 All right. Thank you, Scott. Welcome to the town of Williston Development Review Board for Tuesday, October 10th, 2023. My name is Pete Kelly. I'm the chair of the DRB. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the town hall and on Zoom. All members of the board and public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by a roll call vote, and according to the law, if Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to October 24th, 2023. First order of business is a roll call of attendance of the DRB members. Eight Andrews. Here. Paul Christensen. Present. Lisa Brayden Harder. Present. Scott Riley is present. Dave Turner. Here. John Hemlegard. Present. And the chair is present. All are in attendance. A total of seven. So we do have a quorum. Next, I'll turn it over to you, Andrew, to give Zoom instructions, please. There are no attendees on Zoom, so we'll be all set. Okay. Tonight's agenda will start out with a public forum. This is an opportunity for those present here in the room to make comments and address the DRB on matters that are not on tonight's agenda. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address the board? Okay. Hearing none, we'll go into the public hearing session. We have three items on tonight's agenda. The first is appeal 24-01. The second is DP 21-18. And the third is DP 24-03. So first up is appeal 24-01. Is the appellant present? Yes. If you would, please come up to the table, please. And state your names and address for the record, please. Craig Sampson, Jr., 120 Rosewood Drive, Willison. Adam Miller from Pease Mountain Law. From Pease Mountain Law. Okay. Okay. And where is Pease Mountain Law? It's in Kynesburg, 73 Charlotte. Okay. Thank you. And Melinda, you go first. Okay. This is an appeal of the zoning administrator's issuance of an administrative permit to relocate a portion of Rosewood Drive to accommodate a 25-foot buffer from Sampson Well in accordance with an order by Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division in its decision on the Brown-Ella-Marsh discretionary permit dated April 15, 2022. The property is located in the Agricultural Rural Residential Zoning District. For WDB 5.4, and as provided by 24 BSA 4465, any decision of the administrator may be appealed to the DRB. The DRB must hold a public hearing following the hearing. The DRB may uphold, modify, or overturn the decision of the administrator. In every case, the DRB shall adopt written findings and conclusions supporting its action. The DRB's decision on an appeal can be appealed to the Vermont Environmental Court. So the existing property that's the subject of this appeal is located near the intersection of Route 116 and South Brennell Road in the Agricultural Residential Rural Zoning District, and it's accessed from Rosewood Drive. The primary dwelling has existed since 2017. The staff report outlines the history of this appeal. The DP 1903 went through a process of approval, and on October 15, 2020, the project was issued a discretionary permit to create a separate parcel for the existing dwelling, two additional lots for single-family residential use, and an open space lot. A budding landowner, Craig Sampson, then submitted an appeal to the Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division on the grounds of safety concerns about the use of Rosewood Drive to access the property and concerns about the distance of the driveway to the Pellan's Water Supply Well. On April 15, 2022, Vermont Superior Court Environmental Division issued a decision establishing conditions for DP 1903 that stated that Rosewood Drive would be relocated to be at least 25 feet from the Sampson Well in accordance with Vermont wastewater and portable water supply rules, and lot four will be permanently conserved as open space, already a condition of the DRB approval. On September 13, 2022, the Zoning Administrator signed final plans for DP 1903. On July 24, 2023, the Zoning Administrator issued an administrative permit, AP 240016, for the relocation of Rosewood Drive to satisfy the court's condition. And on August 14, 2023, Craig Sampson filed an appeal of the administrative permit. So the conditions of AP 240016 stated that the permit was approved to adjust the driveway location per submitted plans. It was a minor amendment to the approved final plans from DP 1903 to relocate the driveway as shown. Craig Sampson's appeal narrative states I, Craig Sampson Jr., am appealing AP 240016, and am expressing concerns that the existing roadway development plans are not conducive for Rosewood Drive in that case. The appeal is not subject to public comment letters submitted. A legal opinion was requested and received. It's attached to the staff report. So two issues are raised in the appeal. The first concerns, the driveway construction, and the second concerns, boundary line encroachment. And these issues will be considered separately. So first of all, this discussion is limited to only the portion of Rosewood Drive within Williston. The lower half of Rosewood Drive is located in Shelburne. The Vermont Environmental Court's ruling finds that the municipality has only the authority to regulate land use within its borders, and therefore the Williston DRB cannot regulate any of the land located outside Williston. So, namely, this discussion is not going to consider access at all, because access is in the town of Shelburne. And the town of Shelburne has jurisdiction over access. So, basically, this discussion is really limited to the standards for driveways, as written in the bylaw in 1326 concerning grade width, length, construction, pullouts, and natural hazards, and addressing. So, in its review, an issuance of a discretionary permit for DP-1903, the DRB examined the plans and specifications for the construction of Rosewood Drive, which are attached to this staff report, and found those plans met the standards of WDB-1326, the DRB granted approval of DP-1903 with conditions on September 22nd, 2020, and the applicants submitted final plans, neither the DRB's decision nor the signing of final plans, was appealed. So, in making a decision about whether to approve this permit, AP-24, whatever it is, OO-16, the zoning administrator basically needs to consider compliance, reviewing the proposed development for compliance with all applicable