 So welcome all, I'm going to open the meeting at 7.03. Welcome to the town of Wilson Development Review Board for Tuesday, March 9th, 2021. First order of business is the remote public meeting notice. I, Pete Kelly is chair of the Wilson Development Review Board, finding that this public body is authorized to meet electronically without a physical location due to the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott in Act 92 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In accordance with the temporary amendments to the open meeting law, I confirm that one, public access is available by video conference and telephone through Zoom. All members of the board and the public can communicate in real time during this meeting through Zoom. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. Two, the publicly noticed agenda, including Zoom, web address and phone number. Agendas, material and Zoom instructions are also provided on the town website, www.town.wilson.vt.us. Click on public records and documents, then agendas in minutes. Number three, the public can alert us if a problem during the meeting. If anyone has a problem with access during the meeting, please use the raised hand feature or chat box on Zoom or call Emily at 802-878-6704, extension three and leave a message for continuing the meeting if necessary. If Zoom crashes or the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to April 6th, 2021. All votes taken at this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRV members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarn. Here. Steve Landberg. Present. Scott Riley. Here. David Saladino. Here. David Turner. Here. And I'm Pete Kelly, chair, I am present as well. So there's seven members present, which is the entire board. Next up, Emily, why don't you walk us through some Zoom tips, please? I'm actually going to take that over tonight. And I apologize if you hear whining, there's a puppy in the background. No, that's not right. Bonnie. All right. So for those of you that are new to Zoom, we ask that you keep your microphone on mute when you're not speaking to reduce background noise and webcam use is optional. And if you hear an echo when you are talking, you can lower your speaker volume. The chat box can be used for Zoom questions if you're having any technical difficulties. And you can also use the raise hand function or the chat box if you need to speak to the staff or the board members. And if you're using a telephone, which I believe someone is, you can use star six to mute and unmute and star nine to raise your hand. And if you would like to change your screen view, you can switch from gallery view to speaker views. You can see who's speaking individually. And then you can also change your view options to switch your view to see who's presenting and what screen they're presenting. Okay, great. Thank you, Bonnie. Okay, first order of business on the agenda is the public forum. This is the opportunity for anyone present on Zoom or calling in that would like this forum to talk about something that's not on the agenda tonight. Is there anyone out there that would like to address the board? Tim, welcome. Thank you. I just wanted to say hello and you may remember I was me a couple months ago or about a month ago. And I'm with the Forest Run Homers Association and I'm just here to listen and kind of get oriented to how this works. And we're going to be following the new sort of development activity carefully. And we know that there's nothing on the agenda for that tonight, but I just wanted to explain why I was here and listening. So thank you. Thanks, Tim. Appreciate that. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address the board? Bonnie, are you seeing anybody? I'm not. Okay. Okay. Next up is the public hearing. We have one application on the agenda tonight, DP 21-10, NETI real estate, requesting a discretionary permit to construct a 9,632 square foot addition to an existing building on Crop Drive in the Industrial Zoning District West. I will disclose that the company that I work for, DEW construction has done business in the past with both NETI real estate and Bill Nequette. I do not deem that to be a conflict of interest, but I did want to disclose it. Before I turn it over to staff, is there anyone else that wants to disclose anything related to the applicant in a business relationship? Okay. Who's got this one? Is this you, Emily? Okay. I'll turn it over to staff. All right, before I get going on the staff report, if the applicants can state their name and address for the record, we'll start with Jacques. Oh, you're muted. Oh, sorry about that. My name is Jacques LaRose. I work for Civil Engineering Associates. We're located at Ten Mansfield View Lane in South Browington. I'm Bill Nequette representing the applicant. My firm is Realty Advisors Vermont. We're located at 41 Lambert Lane in Williston Village. It is Marshall from Civil Engineering Associates, also on behalf of the applicant. All right. Great. Take it away, Emily. All right. So this is a discretionary permit request to build an addition. And it looks like Adobe is not participating right now. In a second. An error while reading stream. Okay. One second, guys. All right. So the existing building is about 14,000 square feet and they're looking to expand to improve their operations and product storage for Fleet Pride. Fleet Pride provides a full spectrum of heavy duty truck and trailer parts, as well as some truck repairs. The property is a little over three acres. It has access onto town roads. It is not subject to design review. However, it is subject to conservation review with the Conservation Commission. Tonight, we're recommending you take testimony and close, deliberate and approve this application with conditions as drafted below. I will note there is one condition at the very end where the DRB must make a decision. I'll get into that further. Project History, this parcel was created in 1987 and the original site was developed in 1988. Since then, it hasn't changed much if at all. The Conservation Commission looked at this application on March 3rd. Their recommendations are included as conditions below. Public Works and Fire also reviewed the application. Their recommendations are included. There is some back and forth with the applicant and public works about the driveway culver and stormwater. The applicant's been following up with DPW and is aware that DPW needs to sign off on final plans before planning and zoning can approve final plans and permits. We have not received any public comment at the