 The planning staff will provide Zoom instruction. This meeting will begin with Zoom crash. The meeting will be separated harder. Here. Hey, Turner. Here. For you for Zoom instruction, please. All right, thank you, Pete. Welcome to everybody in person and on Zoom. If you're joining on Zoom tonight, please take a moment to name yourself so we know who you are. You can do this by clicking on the Participants button on the bottom of the toolbar and then pressing Rename. But number of features on the toolbar and you can use the microphone button to mute and unmute yourself and the video button to stop video and start video. Video is optional. Please just keep yourself on mute if you are not speaking. The chat you can use for technical questions. You can direct questions to me if you have any. And lastly, the raise hand tool can be used if you'd like to speak and I will call on you. Lastly, we're using side-by-side mode so everybody can see the same documents tonight. Basically, you've been clicking drag to enlarge the documents we'll be looking at. If you have any questions while using this, you can let me know but we'll default. So you should be all set. Okay, thank you, Andrew. The first up is the public forum. This is an opportunity for people to weigh in to the DRV on matters not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone in the audience or participating by Zoom? Who'd like to address the floor? The raise hand's on Zoom. Okay, we'll go into the public hearing section. Tonight we've got four items on the agenda. DP 23-11.1 and 11.2 is Jared Enterprises. First is a request for waiver of the end of the facility mandate and the previously approved application. And then the second is a master sign plan. Then we go into DP 24-04, which is a boundary line adjustment at 2268 Mountain View Road. And last up is DP 24-06, which is a pre-app for Rivers Edge Building Development. And that's the Glazer property in the corner of old stage road and Mountain View Road. So first up is DP 23-11.1, Jared Enterprises. Would you please come forward? If you would state your name and address for the record, please. I'm here for the Bodley 21-Commerce Street. Okay, welcome. And I am in the process. Yep. Okay, staff goes first. This is a request for a discretionary permit amendment at 21-Commerce Street in the Industrial Zoning District West. And the request is to amend DP 23-11 to waive the requirement for an end of trip facility, given that the estimated project costs to install a compliant shower and ADA compliant shower exceeds the cost set out in the development by law. Staff recommends that the DRB take testimony, discuss the end of trip requirement and approve the application. Some project history. In January, the DRB approved the request to create a limited service eating place at 21-Commerce Street. That's DP 23-11. In March and into July, administrative permits were approved and issued to build out the limited service eating place. And in the end of July, temporary CO was issued for operation of the eating place. There were two outstanding things that needed to be completed. One was a compliant bike rack, which has been installed. And the second is the end of trip facility. We did not receive comments from any Williston departments or from the public at the time of packet mail out. This is the first amendment to DP 23-11. Per WD chapter six, the scope of the hearing and DRB action will be limited to determining whether the proposed amendment complies or fails to comply with this bylaw getting into the end of trip facility. Condition 8A of DP 23-11 requires the applicant to provide one long-term bike storage space and one end of trip facility. WDB 14.9.2 defines an end of trip facility as a shower and changing area. The applicant has installed the long-term bike storage space, but not the end of trip facility. WDB 14.9.3 allows the DRB to waive the requirement for an end of trip facility when it's cost exceeds 5% of the estimated total project cost. The applicant states that the total cost of the project is $175,000 and the applicant has provided estimates to install the end of trip facility totaling $26,133 and the estimate would amount to approximately 13% of the estimated total project cost. They install a shower. Applicant would be required to provide one that is ADA accessible to meet Vermont State Plumbing Code. This includes zero curve. The estimates for the renovations are in the application materials. DRB should take testimony and decide if they will waive the requirement for an end of trip facility and they should modify the conclusions of law accordingly. What follows is a recommendation with findings, conclusions and conditions of approval. All right, thanks Andrew. Okay, so you're looking for a waiver. The cost to comply is in excess of the 5% threshold and you've provided backup ERB. You're welcome to weigh in but I think this is pretty straightforward. ERB members, any questions? I only have a question. Does your facility next door have shower facilities in it? Your manufacturing facility, do you have end of trip facilities in that building? No showers there, okay. Is that a concern Dave or? No, I was just thinking if it was within the limit of a few hundred feet, they could use that as a shared facility. Yeah, so. Any other questions from the DRB? Yes, go ahead John. So this brings up as much a question for the DRB I think is as this particular applicant, but. You mean for staff? For staff, yes. I'm sorry. That's okay. But yeah, it's 5% of the project costs and we have here documentation of kind of what it costs with a shower in. Is there a definition of where, or is there any detail on where the $175,000 for the project cost came from and what does that include? I mean, it's the other half of the equation here. With the overall project cost. So did that include just the interior renovations or did it all include the site work that we improved separately? Yes, it would have been the, I think actually it was the entire project. Okay. Very little. I mean, and that's where it comes up to staff is if you've got two or three small applications for the same parcel that come in but they're within a certain time period. When do you start to conglomerate all of those projects as the overall cost? Because if you know, again, I don't think it's going to get there on this because I think you'd have to have over $500,000 cost to have to speak within the 5%. But it is, I don't want to start to incentivize people splitting up their projects into little tiny pieces that would keep them under a threshold. Yeah, I'd