requirements of this bylaw, and consistency, reviewing the proposed development for compliance with all applicable conditions of approval for DP-1903. The zoning administrator's evaluation and decision-to-issue permit relied on the DP-1903 final plans and conditions of approval, which the DRB found to comply with all applicable requirements of the bylaw, and the DP-1903 final plans and conditions of approval, which the DRB found to comply with all applicable requirements of the bylaw, and with the environmental court's order. Notably, the environmental court's decision is final and expressly set forth conditions and restrictions with which the parties must comply. So, the question the DRB should consider is whether or not the zoning administrator appropriately issued AP-24, OO-16, and staff is recommending that the ZA not only had authority to issue the permit, but was legally obligated to do so to comply with the court's order. The DRB may wish to modify the zoning administrator's decision by adding a condition that explicitly states that all work must be completed in compliance with the conditions of DP-1903. Staff recommends against overturning the zoning administrator's decision as doing so would be in defiance of the Vermont Superior Court's order. So, basically, just discuss and decide whether the issuing this permit was done in conformance with procedures of WDB-252 and whether or not you want to add a condition to that. Melinda, can I ask you a quick question? I'm sorry to interrupt your narrative, but why would you suggest that stating the DRB may wish to modify the zoning administrator's decision by adding a condition when it is up to the applicant to follow all of the requirements? Exactly. That's a bit to me. It's redundant. Yeah, it is redundant. Okay, so I'm making sure I'm not missing something. No, you're not. There's proverbial belt and suspenders. Yeah, okay. So, moving on to the second concern, the appellant's narrative mentions boundary line concerns without further detail. It can be inferred that the appellant is concerned about portions of the relocated in Rosewood Drive that put the driveway close to a budding property. In particular, the portion of Rosewood Drive that's required by the environmental court to be relocated 25 feet away from the Samson water supply well. So, I've shown an image of the modified site plan and where that driveway will be relocated. So, in the ARZD, development must be set back a minimum 15 feet from the subject property line. There's ambiguities related to whether the town setback rules apply to this particular situation related to whether the right of way can be considered as a parcel itself and whether driveways are subject to setback regulations, which was brought up in our legal opinion that you received. So, there's ambiguities. However, regardless of those ambiguities, the court issued a final decision approving the DP 1903 subdivision and ordering the relocation of the driveway. So, the zoning administrator is legally obligated to issue a permit to comply with the court's order and did so properly. So, again, the discussion just focusing on whether or not the administrative permit was properly issued despite the uncertainty about property wide setbacks discussed above. So, staffs recommending the DRB discussed the points of these two concerns of the appellant and a fold, modify, or overturn the zoning administrator's decision. It's important to note the DRB's decision is limited to the relocation of Rosewood Drive. DP 1903 subdivision has received final approval by decision of Vermont Environmental Court. The subdivision plan has been recorded. The subdivision cannot be undone. And the court issued the conditions that, you know, require the Rosewood Drive to be relocated and that lot 4 will be open service, open space. And the administrative permit reflects the terms and conditions of the court order. The DRB cannot alter that. That's all I have. Okay, so what Melinda just finished on is very important because that's the guardrails for tonight's conversation. Okay, if you start to, it looks like there's some members of the public. We're going to hear some testimony. We're going to hear from Mr. Sampson and Mr. Sampson's attorney. But I don't want conversation to go outside of those boundaries of the guardrails. Do you understand? Okay, so I will now turn it over to you, Craig. And I would ask that you add as much detail to your position as you can because your appeal was lacking sufficient detail. So with that, I will turn it over to you. I'm going to start off. And then I'm going to give it to him. I'm going to hand it over to my attorney. There's no way for me to express just some pure business because I've been saying for over five years, if you all lived here, I feel you would make different decisions. And it's unfortunate that it has come to this. It's unfortunate that I had to go to environmental court because I kept saying my well, my well, my well, sight distances, so on and so forth. This has been going on. You can look. And if you looked around the room, you could see some of the looks at me right now because I'm talking and I'm sharing this. And I have no issues whatsoever with Mr. Brinnell and Ms. Lamarch developing on their property. What I've said all along is that I just don't want that development to adversely affect our homes around it. We own 161 Rosewood now, as well as 120 Rosewood. Mrs. Hardfast, her boys gave us first refusal and said mom would want it this way. So, you know, we're there to stay. And I'm not looking to keep anybody else from being there. I want to say that for the record. I just want it done right. And I don't want it to fall on deaf ears anymore. And I feel in my opinion that that's what's been happening for years now. And so I've asked my attorney to come and review all this and look at this so that I just don't get pushed to the side like I feel like I've been pushed to the side for years. I also have another gentleman who's going to be speaking to Mr. Don Weston regarding these blueprints. These blueprints, which James and I just discussed. I don't remember ever seeing these final blueprints. The first time we saw these blueprints was when the wastewater permit was issued, which we didn't get copies of the wastewater. And I know that that's state. I'm not