time of mail out, nor have I received anything to date. Motor vehicle parts and repair isn't allowed use in this zoning district. The front yard setback is 35 feet. The building addition goes right up to that front setback which is allowed. You will see in the plans that the sand filter for the perimeter is within the setback and that's part of stormwater that's okay in the setback. Outdoor storage is existing and proposed to remain at the rear of the building. Up next vested rights, non-conformities. So the site was developed in 1988. The gravel storage area is shown on that site plan and extends into what is now the watershed buffer. I'll get into this in a little more detail further down, but I wanna remind the DRB that you do have authority over existing non-conformities when a substantial change is proposed. This power is limited to requiring work that is reasonably proportional to the scale of the proposed development. We'll go into that further in watershed health. Access, this property has two curb cuts onto prep drive. They're gonna relocate the Western curb cut to accommodate the addition. And they've been having back and forth with public works on making sure that public works is happy with both curb cuts. Off street parking and loading a standard condition here. They're proposing 17 spaces for employees and customers. The remainder of the paved and unpaved area is considered outdoor storage for trucks and equipment. The final plans must specify the location of interior bike storage and lockers. They are showing short-term bike racks. An end of trip facility must also be shown on final plans. This would be a changing area within shower that employees can use. And I refer back to the DRB's power to correct non-conformities. So this is an existing site, but they are increasing the footprint by 70%. And a small say 250 square foot shower, walker room area would be less than 1% of that new building. Therefore staff recommends that the scale is proportional and has added a condition of approval requiring an end of trip facility. What follows is the parking table, everything's in compliance except end of trip facility, which is included as a condition. No changes to municipal water sewer or utilities are proposed other than relocating a gas meter. For maintenance, they're showing solid waste containers and snow storage in compliance with the bylaw. Landscaping is also in compliance for the side rear and front yard. Removal of the gravel storage area from the 50 foot watershed buffer and replanting would suffice as a type one or type three informal plantings buffer. As you'll see the one, a butter to the west on the other side of the wetlands in the back is a presidential property that has slightly larger buffer setbacks. Street trees are shown. We recommend retaining existing street trees where feasible and identifying them on final plans. A condition is included. Conservation areas, there is significant wildlife habitat area shown on the parcel that is encroached on by the gravel storage yard. Staff has recommended that the existing stream buffer be reestablished and maintained in the future. There are also uncommon rare, threatened and endangered species mapped on this parcel. So a condition of approval is included that the applicant should obtain a written opinion from Vermont Fish and Wildlife to confirm the presence or absence of those species. Watershed health. So the map on the right highlights the portion of the unpaved gravel storage area that's located within the watershed buffer behind the property is an unnamed stream and wetland. An erosion control and sediment plan has been provided. Public Works is reviewing this plan and the conditions included. The unnamed tributary does have a 50 foot watershed protection buffer. Here the DRB can require the correction of non-conformities as a condition of approval. So the recommendation from the Conservation Commission was just to delineate the existing area with a fence. However, given your power to correct non-conformities you may require re-vegetating and demarcating all the buffer area. Condition number 22 is up for the DRB to edit as they see fit. Outdoor lighting is generally compliant. The final plans just need to specify light timing and security lighting. Everything else complies as proposed and impact fees will be assessed by the administrator for additional vehicle trips at the time of administrative permit. What follows is findings of facts, conclusions of law. I've bolded some of those particular final plans about lighting, retaining street trees, the end of trip facility, and then condition number 22, the DRB must decide if the applicant must remove all impervious surface and storage areas from the buffer. Thank you. Okay, thanks Emily. Mr. Nakeda, are you the primary spokesperson for the applicant? I realized, Mr. Chairman, this may be very difficult to believe, but no, I'm not actually, it's a rare occasion that I'm not the person speaking the most. So I'll just point that out for the benefit of the crowd. I'll point out too, as a board member that this board member might be having a heart attack. Yeah, yeah, that's right. I must admit that caught me off guard. Yeah, well, fair enough. That being said, I'd like to pass the torch to Jacques LaRosa from our civil engineering group and he'll walk you through the plans. Thanks. Okay, Jacques, good evening. So you're welcome to walk us through the plans. I would ask that you do it in a expeditious way because this is really a pretty straightforward application. There's, I would like you to get to your being the applicant's position on the conditions of approval proposed and specifically condition number 22 and what your position is on that one. So if you could weave in to your narrative, project narrative answers to proposed conditions of approval and number 22 specifically, that would be appreciated. Absolutely. So as you just heard from Emily, the primary focus of this project is a building addition. The building addition is really focused on the front of the building and on the west side of the building. Due to the addition on the west side, we're actually required to relocate our access drive. The access drive is moving approximately 40 feet to the west. Any of the new impervious is going to be focused around these areas around the building. Generally, there's really not much changes to the site in a functional manner beyond this driveway in the building additions. We are required to go to active 50 for these changes. So we are looking at things like stormwater. We are looking at things like the