streets, and sort of the overall appearance. So by tucking this into that lower portion of the lot in the front yard, I'm hoping that, and that's why we didn't, I think there's some 3D rendering from the street too. Right. It really will blend in a little bit more than, you know, blending in is fine if that's your intent. I mean, or to have another, you're going to have another contemporary shaped building there. And you need to be careful how the interplay is with the two. And you know, I appreciate you saying you don't want to kind of overwhelm the original one, but it is bigger. And it's a lot bigger in terms of the footprint and the interior for the math. So I would say it's important to think about how much blank wall there is in between windows, the scale of the windows to the wall, because the proportions and the detailing of your original building, I think are quite nice. And I think people are very comfortable with it. So it's just, I think, I appreciate you taking on this challenge, but it's not as simple as doing the colonial Williamsburg. Right. You know, spec development to office building that you see over Virginia Maryland. So it's a challenge. And I commend you for taking it on, but you know, I think you need to think about it. Yeah. And my inspiration was a little bit, the rehab gym. They didn't go with the cluster projects. Right. They went with something that was just like dictated back in the day. And I was, it wasn't cool. It was, let's do something interesting. So again, they're clearly going to be relating to each other and they're, they're going to create a campus. So it's also the places in between, which I've said in this forum before. They're important. That's, that's a, that's just a free up. Okay. Uh, any comments from the public? If you'd like to make a comment, please raise your hand. Either. On zoom. We've got no raised hands. Okay. Any final questions, comments? Any final questions, comments from? Okay. Very good. We are going to close. Dp 22 dash 10 at 8.52. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so. So this, nope. Okay. Next up, Final item on the public hearing agenda. Is the peel of the zoning administration administrator words. Opinion and zoning violation warning letter of March 18th. 2022. Who is present for this hearing? these stay your address please. Yeah, resident 77 penny lane owner at 21 Center Street within the Hamlet. Thank you. Looks like right here here as well. Yeah, Breck Robowski, 32 C Moore Street, Williston, Vermont, 05495. Thank you. Okay. So Scott Riley has recused himself because he's in a butter to this property. And Melinda, this is yours. And if you could take it from here, that'd be great. Yeah. So I'm not going to rehab this entire staff report because look, you know, because this was heard on May 10th, 2022, I'm going to give an overview and then jump right to the site visit. So this is an appeal of the zoning administrator's issuance of the zoning violation warning and administrative letter created in March 18th, 2022. Letter relates to landscaping in a development called the Hamlet and encompassing Center Street, Day Lane, Madison Ave, Madison Drive, Jake's Way, and Seaman Street, et cetera, first state statute. Any decision of the administrator, may be appealed to the DRB. The DRB must hold a public hearing following the hearing. They may uphold or modify or overturn the decision of the administrator. And in every case, the DRB shall adopt written findings and conclusions supporting its action. And the DRB's decision on an appeal can be appealed to the Vermont Environmental Court. So this was presented and heard by the DRB at the last DRB meeting on May 10th. And the DRB conducted a site visit on May 24th. The DRB and appellate and appellee and staff walked around the site. I've provided a table that summarizes the site visit, the areas that were looked at, and the discussion just very generalized. That's had. And let's see, comment letter was received by Ron Byrne on May 4th, 2002. And the lead presented a response on May 9th, 2022. It's this staff's opinion that the SUB 0403 final plans and conditions of approval control the landscaping on the site, except that there was a condition allowing a lot of flexibility with the landscaping and allowed the landscaping to be changed with staff approval, in other words, to be processed administratively as a minor change. And I think it's been understood that over time there have been quite a few of the minor changes to the landscaping that have been approved administratively. So the appeal was really quite narrow in scope really focused on two issues, whether landscaping around individual units should have been accepted as complete when CCs were issued for those units and whether landscaping should be required within the mid block common land located between Center Street, Day Lane, Seymour Street and Madison Drive. So there was a permit that was issued originally for the landscaping and site improvements, ZPO 722, it did not explicitly require an inspection and certificate of compliance. So staff is recommending that the DRB make a finding that a certificate of compliance is not required for the site improvements under ZPO 722. And it would be difficult to issue a CC at this point for the entire site due to the nature of these various site plan amendments and administrative changes in