putting that on the DRV in Willison. So you could see where, from where I'm standing, while I'm sitting, it's frustrating every step of the way. I mean, we didn't even know they applied for the wastewater permit until somebody was putting up a control point stake four days before we had the 30 days left. You know, 30 days, it was on the 26th day for us to appeal. And so we're not trying to squelch somebody from doing something on their property. I wouldn't want that done to me. But I also wouldn't adversely affect my neighbor. I'd want to make sure that I'm doing everything properly. And that's what the DRV in my understanding is for. So before I say something that's going to get me, why don't you leave? I'm going to hand this over. I hope I didn't say more than I should. Thank you again. My name is Adam Miller. Thank you. All right. My name is Adam Miller. Miss Scott gave a very good overview. And to summarize, we're not concerned about the larger subdivision tonight. We accept that that has been thoroughly reviewed and thank you. What we are discussing is just the change in the access way. It was subject of the zoning minister's decision earlier. We, we appreciate that it's relocated to be 25 feet from the well as the court ordered. Although we'd offer that the court order was not a blank check to just move it 25 feet, but that whatever was designed needed to comply with the town zoning regulations. And it's, we respectfully submit that that analysis was lacking in zoning administrator's decision. And we know that because of the information to do that assessment is lacking in the application materials. The, there are two parts of the zoning regulations or development bylaws that that are relevant to the access way. The first one is chapter 13, which in general addresses safe and adequate access. It's getting at making sure that however you access this property is going to be safe and that it's designed in a ways to last. It's not to shift the cost of maintenance or redesign on to others on to the neighbors here in relevant part. 13.2.6.4 requires a drainage shall be provided in the form of swales or ditches and 13.2.6.6 says that residents will drives shall not be subjected where they are subject to slope failure. I understand that the materials that were submitted are essentially one revised site plan that moves the road slightly to the north 25 feet away. It shows the location of it and a site plan that, you know, reuses the detail, you know, the road detail bump from before. The, well, Mr. Weston will speak to the fact that the road on the ground does not actually look like, you know, can't ditch on both sides. It actually slopes uphill and needs to look like a different drawing on here and address ditching. But, but more so the, you know, even even though the design that's chosen here shows a three to one slope and a six foot clearing buffer this new design road is a relocation that puts it much closer to the property line. I'm, you know, it's hard to tell exactly how far from the property line from this, but it's hard to, it's also hard for us to make an assessment. I can't imagine the zone administrator made an assessment of if you can fit a six foot buffer in there if there's a three to one slope, what the effect of uphill, you know, the need to put in drainage and how that would affect with the identified ledge in that area. Just that we can create a, and design a safe and sustainable driveway there. The second requirement in our bylaws is section 29 which addresses erosion and stormwater. The goal here is that the drainage in some way is addressed so not to negatively impact the neighbors properties or the environment in general. 29.4.2 specifically requires a runoff and erosion control plan which shall be based on grading plans on the site and its immediate environments showing existing and proposed contours and intervals no more than two feet. I can't find that plan in here. And so it's hard to assess if the applicant, if this redesigned road meets the performance standards of later in chapter 29. And I would note that compliance with chapter nine is a requirement of chapter 13, 2.6.4 and is also a requirement of 15.2.5 which the standard is the plan submitted by the applicants must clearly demonstrate compliance with these standards. We're not saying that this is impossible to design. We're saying we can't assess it if this is going to be a road that's going to last or if we're proving something that is going to in the future fail and require the neighbors to redesign it, rebuild it or have costs of repair. My client accesses his two properties through this little redesigned section. And then the stormwater is of notable importance because well, as well as right there and sloping off toward that, it's now 25 feet away but he uses that well to feed one of his houses and it's needed for two other houses in the area. So ensuring that we have a safe and adequate access is important and having stormwater. And what we just asked is that the applicant submit detailed drawing so we can assess that. And so the zoning administrator can rely on that when they make their assessment as well. I understand that Mr. Weston who knows the area well and is an expert in installing driveways and maintaining them will speak about the actual site conditions. And I also understand that a neighbor, Mr. Beecher will speak about the aspect of the property line. The second aspect that was on here, there wasn't a concern about setbacks. I appreciate that inference actually. I can read that in there. But we were not concerned about the setback issue. It's the actual property line itself in accuracy of the drawing. If anyone has questions for me, I'd answer them. PRP members, questions for that testimony? Are the plans that you've been referencing the same ones that were reviewed by the GIB? They're the ones available on your website. Meeting tonight. But the original permit that was given. Because you're appealing to zoning administrator's decision. Yes. To issue final plans that are the same project that were reviewed in a public hearing by this board. Yes, sir. Yes. And the, but the plans addressed a different design in this one specific section. We're also reviewing the changes to the plans as proposed, which are very. And those are the plans that were reviewed. By