fish and wildlife in the back and we also have already discussed with wetlands, the buffer zone in at the rear of the property. So with the understanding most of the work is focused on the front, we have identified the existing conveyance that surrounds the perimeter of this site. The conveyance and the storage area is fully permitted. As you can tell back in 1988 by the state for stormwater runoff and as it appears in Emily's review by the town, we actually aren't at our full limits of the gravel at the rear of the property. I would say it was probably about 5,000 square feet that never was installed and we're not looking to install it. We're actually not really looking to do any work at that portion of the property. We have, as we discussed with the conservation committee, we're happy to delineate what is there now and maintain the natural vegetation that's grown up over the years. And I think that is a good way to protect the existing resource and actually maintain the treatment that was originally permitted for the site in regards to stormwater. So that's just kind of a quick rundown of the rear of the site. I have had discussions with public works in regards to their comments. I think we've pretty much ironed out their issues. I think their primary issue was stormwater structure in the right-of-way. I have shared with them a plan that relieves that issue and I'm waiting to hear back from them, but they had indicated that was their primary concern. When it comes to the driveway, we're actually a non-conforming driveway now in regards to separation between this driveway and the neighboring driveway to the west, but functionally we're removing this very short distance between the two entrances. I don't have any concerns with being able to access and navigate vehicles entering and exiting this driveway, especially with the low volume of traffic that you would see from this site being a truck maintenance facility. So in limited number of employees, you can tell that just from our parking evaluation. So that's kind of a quick rundown of the site, the issues that we've discussed and I believe resolved. I'm certainly happy to take questions especially on the wetlands correspondence, which we have provided. So if any of the board members had a chance to review that, the state sees this activity at the rear of the property as an existing condition that they don't want to get worse but we may continue to maintain it. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill McCat from Realty Advisors Vermont. So just specifically to your question about the conditions and our position on them, I think we're generally fine with them with a couple of exceptions. The proposed condition 22 was actually recommended to the conservation board. We spent exactly that format. We spent considerable amount of time talking with them about how that would effectively make the property unusable to the single tenant of the project. They make considerable use of that area for storage. So if that condition were imposed as part of an approval that would effectively deny the project. So I just want to make sure that we're clear about our position there, that we're not disputing that the ordinance in a convoluted way does provide for the correction of nonconformities, but as a practical matter, not being able to use that particular area to store trucks while they're working on them would make the property unusable to the tenant. And therefore it's an unacceptable condition on our side. We did discuss this at some length and offer several other measures to the conservation board. And I thought we had a great conversation which ended with them removing that recommendation from the staff report and replacing it with the recommendations that are in your condition of approval number three. And those particular conditions are the ones we discussed with them and we're fine with them. And we think that that's a sensible way to go about it. Just keeping in mind that this is a fully permitted storage area that isn't fully being used at the maximum height or the maximum amount. So the idea here is that we're going to go in here and demarcate that particular area and do the things the conservation board thought were prudent, which includes maintaining a significant buffer that does exist there that's vegetated already and allowing that area to sort of reestablish rather than mow it or continue to take care of it as a landscaped area. So that's one issue. The second issue is the we understand and appreciate that all commercial activity has end of trip facilities required now. This tenant is not excited about having to provide it. There was a limited amount of space to give these guys the space they wanted in their expansion and they are not interested in having an end of trip facility. They asked us to ask you whether it would be possible to provide the required bicycle storage but it's a discretionary matter as to whether you bring that non-conformity up into compliance and these are diesel truck mechanics who aren't riding their bikes to work and it's not something the tenant wants. So I was asked to ask you if that was something that you would consider waving in this particular instance as a second issue. And then finally on a very technical point of view there's a condition that effectively says satisfy whatever public works has commented on. I think Jacques done a great job of dealing with all of the sort of technical issues but just to be perfectly clear and a little bit anal one of the conditions or one of the concerns that was raised was the location of the driveway itself and the fact that it's not far enough away from the driveway next door. Obviously this is the only place that driveway can go. So we have provided a response that we think is sensible to talk about how as a practical matter the level of non-conformity hasn't changed. We don't have confirmation from public works that they're satisfied with that and sort of an open-ended condition that says satisfy public works might reasonably include someone saying that that driveway doesn't work and it's kind of a key part of this project that these folks can get in and out the way they need to. So it would be great to have some indication from this group that the proposed exiting location on the West side is in fact an acceptable situation. We're more than happy to deal with all of the technical things that they've asked for. So with that said, I think that summarizes where we are and I appreciate your time. Okay, thank you, Bill. Emily, review for the DRB and the applicant are the DRB's ability to