suggest if staff picks up on, you know, the likelihood of something like that happening like draft boilerplate condition for the DRV to consider to the effect of we're not requiring this now but we would look at this cost in accumulation of the cost of a future project should one come in when making this determination and this requirement could be triggered in the future. Not just based on the cost of the future project but kind of into the project where we're graphing the exception. Right, something like that. I mean, again, if there's another application from this applicant next year or the year after you do additional work there, but that also would be, at some point there's enough of these projects that we're going to say no, you have to put it in the end of trip facility. Also why we report approval history as part of the staff report, you know, it reminds everybody of, you know, what all my students put in the total change. I mean, we wish them a lot of success. Yep, future project. Thank you. That's all. Anything else? No, that was the only question that's had on this one. No, that's a good point. I hadn't considered that. Any other questions for the DRV members? Okay. Does anyone object to just doing this real time or should we wait after a second or such? We can do it. As far as I'm concerned, we can do real time. Yep, no. Okay. Do a real time. Okay. Who's the volunteer to read it? I'll read it. Okay. Please, please note that we do need to weigh in on the cleaning squad, I don't know. Would you like me to go ahead and read it now? Why don't we wait, though? Why don't we go over the list and put it on the assignment? Yeah. We'll wait. Okay. I think you can see where this is going, but. Okay. Anything else? Any members of the audience like to weigh in? Okay. We're going to officially close DP 23-11.1 at 712. Okay. Next up, same applicant. It's the master sign plan. This is DP 23-11.2. Staff goes first. All right. This is a request for a master sign plan at a multi-tenant industrial site. It includes 21 Comer Street and it also to 67 Comer Street. There's four commercial there as I understand it. It's also in the Industrial Zoning District West. Staff recommends that the DRB take testimony, discuss the signage proposed and decide whether five freestanding signs are acceptable. Project history we've reviewed. January, you approve DP 23-11. There were no public comments at the time of packet mail out. Applicant is proposing window signs, wall signs, larger than 24 square feet and freestanding signs, more numerous than allowable under WDB 25.8. Broken the staff report up into basically into different sections for the type of sign. There's a number of signs proposed for the wall signs. WDB 25 provides specific requirements for the placement of wall signs. The applicant has not provided pictures or drawings which show the sign bands for the proposed wall signs. Condition seven is drafted. Staff understands that the proposed wall sign WM-17 is not a wall sign as described by WDB 25.7.5. Staff has recommended that this sign is removed from the master sign plan for the window signs. Applicant has not provided window measurements to confirm compliance with WDB 25.7.6 and table 25.8. We have drafted a condition. I spoke to the applicant today and they have adjusted their window sign sizes to meet the requirements that can be done at final plans. For freestanding signs, there are two existing and three proposed freestanding signs in this master sign plan. Table 25A restricts the number of freestanding signs on a parcel to one per point of access. WDB 25.6.1.2 states that a point of access includes only widely spaced principal entrances from a road or path to a development and it does not include emergency or service drives nor does it include points of access that are less than 330 feet apart. Parcel has three curb cuts onto commerce street within 330 feet meaning one freestanding sign is allowed. The DRB can allow more than one freestanding sign by making specific findings. The DRB should decide whether five freestanding signs are acceptable. Staff recommendations for each sign are as follows. For freestanding sign three and freestanding sign six and these are existing freestanding signs. Staff recommends that they are landscaped in accordance with the bylaw. Freestanding signs seven and freestanding sign 15 are proposed freestanding signs with landscaping. Staff recommends approval with conditions on lighting which will be discussed in a moment. And then freestanding sign 11 is a proposed freestanding sign with landscaping. Staff has recommended that the applicant replace this sign with a wall sign no larger than 24 square feet. Below is a picture of the location of freestanding where freestanding sign 11 is proposed. It's proposed in front of these doors on the plans. And I'm sorry, where is that on? I'm having a very hard time understanding where these signs are because either I didn't get a plan or there isn't one that shows where these signs are. I believe you have the plan there. I do, but it doesn't say where this sign was. The clause is very small. Yeah, let me pull up. I can show you here. Oh, okay. I felt the same. Oh my God. Oh, thanks. They're in orange. Not only that, they're orange. So we'll see if it's... D plus on clarity in the graph, would you? All right, so here is 21 Commerce Street here, this building, this is Williston Road along the left side of the screen and Commerce Street along the right. The freestanding sign 11 is here circled in yellow. Once again, very hard to see on the screen in here. See if they're gonna zoom in. Oh, it's in green on here. Okay, so that's 11, yeah. So 11 is there. The two existing signs, if you guys are looking here, here, and one proposed on the corner of Williston Road and Commerce Street and one proposed at the furthest entrance on Commerce Street down the southern side. Thanks, that's very helpful. Okay, I'm missing one. Because this screen is gone. There's one down here, there's an existing one right there. Oh. And there's an existing one right here. It's an existing one. And then, so can you go back in there and tell us the numbers about each of those again? Because I still think this is number six, it's existing, that was number three. So, I'm gonna have both of them at once. Pre-standing 11 is closest to, yeah, here, I think we got 11. 