the environmental part. The initial application, the initial plans for the 2019 application. Yes. And the proposed change, which is the subject of appeal tonight. Okay. I understand. Thank you. Any other questions? So I understand you're right. This well has been next to this Rosewood drive all these years and no profits, right? It's 18 feet away from the edge of the road as of right now. Yes. Two or less houses. As long as I've lived there, the well has been good. Yes. So the well has not moved. And the road itself has not moved. Yes, sir. So I mean, no, sir, if I may. The, the requirements of the court was addressing here is the increase of new dwelling units changes the state standards. That you can have a, an access way close to a well for two houses. But when you add a third house in there for 25 feet, that's where we're getting this redesigned aspect of it for the extra track. Okay. Any other questions for this, for this testimony? Okay. Are you going to? I understand. Mr. Lesson. Bring up other. You can like speak. Right. I have some plans here that were, I'm Don Weston. Some plans that were dated. Don, your, your address for the record please. 32 Leclerc Woods Essex. Thank you. Okay. Can you please? I have some plans here that are, they're dated May 11th, 2020. And as far as on the details for the, for the site here, they are not accurate as far as they show the cross section. Unless you were out out there on site, you wouldn't know this, but they show the road is higher than the, than the, your shoulders. And right now on the West side, it's actually higher than what the road is. And it's all ledge. So it, these plans are accurate on as far as, you know, it doesn't show that. And if you end out, if they did put a ditch in, as far as the room, they may not with a dispute on the property line, they may not have enough room. So they may have to be, this will have to be redesigned. You said, you use the word may, they may not have the enough room or they will not have enough room. If, if there's a line that's in dispute, if that is in closer, they do not have the room, the way these plans are designed. What, what, what line is in dispute? The property line. On the West side of the road. And which parties are disputing the property line? I think Mr. Beaker will speak to that. So in just mostly the way, the way they had, the plans that they have here are not accurate to what the actual feel are. And they will not, it will not work the way, the way it's designed right now. You know, they just say that because they won't have the drainage, that they will have to put some sort of ditch in that the grade on the outside, on the West side is actually higher than what the road is. And they show it sloping away, which it, it is not like that. And they'll have to do some kind of blast. Well, they can't blast because they're going to be too close to a well. So it'll be a lot of Jack Emory of ledge or, or, you know, this, this plan just do not work the way it's designed. Okay. I understand your position. If I may just add one thing for the record, that's where the bump out is. So when the judge ordered it, the road to be 25 feet away from my well, and it bumped out, that's, that's what we're talking about here tonight. And that's what we're talking about here now. And for it to just be circled around and hash marked and then submitted without any of us having knowledge of what those shotouts were until the wastewater permit was issued. That's what we're discussing here that, that bump out. Mr. Beach will talk about its property line, but that's, that's the concern for the washout and the puddling. That's a seven and a half percent slope. It's a downhill and y'all know what the winter's like here. And there's a huge concern there. You're going to go like this. The road goes like that. Is there drainage? Is it. So that's, that's a word. If I may just so that y'all understand when I'm talking about the entire thing, we're talking about that, that, that jot out right there. And that's why I asked Mr. Weston to come and speak to that. But the lower part of the road is, is, it looks fine, but the right in that one location where it jogs out, it is not drawn the way it's shown, the way the existing conditions are. And it's a dear testimony that it doesn't meet the Wilson public works standards. No, my testimony is that these plans aren't accurate as far as the way they've done drawn. They are not that they're not the same out in the field. So those, those drawings that you're looking at, don't show the, don't show the relocated road. They bet it. I mean, I mean, part of the part of the, part of the challenge here is you're flipping drawings that, I mean, we don't have, that the DRB members don't have any reference. I don't know the dates for those drawings. I don't know who prepared them. I don't know. I mean, you didn't do a very good job by, by letting us know. I mean, think about if you put yourself in our shoes. Okay. We received, we received your communication, your, Mr. Samson, your communication. You're appealing 24-0016 and am expressing concerns that the existing roadway development plans are not conducive for road, rosewood drive in that puddling and washout will occur as well as boundary line concerns. Okay. And, and now Mr. Weston, who is a respected professional in the field, I recognize that is flipping through plans and, and we're supposed to be prepared to talk about those plans based on this appeal language. Do you want me to answer this? Do you want to get this? May I try? I hope you do. So, so be sensitive to what you're asking us to do. I appreciate that. You know, our, our system is set up to have, you know, a quick, cheap resolution at the zone and miscellaneous rate level, which is largely going to be accurate and an appeal here. And this is a homeowner pro se application and I've been invited in because we thought it would be easier and cheaper and more efficient to resolve this at this level rather than where attorneys would normally get involved. I appreciate that it's, it's not as detailed as you might like, but he did address road safety and erosion and boundary line issues, which is what we are discussing tonight. And we're referring to, but Mr. Weston is referring to are the initial drawings here, which have essentially been bootstrapped