Trump public works or do we have to abide by their recommendations? We do have to abide by their recommendations. So the bylaw does have some general statements in the access chapter about how access should be designed but as to the specifications that DPW has about distances, we don't have the authority to override that. DPW has not been in touch with me about wanting to continue this item or wait for the hearing. So I think the applicants have been working with DPW to get their memo clarified. At the end of the day, DPW will have to sign off on final plans. I guess our options would be to continue the hearing and get a revised memo from DPW. Okay, and I did that specifically so that the applicant would understand what powers we have and what powers we don't have. So that was by design. Thank you, Emily. Bill did raise his hand. Oh, go ahead, Bill. I'm just going to say, I listed the concerns sort of in declining order. So I was just raising the issue that one of those things was not really a technical thing. It was a real thing and obviously we'll work with them but if this board has concerns about the fact that the driveway is non-conforming and will continue to be non-conforming, it'd be great to know that now. Well, we're happy to work out the details with Public Works. It's just, we certainly don't want a continuance over this by any means. It sort of is what it is. It's the only place left to put the driveway, so. Yep, yep, and driveways put together in that part of Will's center common because there's just not a lot of volume of traffic. Okay, are you set, Jacques and Bill at this point? I'll turn it over to the DRB to ask questions. Okay, so fellow DRB members, the floor is yours to ask any questions that you may have. Jacques, I had just one question on the landscaping plan. Is the plan, looking at the last sheet of the plan said it looks like the landscaping plan has a lot of landscaping proposed for the front yard. Is that the plan? Is the plan to rip out all of the existing vegetation and plant new? Yeah, so the existing condition, David is a large berm that has to come out in order to install the proposed stormwater facility that's being built in the front. I see. Regrettably, we went out there with the professionals and tried to survey around and the practical reality is that too much of the root balls of these various established trees could be exposed to meaningfully retain any of them. There were only a handful of them that would be worthy of consideration anyway, but they all by bad luck happen to be sitting on top of the berm that was placed there in the 80s when it was built. So what you're looking at there is effectively what you suspected, which is that the existing landscaping's removed and the regrading occurs and then there's a full replacement of landscaping across the front. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. And then just a quick comment on the driveway issue as a traffic engineer, I don't have any concerns with the driveway spacing. I know they pulled the V-trans, the standard straight from V-trans. And to Pete's comment, the low volumes and the good side distances, I for one don't have any concerns with the spacing. I don't know if that matters but I'll just put it out there for the record. Okay, great. Thank you, David. That's meaningful. All right. Sorry about that. I'll unmute myself. This is John Hemmelgarn. I'm looking at the overall location plan in the set that you gave us. And I see the trailers and whatnot. I think those are trailers parked out back in the area that we're discussing where they're kind of backed up to the back end of the gravel area. Is that right? That's correct. Yep. I see an awful lot of space that's empty in front of them. Is there any reason those can't be pulled forward some and make maybe a little more efficient use of the space if you did restore some of that buffer behind? Yeah, that's a good question. I would say you're looking at a very small snapshot in time with that ortho photo. Just from being to the site, there's trucks parked in that area in front of those trailers every day and being constantly moved in and out. So I believe the whole area is being fully utilized. And I'm sure the owners, I believe the owners have shared that same sentiment with me is that they can't lose any additional storage. Yeah, I mean, I think the, I don't wanna speak directly for the tenant except to say that we did discuss this with them when this condition concept was raised with the conservation board and the owner did discuss it with the tenant and the reality is that they do feel that they fully utilize that space and that it's critical to them staying on as a tenant and we're obviously not gonna build an expansion for them if they're not gonna stay. So that's, from our point of view, there's that. I mean, again, I just emphasize that what's on the ground today is less than what's permitted and that particular area does drain to the swale area to the west where it flows into a permitted stormwater system. It's not like we're, this is not a situation where there is not a buffer between the development and the resource. It just doesn't happen to be the 50 feet of depth that's there now. But the conservation board felt that because the space is fully vegetated and has other aspects to it that improve the functions and values that demarcating what's there would be from a resource perspective a reasonable compromise. Okay, I think, and I understand what you're saying and I'm not insensitive to that. On the other hand, once this addition goes on or if this development happens, it seems extremely unlikely that there's much space on this site for additional development. And this is essentially the last chance that the town would have to reestablish this buffer that by law should be there. So I think, I know there's cants and there's really don't want tos. And when the only picture I see of the utilization of this site certainly seems to indicate that there's extra space there. I would like to add one point myself and that is we hold everybody accountable for these buffers. I can't recall the last time, if ever, there was ever an exception made. I guess that's the only thing I want to say. Yeah, I think our position is that the ordinance is clear that non-conformities are allowed to continue when they're in compliance with their permits. And when you make the change, you make the change in a way that's proportional and reasonable to the application. Now staff has taken the position that the size of the addition is the relevant thing in making that fairness