landscaping over time. So also a technical amendment to the subdivision flat was made in 2008 under DP 0802 that created individual footprint lots for the single family homes. So it does seem appropriate to staff that the administrator include the landscaping with the issuance of the CCs for individual units that the landscaping around those units would have been accepted with the issuance of CCs. And that once the CC is issued for a unit and has to and was not appeal the DRB and or administrator can't require further improvements to that unit. And regarding the second issue about the common land, staff is of the opinion that not requiring landscaping in that common land was probably an oversight at the time and that the landscaping wasn't revised as part of the approval to shift the location of those buildings of those units to building Z. And so minus those revisions, the original final plans prevail. However, changes can be made administratively if the developer is amenable to making those changes and putting some landscaping in that area. And staff is recommending that the developer and the HOA work together to come up with a landscaping plan that satisfies all concerns and do that with approval of staff. And there were other areas visited in the site plan. There was the area around the Xebo area in number four. It's staff's opinion that the landscaping plan under the amendment DPO 813 controls the landscaping for that area and supersedes the original landscaping plan. And since, and it appears to be the landscaping appears to be in compliance with that amended landscaping plan. And then as far as area number five where the two units are still being constructed, the landscaping behind those units can be looked at when the CCs are issued for those units. So I have written some draft conclusions of law and proposed motions to either uphold, modify or overturn the administrator's decision. Okay, thank you. Okay, I have a question for Brett Reed. When we did the site visit, there was a plan that had been recently developed at the time of the site walk showing some additional landscaping. And we had a conversation during the site walk about the parties getting together and reviewing that plan. And with the goal of reaching an agreement of swapping out some species for another species and so on, has there been any progress made on getting the parties together to have that conversation? No, there hasn't at this point. We're really waiting, I'm waiting upon, basically to see the staff comments on all the issues that were brought up. I'm inclined, I mean, as I'm in agreement with staff's recommendations here with the motions in regards to conclusions of law, there's a bunch of is or does nots that I think staff can guide the board through to comply with what their comments are, what their suggestions are. And then my suggestion would be, and I believe it probably would be staffs as well in regards to what their comments are in line with their comments is to modify under the proposed motions to modify with the language that is written as written in the modify motion. Okay, thank you. Reed, do you have anything to add that I don't wanna, don't state your position that's already been stated from the past, but do you have anything that would be new in an update to anything that you have previously conveyed to this body? Yeah, I do have two updates for you and I will be brief. So, and I had an email exchange recently with staff about this. So those updates are that first regarding sheet SK-1 from DP-0813, which was governing the gazebo landscaping. It just wasn't sitting right, what we were talking about on the site visit and in staff's Melinda's email response about this. It just didn't seem right to me why that SK-1 sheet would govern everything on the sheet, but I couldn't figure out why. So I went back and read everything from that DRB meetings minutes, looked back at those revised plans. And it seems pretty clear that it was not intended to govern anything except for the landscaping directly adjacent to the gazebo. And that item on that revised plan is specifically labeled as landscaping plan at gazebo. And if you look, I don't know if it's something that can be put up on the screen by staff, but if you look at sheet SK-1, it's not reasonable to assume that landscaping to the north and south of the gazebo at the corners of those lots that were intended to provide privacy to the backs of those lots were removed during SK-1 and the DP-0813. And one of the ways you can tell that is if you look at the Madison Drive area at the bottom of that sheet, it doesn't show any of the street landscaping. It doesn't show any of the landscaping which Brett has installed, including the landscaping around electrical boxes and in the fronts and sides of units. So it doesn't make any sense that all of the landscaping even along the road would be omitted and yet sheet SK-1 should apply to everything that's depicted because it's inconsistent. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. And there was, I'll just pause there. Are there any questions about that before I comment on another update? I don't believe so. Continue please. So the other item that I was looking into to try to get an answer was around the lot boundaries. And let me pause, I was gonna find here. I'm just reading from Linda's response earlier this week which was that staff attempted to do an overlay but quickly found that it was not possible to do it with accuracy based on the GIS parcel files and it would be more accurate to use property boundary descriptions in warranty deeds for each unit or the description of the HOA Covenants or Declaration on what extent the unit footprint consists of. I was disappointed that staff wasn't able to be able to show what of these landscaping elements actually fall within private lots. And so I have attempted to do what Melinda had indicated which is I've taken a look back at our association declaration to see what it says about lot boundaries. And what it says is that the boundaries of lots shall be the building envelope lot lines depicted on the revised plat. So lot boundaries and building envelopes are synonymous. And so the question really becomes where are those building envelopes? And from the very beginning of this development it was identified that there are significant issues with the ability to locate specific things. The subdivision 403 approval meeting minutes indicate that despite clear requests the footprints of the proposed houses haven't been drawn on the site plans and the shapes described are essentially building envelopes the lack of coordination between architectural and engineering drawings causes concern for the accuracy of the plans. It's especially difficult to review things like window adjacency issues. And on top of that at the time the markers were required to be installed and we're not installed at the corners of those lots slash building envelopes. As a result, it's just not possible to easily determine what is within or not within those specific lot boundaries. And so I just wanna step back for a second and think about common sense here and the trees and shrubs that we have brought forward indicating that they are missing from the original landscaping plan they are not up against buildings. They are intended to be common elements and our declaration says that common elements are intended to be owned by the association and maintained by the association and the list of things that count as common elements specifically says that it includes trees, shrubs, landscaping and other site improvements located on the property. So trees and shrubs are not private elements they are common elements and the ones that we have identified as being missing on the map that was provided are not adjacent, they're not up against buildings they're set away from buildings and there's roughly 50 of them. So I just wanted to provide what I found when I tried to understand why we couldn't locate where those boundaries were and perhaps how we should interpret the ones that we have marked. Pause there. Okay, thank you. I'll respond to that really quickly. It's a convenient interpretation on Reid's part for this but that was all part of the original approval 13, 14 years ago and those concerns by DK Johnson at the time were resolved and that's how the original approval or the original project was approved because we resolved some of those issues but the one thing that staff did bring up that Reid is not bringing up is there was an amendment after those concerns were brought up or after the project was originally approved there was an amendment which actually defined actually lot boundaries with a plaque. Originally this project was proposed as a condominium and it was just all everything was in common the entire projects and there were basically single family home condominium units but then the plans were amended and created actual lot lines that staff has pointed out to bring to the conclusion that basically the elements are directly around units are actually part of the CC conditional approval CC issues excuse me CC certificates that were granted on an individual house basis. Another issue to Reid's in response is some of the units that is referring to around the gazebo area some of those units that were in close proximity to those houses which I argue were actually on the lot lines or within the lots of the individual units once they were proposed were also eliminated because once all those they originally there were to provide screening because of the original design the units were extremely close together if you look back at the original approval your backyards were a matter of feet apart and so part of the revision to create building Z and eliminate all these units were to create a much larger open space and part of that open space was remain to be open. So again, I'm in agreement with staff's recommendations and would request that the board move to approve staff's motion to modify the zoning administrators a letter and the motion here to modify the language to modify I think is certainly adequate. Okay, thank you. Before closing any last comments, questions? No. No. Okay. I'm going to close APP. Sorry, we do read you've got your hand raised. Oh, I missed that step. So other members of the public with comments. Thank you, Simon. Yeah, I just wanted to mention that I've also read the I'm aware of the changes that took place that Brett mentioned and in the meeting minutes where the DP 0813 was approved, including the revised plan, which included SK-1 for the gazebo area. There's no mention of removal of any landscaping for other units, only the replacement of those units with a gazebo and a map that's labeled landscaping at gazebo, not landscaping for that block or landscaping for that area, landscaping at the gazebo. And even that is missing three elements that were supposed to have been installed. So I just wanted to address that. Okay, thank you. Any raised hands from the public comments? Please do write a hand if you want a comment or send me a message. No raised hands or chats. Okay, I'm gonna close APP 22-02 at 9.15. Thank you very much. Okay, that concludes our public hearing. We're now gonna go into the deliberative session at 9.15. Thank you for Tuesday, June 14th, 2022. We have concluded our deliberative session. HP 22-03 will be continued until June 28th, 2022 at our next DRB meeting. Is there a motion for DP 16-05.4? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, Scott Riley moved that the Williston Development Review Board has reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board acquired the comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and do we consider the testimony presented at the public hearing of June 14th, 2022 except findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 16-05.4 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from the Development Review Board and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. We are modifying conditions of approval, number 3A by striking the doorway side light and 3B by striking the same doorway side lights. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds it. Any further discussion? Nope. Yay or nay, Paul. Yay. John Hemmegarn. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. The chair recuses himself. That's five in favor, none opposed. One member recused, motion carries. Next up is DP 22-10, is there a motion? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, moved the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations, town staff and the advisory board required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of June 14, 2022, accept the recommendations of DP 22-10 and authorize this application to move forward to discussionary permit review. Thank you, David. Is there a second? Second. John seconds it. Any further discussion? Yay or nay, Paul. Yay. John. Yay. Scott. Yay. Dave. Yay. Nate. Yay. Chair is the yay. Six in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion for the appeal 22-02? Yes. As authorized by WDB 5.4.6, I, John Hemmelgarn moved that the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the appeal of the administrator's decision, all the accompanying material and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearings of May 10 and June 14, 2022, accept the findings of the fact and conclusions of law for APP 22-02, an appeal of an administrator's opinion letter and modify the decision of the administrator to issue the opinion letter as follows. Landscaping within mid block common land, ID 08 COM 0600B, located between Center Street, Day Lane, Seymour Street, Madison Drive. Landscaping adjacent to units 65, 66, 69 and 70 was assumed by ORB to be not required when those units were shifted to building Z under July 12, 2011. Approval of DP 08-13 amendment is modified as follows. Landscaping within mid block common land, ID 08 COM 0600B, located between Center Street, Day Lane, Seymour Street, Madison Drive. Landscaping adjacent to units 65, 66, 69 and 70 is required in accordance with the plan SK-2, prepared by the appellee dated May 13, 2022, or as modified by agreement of appellate and appellee and approved by the zoning administrator. We also are going to provide the following conclusions of law. I'm gonna read them all. One, the zoning administrator's opinion letter dated March 18, 2022, does accurately represent statements of fact and conclusions of law regarding the matters of landscaping, street trees, sidewalks and snow storage. Number two, landscaping on private land directly adjacent to a unit that has received a final certificate of compliance is accepted as complete. Number three, is the DP 07-22 does not require an inspection and certificate of compliance. Number four, landscaping within mid block common land, ID 08-COM 06600B, located between Center Street, Day Lane, Seymour Street and Madison Drive is not controlled by SUB 04-Day 03, a 45 page plan set signed January 23rd, 2007. Number five, landscaping around the gazebo is controlled by Sheet SK-1 on page seven of 17, DP 08-13 slash SUB 04-Day 03, a final plan signed August 20th, 2021. Thank you, John. Is there a second? Second. Second. Dave Turner seconds it. Any further discussion? Yay or nay, Paul. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. Scott Riley has recused himself. Dave Turner. Yay. Andrews. Yay. The chair is a yay that's five in favor, not opposed, one recusal motion carries. Is there a motion to accept the meeting minutes as drafted dated May 24th, 2022? So moved. Paul made a motion, is there a second? Second. Scott made, he was quiet, but Scott actually beat you to it, he made a second. Is there any further discussion? Yay or nay, Paul Christensen. Yay. John. Yay. Scott. Dave. Yay. Nate. Yay. Chairs are yay. Six in favor, none opposed, motion carries. Is there minutes are approved? Is there any other business to bring forward tonight? Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? Scott, is there a second? Second, of course. John, second, all those in favor? Say aye. Aye. Thank you all.