onto this change. You know, this, this new curve, which is what we're appealing tonight. We're saying that those drawings aren't transferable onto this. And the, we actually need information on what's proposed, what was approved at the zone minute, what's before you tonight, you know, to show the contour, show the, show the ditching, show the, you know, show that this is going to meet the requirements of the zoning regulations. Did you bring this up in the environmental work? No, sorry, I wasn't involved with that in that matter. There was a different term. And we weren't discussing bump up in environmental work. I was discussing my well being approached because more than three more than two houses, but it's out of compliance. That's what we were discussing in environmental work. This, the first time we saw these redrawn was when the wastewater permit was issued by a state or it was asked up by the state and they had received it and they were pending the property four days before the appeal was up. And that was a whole nother point. So typically we would rely on the drawings are submitted by a licensed engineer or architect that has their stamp on it that says that they are accurately representing existing conditions and the modifications to that. It's impossible for us sitting here to know whether those are accurate representations of what's really in the field, nor is it possible for the zoning administrator from his desk or her desk to do the same. So I'm not sure what the question is. The determination that we think is required here is that it complies chapter 13 and chapter 29. It's a safe and adequate road that the application is just a circle of a prior drawing of what they had planned to do in the initial location and is no assessment of what's now being proposed. And all we're asking is an assessment of what's being proposed because without it there's no way to determine if it is a safe and adequate or has stormwater and meets the zoning requirements. And we respectfully say that it was an error to approve an application without adequate drawings for which to base determination on whether it meets the zoning requirements. Here I ask you to follow up kind of a point of clarity of something you said before. I believe you said that you do not have a problem with the setback. You have a problem with the interpretation of where the boundary line is. So are you saying you're okay with this road being rerouted within seven feet of a property line but you're not okay with where that property line is being stated as existing? My client appreciates it being 25 feet away from the ground. I appreciate it being designed in a way that meets its expectations. There is a separate dispute about the location of boundary to the west with Mr. Beecher and Mr. Beecher. And I would argue right off the bat that that is not germane to this conversation. That is a discussion between two property owners that had no bearing here. Until it is resolved, we go off of the plat as it's... Right. And that was part of my guardrail discussion. Okay. So I really don't want to talk about the boundary line dispute. There's a drawing that's been submitted and is on file that says this is where the property is. We have no... I mean that's the proper assessment of this. As you're asking us to do, you're saying that there's inadequate documentation to assess the road, the drive construction. Yeah. We do have a drawing that gives us everything that we need to know about the boundary. So I'm not sure that we can do both here. The proposal moves further to the west and very close to that property line. Even using the established property line in these drawings, it's very close to the ability to meet the details that they propose that you have approved. Are you saying that it does or does not? I don't know. I don't know how far it is. It's hard to say because there's no analysis proposed. It's just a circle of the drawing and a relocation of the road. But what you have approved and what the court has approved does... If they use this drawing where it slopes downhill, which Mr. Weston is saying it's not slope downhill, but even if they do, they require a six-foot cutout and three-to-one slope and ditching, or I guess if it does actually go downhill. So I think really the issue here is that the road profile is drawn as a... There wasn't a new road profile developed when the road was relocated. Thank you. That's really what you're talking about. And 29 requires two-foot contours to draw this so you could see it so you don't have to take outside testimony. I appreciate you don't want to do. But if the application came with the site plan required in Chapter 29, then we could look at that and say, oh, it actually goes uphill instead of downhill, but it's lacking. So there's no way that the zoning minister could have made an accurate assessment that it complies with Chapter 29. The application materials lack that as to this plan out here. There is some contours on the line on the existing plans. But unless you actually were out in the site, you would not know it. But the west side is actually higher than the road. And the plans do not show that. But unless you had a site to visit, you wouldn't know that these were not accurate. Okay. I think I got my head wrapped around what's going on here on the relocated section of the road was not profiled and the overall design reflecting the change. And you're saying that it no longer meets the conditions of the bylaws. And yet the zoning administrator, I'm paraphrasing your position. And that the zoning administrator should have considered that before granting a zoning permit. Is that a fair representation? I think they're required to. Okay. But I don't know that it doesn't. I don't know. You didn't answer my question. Am I kind of close to what your position is? Yes, sir. Okay. Okay. But even the existing profile, even if they went with the existing profile of the road, it did not, it's not actually because the west side is higher than the, even if the road stayed where it is, it is not right. Okay. And I would add just to paraphrase what you said, that while you can't blast, you could use an impact hammer to bang it out and create the correct profile. Correct. You would have to, you would have to use a hammer instead of a, to save the well. Right. But