decision. We utterly and completely disagree. We're not doing anything behind the building. So we're not changing any aspect of the drainage to the extent we are changing drainage and the property, we're improving it. And we're leaving the property far better than we found it. So there is a path for the board to correct non-conformities, but I think it's eminently clear when you read it, it's intended to be proportional to the proposed change. And I think the relevant aspect of this is that there isn't any change being proposed to that area other than we are volunteering to take away some permitted area permanently and demarcate that area the way the conservation board asked for it to be demarcated. If this were a new application, I don't think there'd be any possibility we even asked for this, we would know that it's not something that's there and available because it's new development. But this is a permitted and fully conforming activity. The state wetland division, for example, is not taking the position that we need to do anything here because we're in conformance with something that was permitted prior to the establishment of this aspect. Am I reading the plans, right though, that you're increasing the size of this building by almost 70%? We're increasing the size of the building in the front and we're constructing new stormwater facilities to treat all of that. Yes, that's right. Well, I mean, again, it's hard to imagine that a 70% increase in the building size is in a significant change. I don't think we're making an argument, sir, that it's not a significant change. That's not the standard in the ordinance. The standard in the ordinance is that the change be proportional and fair to the project. And I think it's intended to say that non-conformity stay unless it's a discretion of the board, we're making our case for what we think is reasonable. And I'm telling you as a practical matter that if you were to impose that condition, we will lose our tenant. So we will not proceed with the project if you impose that condition. And in that case, we're fully in conformance to keep using that buffer and then some in a future use going forward until we change it again. So I'm not disputing your right to impose it. I'm just trying to make sure you understand we're kind of up against the rock and hard place. We have a tenant who we've worked really hard with to develop a plan to keep them in Williston and keep them on our site. And it's an imperfect answer for sure. It is an absolutely imperfect answer. There's no doubt about that. And it's almost not pertinent. And I'll tell you for what it's worth. We did offer to the conservation commission, I make the same offer to this group. If there are additional protections of the buffer that is there outside of the gravel area that we can provide, signage, other things that are typically required to make sure that buffers are established and maintained, we're happy to consider them. We accepted the ones that the conservation board thought were reasonable, but if you were more comfortable, or instituted more of them, we're very open to that. Jacques? Yeah, would it be helpful to take a look at what was originally permitted versus what's there today? I do think it's significant. I see there's 10 to 15 feet along the entire rear of the property that was never developed as it was originally approved. Like I said, there's a significant amount of impervious area that was never constructed. And ultimately, this site functions better today than it was originally designed and it's going to function even better when we're done with it in regards to water quality. Generally, a buffer area is used to mitigate and treat runoff from development prior to entering some type of waterway. In this particular case, runoff generally goes to the rear of the property and then is directed around to the front. And that's how it was permitted to function. And that's how we intended to function. So I feel that's relevant in the case that a drop of water that's hitting the gravel is being treated in a manner with existing permits. Jacques, I would disagree with you. I don't think your argument holds water at all. Pardon the turn of a phrase. You may have had a permit to increase the surface area, but since it hasn't been increased, you can't increase the non-conformity. So again, I don't think that's not a valid point. Yeah, I mean, I think the important thing that I want to emphasize on our side is that we engaged a reasonable conversation with the conservation board at some length upon whom I know you folks typically rely. And this same condition came to them in exactly the same form. And when we were done our conversation, talking about the nature of that resource and where the water was going and where it wasn't, they were comfortable in this instance with the recommendation that they brought you. And I'm saying that this board has the right to continue to allow this non-conformity to continue. I'm not taking jocks. I'm saying the other side of this is true. You have the right to continue to allow it and the conservation board has suggested that it's a reasonable thing in this case. If you choose to impose the change, of course you have the right to choose to impose it. I'm not suggesting you don't. And I'm not suggesting our bested rights from the past are material there. I am saying that we feel that what's there, it's not clear to me looking at the site plan. So I wanna make sure it's clear to you that the water that hits that gravel area sheds to the swale to the west and then pitches to the front of the property where that's always been the way that it works. So this is not a lot that's sheet flowing into the stream. It's something that does have a treatment mechanism associated with it and will continue to have one going forward. So this really a question of whether the 50 feet has to be imposed, it doesn't. We're asking you not to because, and to accept the compromise of the Conservation Commission because an approval that reduces that area given the turning radiuses of trucks and the fact that they double stack trucks in there and whatever they're telling us they're not gonna rent the property if it gets smaller. How do you keep the snow, the stored snow that's at the back of that area from going back down into the stream when it melts? Yeah, so the snow storage is shown for illustrative purposes. Right now the site is designed to have a drainage swale around the rear of the property and drain to the front. I'm not seeing that swale. I see it on the side, not along the... Yeah, it's very, very flat out there. I was out there last fall and there's a noticeable berm at the rear of the property that would prevent runoff from going directly into the stream. It's actually quite a sandy site. So seeing runoff is unlikely. Well, from when I was out there I didn't see any indications of erosion or anything like that. But it certainly would be untreated water. I think that's incorrect. So like I said, the stormwater runs to the rear of the property. There is some slight drainage features at the rear that actually direct the stormwater around the sides into the front. I think John's question was specifically when we have a very snowy winter and there's a significant snow storage in the back. Is all of the runoff using this swale that you just described, Jacques, or does some drain into the tributary? No, I don't believe any drains into the tributary directly. I think you will find snow storage is probably mostly done on the west side of the site where we can actually have it shown a bit larger because that's a convenient area to push it into where there is a more defined drainage feature as John was. One of the reasons that we landed on this idea of establishing a hard edge to the gravel, the existing area with boulders or bollards or whatever it was, I think boulders is where we landed was that we wanted to force the snow storage to happen within that defined area. Going forward, that was a concern that was raised. So if there's an alternative mechanism, you'd rather see to control that, whatever it might be, we're very open to that. Our intent is the gravel area that's there is intended to be the full utilization of the site, not the gravel area plus wherever somebody's gonna push snow. So we're perfectly willing to establish a very hard edge at the back of the property within what's currently being used. We're just asking that it not be reduced to the level that staff has suggested. Okay, I got it. So if there's something better than boulders, we're all about it. As we all know, we can create a condition of approval says you won't store snow there. We'll accept that, but skeptical viewers may feel differently about it. And so a hard edge probably makes more sense. Okay. Any other questions from the DRB? What is stored in the trailers that are stored back there? Is it material for repair or are they just trailers being stored because there's no place else to put them? It's not my current understanding that it's materials relevant to the business. I think these are trailers that are being stored there because they're various trucks or whatever, it's because they're being worked on. They're in the queue for some repair of some sort but my understanding is. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Riley's good. Dave Turner, are you good? I'm good. Dave Saladino? Yep, I'm good. Okay. John Hemmelgarn? I'm done. Okay. Steve Lambrick? I'm good. Paul Christensen? One question. What happened to all of the barriers between the two properties when they put the new driveway to take all those trees out? Are they gonna put, there's no room to put anything back there. So it's just gonna be, you know, building to building. Is that a problem? So let me try and address that your question, Paul. So what we've done is we've provided a very dense landscaping plan that meets the particular type landscaping that's required between the neighbor and property line and the access drive. Like I said, it's gonna be heavily landscaped, essentially to meet that intent of buffering. Well, the reason I asked the question is based on your diagram you have there. It doesn't look like there's more than, what, five feet to the property line from the driveway? There will be nine feet in accordance with the landscape. Nine feet? Okay. Anything else further, Paul? No, I'm good. Okay, members of the audience, I see a Cindy Provost. I see a Colin number. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to speak and address the board? For the Colin, press star nine to raise your hand if you would like to speak. Are you seeing none, Emily? Yeah, no raise hands. Okay. Okay, last call for questions, the DRB or if the applicant has any closing comments. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight. We appreciate it. Okay, you're welcome. Okay, we're gonna close, we are going to close, we get the number, DP 21-10 at 753. Thank you very much for coming. Okay, next up on the DRB agenda is agenda item number three, Other Business. And I believe staff has an update for us on New England chimney supply specific plan, the FYI of what's going on as well as the process that is being followed. Emily? Yep. So New England chimney supply is proposing an expansion on to do two adjoining properties that are currently residential. So the only way they can move forward with their proposal is to do a specific plan. This is a really rare tool in the bylaw. It doesn't get used often. It's a set of amendments to both the zoning bylaw and the town plan developed in consultation between the applicant staff and a committee established by the planning commission. So what the planning commission may choose to do is establish an advisory committee and they can look for representation from other boards. So far, John Markott from the historic and architectural advisory committee has volunteered because this is on Williston Road in a design review district. They have experienced the chapter 22. They're looking for a volunteer from the DRB. There'll be one or two people from the abutting neighborhood, maybe someone from Green Mountain Transit and one of the planning commission members. Let me pull up the memo. So where the planning commission is at in the process now a community meeting is being scheduled for April 6th later this week and a butter's letter will go out to the neighboring property owners. They'll be invited to the community meeting. Pull up the flow chart. After community meeting the planning commission decides is a substantial benefit proposed or not. And then the advisory committee would work on developing the specific plan. Lastly would go through that formal adoption process. What the committee responsibilities would be starting with a kickoff in May probably involving a site visit about four meetings on Zoom and then returning to the planning commission target date right now is July 20th with the draft amendment. Yeah, do you guys have any questions? Emily, does the specific plan result in permanent changes to the development regulations or is this just kind of for this application? Both, it's permanent changes to both town plan and bylaw that reference