they will have to put ditching in there. It doesn't show that. I'm just, I'm just, I'm trying to paraphrase it so I understand your position. That's, that's, that's all. And I would agree that's my understanding as well. What I'm frustrated about, Mr. Chair, is that the applicant application materials that we have in front of us made that absolutely not. And that the, even the response from staff doesn't really address the issues that you're bringing to the, the appeal here doesn't say that. And it could have, in the same plain language that we just used, it could have said that we would have had a much better understanding. We would have had a much, I think, smoother and more effective. And that, and that was the genesis of my frustration. That's it. How long is this section of Reloaded Road? I have one of those three and it's rulers. Roughly 76 feet on. 76 feet. Thank you. It's too bad that the attorney didn't bring this up in the environmental court when they talked about the bump out about the problem with the road. It's not here. It's unfortunate that the engineer that submitted these revised plans didn't provide better information. Okay. So what, what else before we, I left members of the public address the board. It's the same thing that asked me to just refer you to the materials that we're talking about tonight are on the website. The drawings that Mr. Weston is. No, these drawings are from your initial consideration of the underlying app. Are these the drawings that you use that are on the website? With a red circle? They're in our package. Thank you. But those drawings that you're referring to, we do not, and are not really germane, I think, to this conversation. Yes, you do. Oops. I don't have those. They're not. They're not. Okay. So our, our expert testimony or can we go to the public? No, no, we appreciate it. Okay. Okay. Okay, at this point then I'm going to open it up to the members of the audience that are here that would like to come up to the table and address the board on, on the road relocation, the proximity to the well, not the property line dispute. Is there anyone who would like to address the board? Mr. Goulart, come on up. You get, you get to sit at the public table. Doug, if you would state your name and address for the record, please. Yes, Doug Goulart. I live at 240 Southridge Road here in Wilson. On the record, if you will, at the time I was employed by Lamar L. Dickinson. And now I am with Trudeau Consulting Engineers, but I'm the engineer representing the landowners, Joe LaMarche and Randy Brownell. Sure, they will be considered the FLEs. I think that's a zoning administrator in this case. I'll be brief. As you folks have been discussing here, it was a judge's court order that required this project relocate a driveway for approximately 70 feet to avoid the Samson well to maintain a separation distance of 25 feet from the closest point of the driveway to the well itself. Subsequent to that court order, we altered the plans. Submitted them to the zoning administrator as final plans. They were signed and approved. And that led to the issuance or the ability of the zoning administrator to issue an administrative permit for the construction to commence. I would point out through these hearings that Rosewood Drive is an existing drive. It only meets town standards. It's through the course of the hearings Fire Department, Public Works all looked at the roadway configuration existing. They required that it be 14 feet where it isn't, and in most cases it is, but our plan showed where widening was to improve it to 14 feet. At that time, we weren't looking at the 25 foot roadway configuration zone. But it was clear DPW staff all looked at this through the DP process that this existing road probably doesn't meet a lot of the bylaws. It doesn't have ditching and such, but it's an existing road that we wanted to utilize. We were going to upgrade it, but there was no requirement to bring it up to some of the public work standards or the other regulations. Had this been a brand new project road, we'd be talking about a totally different subject. This is an existing driveway that we wanted to add two additional homes to. So, subsequent to the court order, we revised the plans about half the road will stay. We're basically taking the northbound lane, digging it up and moving it to the north thereby continuing its width, but moving it obviously to the west, closer to the Beecher property line. There's no proposal to change the road. The grade will stay exactly the same. There's no ditches out there now. So that's why we did not propose ditching. If you look at the plans, we're just about at the height of land before Rosewood Drive starts to drop off. So the drainage area is very small. So there's not a lot of runoff of coming into the road and going down the road. Not to say it doesn't have some washouts during summer, summer heavy rains, but it's not taking a lot of off offsite waters. It were at the bottom of a large hillside, for instance. So I suspect is why there isn't drainage currently existing on either side of the road as you go up there. So we were simply not over-designing it. We just wanted to shift it, keep the same grade, keep the same profile and not propose additional ditching and such, which would just further increase the disturbance of the area. We've got when the road is relocated, there'll be seven feet from the new westerly side of the road to the Beecher property line, which is adequate. If there needed to be ditching for any reason, you've got seven feet to do it in. Mr. Weston is accurate. The contours on the plans don't quite catch the subtlety of the drainage there. The grade does somewhat rise to the west, but it'll just have to be dealt with during construction. I don't know if ledge will be an issue or not. There's ledge in some places. There's others there's not. So I think that's it. We think that it went through a full review of the DP. They had an opportunity to, well, they didn't look at this part of it, but in hopes that the judge did look at it when imposing that requirement to move the road, that was a consideration. I don't know. But I think the plans as they stand are workable and will provide a good access and will not adversely impact the Samson property. It'll benefit it by giving that relief to the