the specific application. So if their project doesn't go through then and they would have to amend the specific plan approval if they wanna make a significant change to what they're gonna do. So just to clarify, Emily if the specific plan is approved by the select board but the applicant's plan does not move forward the specific plan stays in force and follows the property even though the project is dead? No, I don't think that's true. So if it's for New England chimneys supply say New England chimneys supply decided that they don't wanna move forward then the specific plan is void. Yeah, okay, that would certainly make sense. That makes more sense to me too. Right, yeah, I think so because they're basing it on planning commissioners deciding is there's a substantial benefit being proposed and there's a list of a criteria that have to be met in chapter nine. The first substantial benefit is jobs. They're retaining existing jobs and the proposal allows for a 10 to 20% increase in employees currently they have 80 employees. Jobs can only be used for a second substantial benefit is proposed. They are proposing infrastructure in the form of a bus pull off for Green Mountain Transit and a shelter. So what the advisory committee would do would follow the charge from the planning commission and draft amendments to the town plan and bylaw. There might be some modifications to the project proposal along the way to make sure all parties are satisfied and then bring an amendment forward. So assuming this application does make it all the way through specific plan approval, it would be coming in front of the development review board for a discretionary permit. And in the staff report, we would say yep, chapter whatever of the bylaw is amended to change the zoning districts or whatever needs to happen for this project to move forward. After specific plans approved, it's just standard discretionary permit approval. Okay, so is there a volunteer from the DRB to participate in this process? I have interest, which is probably just, I probably just raised my hand. So Emily, what is the time commitment on this? Can you be a little more specific? Yeah, community meeting on April 6th, after that they would formally charge an advisory committee. Probably the beginning of May, we would have a site visit with the advisory committee and the applicant. And then between May and July, about four Zoom meetings. The next date would be July 20th, presenting the draft specific plan to the planning commission. Trying to keep the timeline and meetings as efficient as possible to be respectful of everybody's time, staff, applicant, and all our various volunteers and committee members. Okay. I mean, it sounds interesting. I'm willing to do that if, unless somebody else has a bigger burning, more burning desire to do that. I think you're a great candidate, John. No, I thought you might, Dave. I think it's wonderful that you've come forth. Yes. John, on the upside, you get out early when this thing comes in for the DRB, because you'll be... That's right. Do I get to recuse myself at that point? Absolutely, you will. I second your motion, John. I don't know, and I don't think so, because it's this very interesting process where we're developing legislation, not administering legislation. So, and ultimately what the committee decides is advisory. It's the planning commission select board that are adopting it. So... You can always count on us, Emily, to ask the great questions here. Right. We can always confirm that when the time comes around. That's right. That's not a different to make her here. Right, that's a coming attraction. Right. Okay, anything further on this, Emily? Nope. Okay. You know, one quick thought just on a somewhat related note. It strikes me, and I guess this is really for Emily and Vani, but thinking about maybe next year's UPWP requests through the Chittin County Regional Planning Commission, it strikes me that this kind of Western gateway, we're getting a lot, we've got the U-Haul, we've got the self-storage, now the chimney supply. And it feels like we don't have a clear vision for what this kind of Western gateway, what we want it to be when it grows up, right? And we seem to be getting more and more development activity out in this section of Wilson Road. So it strikes me that there would be some interest, or it would be an interesting place to look. And I know there's a lot of focus right now in Taps Corners, and that's gonna be the focus over the next year. But it strikes me that maybe in a year or two, like a little, a study or kind of a master plan for that gateway section, just seems like, you know, that would be all of us. Cause we, I feel like we don't quite know what we want this district to look like or feel like. I agree with you, David. I'm gonna be the lone naysayer here and tell you that horse is out of the barn. Absolutely. We're gonna develop a plan after the fact, but yes, there's certainly some other development areas, but it's a little convoluted and confusing right now. I certainly agree with that. Once the U-Haul goes up, that ship sailed. We are looking at the official map. So I was kind of scratching my head the other day and was like, we're not asking for, or not putting sidewalks on both sides of Wilson Road on our official map. And I think our iteration of it that goes for approval, we're gonna show sidewalks on both sides. We've been getting piecemeal sidewalks, you know, with U-Haul and some of the other applications that are going through, but it makes sense if people are working in this area, having the ability to walk to a bus stop or walk to tough corners and have the facilities to do that. So there's a little bit of thinking about the long-term in the upcoming official map for this area. Okay, agenda item number four, communications, form-based code, public outreach, sign up. Yep, so prepare for me to get really annoying about form-based code for the next two months. We're launching our public outreach. People have been picking up their folders and that's awesome. There's still a couple of sign-up routes left. I'll probably be getting out packets again tomorrow to the people who signed up. John, I did not hear back from Green Mountain Transit, so I'm gonna go ahead and say, ask for forgiveness, not permission, maybe put up the smaller eight and a half by 11 posters. Okay, I'll go out in the dead of night. Yeah, and if someone heckles you, you can just give them my number and they can complain to me. Okay, or better yet, since he's not here, I'll give him Matt's name. Yeah, give him Matt's name, even