well by moving the road. Do you have any members questions for Mr. Coulette? How many houses are office driving? Currently, there are three homes and then when the two new lots will be built at the end of it, there'll be five homes. The two occupied homes, now one unoccupied home currently exists. Melinda, are there regulations about driveways and number of homes? Yeah, you can have a maximum of five of homes on a driveway. Who owns the property to the west of this bump out? Is that for example? Features. So are all the five homes after the bump out? One is before. One. Just to add another spin to this. So there's four in most of them. Any other questions for Doug? The only requirement imposed by the environmental court was that the drive needed to be at least 25 feet from the Sampson Well. That's the only revisions that these drawings are responding to. I think there was one other clarifying the use of the open space. That's what it says here. But you're not responding to that with this change. There might have been a simple note change on the flat to address that situation. Doug, thank you. Thank you. Are there other members? If I may. This is an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision and the zoning administrator is tasked to align the zoning regulations literally and without discretion. The zoning regulation require ditches use of shell as mandatory or drainage as necessary. They require contour lines that would show accurately will be heard as inaccurate. The applicant is proposing to move the zoning regulations to a different road and to put in a new location and submit that they have the burden of showing what they're proposing to redesign is going to meet the zoning regulations. I need to submit enough details that that can be about the zoning administrator level. And it gives neighbors the ability to comment intelligently about it instead of hypothetically about it. Thank you. I do address the board. I think they do need some kind of ditching on the outside road just mostly because otherwise that road could be washed out and there's going to be neighbors whenever you have an association someone's going to complain on who has the paper for that section of road or who did it and there's a good chance that it will wash out where if they if there's a ditch it will help prevent it a lot. Thank you, Don. Craig, do you have something else to add? I'll shoot it by hand. I don't know if that's going to take work. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Last chance for members to the public to address the board. DRB members, any last questions? I'll set them. Okay. Any wrap up? Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. It's 7.57. We're going to close APP 24-01. Okay. Next up is DP 21-18. This is a pre-app for Snyder Group on the Ethics and Alliance Church property. Chris and Andy, come on out. Yep. Okay. Scott Riley is recusing himself due to a business relationship with the applicant. Okay. Chris and Andy, state your name and address for the record, please. Chris Snyder, Snyder Homes, 4076 Shelburne Road, Shelburne. Andy Rose, Snyder Homes, same address. Okay. Welcome. Okay. This is a request for a pre-application review to participate in growth management in March of 2024. That is the sole purpose of this application. No changes are proposed to the project as part of what's before you tonight. With approval of the discretionary permit by this board back in October 2022, this project was approved for the overall unit count and layout as well as the site and architectural design for phase one. So it is vested in the conversion of the bylaws. We did receive one letter on the proposal which should be in your packets. And just for information, the select board is holding a hearing next Tuesday, October 17th, which includes revisions to the growth management chapter of the bylaw. One of those changes is the projects that already have partial growth management allocation no longer need to be heard to go forward and compete again. So that's it. What follows is a recommendation to approve and allow this project to proceed to growth management next week. Okay. Thank you, Simon. Chris and Andy, anything to supplement the staff report? Unless board members have questions. Okay. DRB members, questions? Are there any changes from the plan that were previously reviewed? There's final plans that are being reviewed by staff and those will hopefully be at your next DRB meeting to consider. Thank you. Any other questions? So this is just forward on the house, right? This is really all about the growth management process and the fact that all of their requests was not satisfied in the last cycle and this is really without making light of it, this is kind of a formality. As long as it's the same project. As long as it's the same project, this is a process formality. Yeah. So I'm needed. Okay. Members of the public, any questions? Okay. Thank you. We're going to close this at 801. DP 21-18 is closed at 801. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Okay. Next up is DP 24-03. Doug, if you would restate your name and address for the record, please. Yes. Doug, let's do that. Okay. Okay. So this is a request for a discretionary permit to modify the pavement area to the east of 6A7 Marshall Avenue. You can see the overall parcel outlined in red there and the sort of area of work outlined in blue. At present it's sort of comprised of two areas, truck loading and unloading area right next to the building and then a parking lot to the east of that truck area which is approximately four foot higher than it. The tenant in place is confirmed to the property owner that they don't need all that existing parking but they do need more truck space so essentially they're proposing to amalgamate the two areas to create a better sort of truck slurring that building. Staff is recommending approval and that the DRB take testimony close and approve tonight. We did not receive any public comment. The proposal does meet the standards the dimensional standards rather for the industrial zoning district west. This drawing here really sort of illustrates what's happening. This is to do with the watershed protection buffer. So the existing pavement is located partly within a watershed protection buffer and under WDP2 and WDP29 which are the two