better. Not Eric's, though. Yeah, do you guys have any questions about the outreach campaign so far? What time is the launch event is March 25th? Is there a time set for that? I wanna say it's probably gonna be 7 p.m. but we haven't confirmed it quite yet. We'll be getting that info out soon. And it'll be like a virtual meeting, a Zoom meeting. Yeah, the March 25th will probably be a Zoom webinar. The events from April 24th to May 3rd could be webinars. They might just be regular Zoom meetings. I know the consultant has some fun things planned where their team's gonna be working on schematics and renderings and people can just pop in at any time, basically like an open house and say, oh, what are you working on? See the work in action. Okay, any further on agenda item number four? At this point, we are going to go into deliberation. So Tim, I think Tim and Cindy are the only two left. You're welcome to, we'll put you in the lobby if you care to hang in there and then we'll bring you back into the meeting after the deliberative session. Are you going to stick around or have you had your fill for tonight? Could I ask you what happens into deliberation and then what these steps are because I don't really understand them. I'm just curious about that. Yeah, no problem. So the deliberations, the deliberative session is not a public part of the meeting. It's when the board gets together and talks about, in this case, DP 21-10 and we deliberate on the findings and we ultimately reach a decision and we come back into a public forum and we read and disclose our decision. Okay. There's other business that takes place in the public forum that takes place after the deliberative session. In this particular case, the only piece of business is going to be approval of our previous meeting minutes. So that's what will happen. Okay. So when your deliberative process is over, you reach a decision, apparently. So what stage of this process is concluded at the end of your deliberations? Is it a preliminary approval? I'm trying to understand how this actually funk you. I'm gonna let Emily answer that one. Yeah, so DP 21-10 fleet pride, their application is a discretionary permit. That tonight's decision will be a final approval. The DRB will make their conditions and then the applicant files final plans. If this was a pre-app hearing, that sketch concept and the DRB would only be approving a list of recommendations. And then the applicant comes back with a formal discretionary permit. But tonight they are deliberating on discretionary permit. And when they come out, they'll read off what those new conditions are and make a vote. Okay. So, and then after discretionary permit is due, there's no process that goes long to issue a final permit or something like that. Is that right? Yep. Okay. The applicant will have to file final plans. So for example, if the DRB decides, yes, they have to remove the watershed buffer or no, they don't have to change their plans. We'll be looking for that as staff, like does their plan set match up with the DRB wants? We sign off on it. And then the applicant can pull their permits to start constructing. Okay. Okay. It's common practice, Tim, that we delegate approval of final plans to staff. There are occasions where the DRB retains that right, but then sell them. Okay. Great. Well, thank you for the explanation. I won't take up any more of your time and I won't be here when you get out. Thanks. Thank you for coming and being interested. Yeah. Definitely. All right. Well, I'll see you again. I'm sure. Thank you very much. We know the first phone call to make when there's an opening. Pete, he thinks that's a joke. Yeah. Run for your life. Anyway, thank you guys for your service. Thank you, Tim. Have a good night. Thank you, Tim. Okay. With that, we're going to go into deliberations. All right. We're good to go. Okay. Thank you, Bonnie. And welcome to the DRB, a Williston DRB on March 9th, 2021. We're back from deliberative session. It is 831. Is there a motion for DP 21-10? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3. Hi, David Turner. I moved the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of town staff and advisory board requires to comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 9th, 2021, accept the findings of fact and the conclusions of law for DP 21-10 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval to these plans from the staff and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which the approval is based. On condition 22, the applicant is required to remove all impervious service and storage areas from the wetland and watershed buffers and de-mark the buffer and fence line of boulders. If so required, this condition supersedes condition 3B for the Conservation Commission. Okay, David, are you gonna make an amendment to a typo in condition number seven and condition number nine? Oops, sorry, I didn't hear those. I will make an amendment to all my seven. Yes, I will make an amendment to fix the typo in condition number seven and condition number nine. Okay, you clarify what the- That's what I'm looking to see what the typo is, sorry. Okay, okay, it's instead of specific, it's specify. Is that in condition number seven? Seven A. Seven A is final plans must specify. Okay, so we'll read that then. In seven A, the typo specific should be corrected with specify. So the final plan must specify the security light plant if proposed in the late timing. And same in condition number nine A, the final plan must specify the interior long-term bike parking and end-of-trip facility. Right, thank you, Dave. Is there a second? I'll second it. Scott Riley seconds it. Is there further discussion? Hearing none, we'll do a individual vote. Paul Christensen? Aye. John Hemmelgarn? Aye. Steve Lebrecht? Aye. Scott Riley? Aye. Dave Saladino? Aye. Dave Turner? Aye. And the chair is an aye as well. It's unanimous, seven in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of January 12th, 2021? So move. Okay, moved by Steve. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, we'll do this on a voice vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries unanimously. The meeting minutes are approved. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Is there a motion to adjourn? I still have a vote. Okay, Steve made the motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. John Hemmelgarn seconds it. Thank you, everyone. Appreciate it. All right. Thanks, everybody. We'll see you in two weeks, Emily. All right, 23rd, growth management. Growth management, yay. Woohoo. I'll be, I'll be.