chapters one of which deals with non-conforming uses and one which deals with watershed protection buffers to allow existing non-conformities to be repaired, replaced or enlarged. It's got to meet three criteria we can't increase the degree of non-conformity. The applicant has to demonstrate compliance with the erosion control standards in our bylaw and there can't be any increase in hazard materials stored within that area or areas or materials that could float downstream during a flood. So on this drawing here the pink line sort of indicates the present extent of pavement on the property so that's both parking lot and the park area. The green line indicates the watershed protection buffer and then the half red area is what we end up with should this project be approved which is the area for trucks and so on. So in this case when we compare it against the regulations on non-conformities they are compliant the application reduces the amount of pavement in the watershed protection buffer quite significantly it's also not closer to the wetland than existing which you can both see from the green the sort of interaction between the patch red area and the green line which shows the watershed protection buffer. Secondly they've provided us with an erosion control plan fine with WTV 29 and lastly there won't be anything stored within that area that's in the wetland so if the watershed buffer that's hazardous or could float off downstream and then lastly they got approval from the state wetlands officer so the DRB will probably be familiar with the parking requirements of the bylaw Table 14.8 does say that industrial use is a very diverse using 1 per thousand square feet as a starting point we do lose 83 car parking spaces here but it has been confirmed that they will still have sufficient for their tenements and then lastly to sweep up a few matters their landscaping is good and compliant there's no impacts on conservation areas so it's farmland of local importance and viewshed and the outdoor lighting is compliant so what follows is a recommendation to approve with findings of fact conclusions and conditions as drafted great thank you Simon Doug have you reviewed the proposed conditions of approval I have and do you have any items to bring forth for our consideration do you take exception to any it's really what I'm saying no they're all good DRB members questions one clarification this is going to just be one ambiguous plane of pavement when it's completed so the entire retaining wall is coming out the entire fence is coming out you could go to sheet 8 but you're shrinking the actual surface as a 60 foot wide parking lot we're shrinking it by 8 feet we're moving it 13 feet so it abuts the existing pavement and we're moving it down improving the stormwater off pavement stormwater management there's a simplistic cross-section on sheet 8-01 that illustrates really what's going on I had to do that for the wetland to understand drainage doesn't change we're just moving a grass swale to a new location so that's what's happening that's pavement it's the new pavement being proposed and we'll be reducing in pervious area that's right any other questions I do take exception with the statement that says this is designated as farmland of local importance this is junk land any other questions Doug thank you we're going to close at 24-03 at 8-09 and the DRV is now going to go into deliberative session recording stopped okay thank you Scott and welcome back to the town of Williston Development Review Board for Tuesday October 10, 2023 the time is 8-27 the DRV is out of deliberative session is there a motion for AP 24-01 yes as authorized by WDB 5.6 I stop Riley moved that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the appeal of the administrator's decision all of the accompanying materials and having heard and do we consider the testimony presented at the public hearing of October 10, 2023 accept the findings of facts and conclusions of law for AP 24-01 an appeal of the issuance of an administrative permit and uphold the decision of the administrator to issue AP 24-0016 thank you Scott is there a second? second Paul seconds any discussion yay or nay Nate Andrews? yay Paul Christensen? yay Lisa Brayden Harder? yay Scott Riley? yay Dave Turner? yay David Turner motion carries the we have upheld the zoning administrator's ruling is there a motion for DP 21-18 21-18 is that a name? oh I'm looking at the wrong one sorry okay I'm sleeping here thank you as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 by David Turner having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff the advisory board is required to comment on the application by the Wilson development bylaw and having heard and do we consider the testimony presented at the public hearing of October 10, 2023 authorized DP 21-18 to proceed to residential growth management allocation in 2024 thank you Dave is there a second? second Lisa seconds it any discussion? yay or nay Nate? yay Paul? yay Lisa? yay Scott is recused Dave Turner? yay John? yay chairs the yay six in favor not opposed one recusal motion carries is there a motion for DP 24-03 as authorized by WDB 6.3 I John Hemmelgarn moved at the Wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board required to comment on this application by the Wilson development bylaw and having heard and do we consider the testimony presented at the public hearing of October 10, 2023 except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 24-03 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 staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed strict conformance with the plans at which this approval is based thank you John is there a second? I'll second Dave Turner seconds any discussion? yay or nay Nate? yay Lisa? yay Scott? yay Dave? yay John? yay chairs are yay 7 in favor none opposed motion carries is there a motion to approve the minutes of September 26? don't move Paul moves approval of the minutes is there a second? I'll second it Dave Turner seconds any discussion? yay or nay approving the meeting minutes John? yay Scott? yay Dave? yay John? yay chairs are yay 7 in favor none opposed motions meeting minutes are approved is there any other business to bring forth time? is there a motion to adjourn? second all in favor? all right thank you all