11, okay. Is it? That one, I think. Three and six, the two existing signs. Yeah, that one, I think it's three. Three and six, here. Yeah. And the two proposed are here. Which number is it, though? That's seven. Where Andrew is now is seven. And then back, that's 15. Who went on the corner? Those are two proposed. And then the other proposed 11 is the one that's very close to the building. The applicant has several portable signs and they're pre-standing lawn signs on the site. Signs are more numerous than allowed by Cable 25A. It should be removed. We have drafted a condition for illumination. The applicant has proposed upward-facing illumination for proposed pre-standing signs, seven, 11, and 15. Upward-facing illumination is not permitted. We have drafted a condition for that. For the frontage calculation, the facades facing Commerce Street were used for the frontage calculation. The applicant is proposing about 282 square feet sign area right under the maximum allowable, which is 282.5. You can see they're surrounding there. They are below. Armin, what follows is a recommendation with findings, conclusions, and conditions. This is kind of a mess. You per se, man. I mean, you've got people up here that are in this business and we're not following what you're doing here. So it's recovery time for you. Fair enough. Let's, Andrew, if you can go to sheet two. And if you can zoom in on that lower left-hand corner with those two tables, maybe two of you can do one of the table faces at a time. So here's the inventory of both the proposed and the existing signs. And so all of the breakdown that ends up in the total fountain for the signs is located here on the sheet. And so you can see where there's photos. Those are the existing signs. And then where it's taxed, those are the proposed sign types. And it may be easiest actually to go, once we take a look at this, to go back into the staff notes and kind of work our way back through that text because I think that will actually clarify much of what we're talking about. And actually remove some of the items that might be points of discussion. So the first thing I think would be helpful to address is the staff recommendation of that freestanding sign 11, which is the one that's proposed to be proposed to the building and the staff recommendation to convince that we're building that sign. So we are happy to make that change. So we're confirmed to that. And so the total count of freestanding signs ended before. And I think that's appropriately reflected in the conditions. And so who of those are existing? They represent the signs, the sharing specialties. And then the other two that make up the four would be the new one related to the homemade ice cream and the other related to the driveway that's much farther down commerce that access provides access to the building in the back. So there'd be two new freestanding signs. With regard to the lighting and the updated plans, we will show that lighting is sign-mounted pointing down versus ground-mounted pointing up, which is the detail we had shown very compact LEDs on the ground, but we understand that ground-mounting is not allowed. So that will be addressed. One of the questions that we have, it's in the French calculation. Only the commerce street front was included. And with only that, we still meet the standards. And our total actually is 278, 279 versus the 281.8. And that's based on a revised table. And actually, if you could put that up, that probably is the better one to look at with that. So when you're calculating the road front ancient, you're not using all of the facades that are shown in here. You're only using the ones of these that are facing commerce street. Is that right? Well, when we calculated the total area, we did it based on the building faces that faced commerce and the building faces that faced route 2 facing road. Staff has only included the area facing commerce. We just want to reply, not all the frontage facing streets was utilized with the total value. Yeah, I can speak to that. The table 25A refers to the frontage calculation and explains that the street facing frontage is used in the singular. And staff has used a single street facing frontage for this calculation. Because of that, that is how we've done master sign plans. So you're saying you choose one one side. Yeah. Primary one. Yep. In this case, you put the one that actually has the curve cuts. Correct. And also the larger area in this case as well. The commerce street facades are larger. And again, that was more curiosity. And again, we are total numbers meet the requirements. So if we could go to that revised table or actually in the staff comment sheets that you have before the, under the conditions of approval, all the windows and the wall, the three standing signs are broken down for you. And so we can see the compliance both in size and percentage. And I can point out which of the two of the window signs were reduced from four to 2.5. So that W9 is 2.5 and W13 is now 2.5. And so the resulting three square feet comes off the 281 making that 278.8 now for our total. So if you have any specific questions about the signs, they show up to all of the signs, both existing and proposed show up in this list. I think the only real discussion was related to the three standing signs in terms of staff comments. So in order to achieve the board, the staff recommended that the two existing ground mounted signs landscape, it's going to do that. And then with regard to the other two, the new was to change the lighting which the applicant is willing to revise the lighting in the final approved plans. Okay. I think I get it now. Anything else? I would defer to your question. Okay. Right. Okay. You have any questions? Sign number 11, which was three standing, which you're maybe changing to a wall sign. That it looks like it's on the, what's being used as like a storage building now, adjacent to the ice cream and cafe. Is that right? There's a small annex adjacent to the existing ice cream sales in their house that formerly was an office, office use. It's currently vacant. And this sign will go there? Above the garage. Above the garage door. If you look at the second page of staff notes, that image, you see a vestibule entry and then to the right of it, a garage door that wall mounted sign would go above, above the garage. So what will that sign be displaying? So it's a, it's a future sign for that future news for when that. So you're just asking for a proof? Okay. Yeah. And as my understanding through this process would be, as each of these proposed signs are to be installed, we are back with staff to get permits to do the actual installation based on the proof that we hopefully gain with the master sign. Okay. Thanks. And can I glom onto that? So now that we're asking about that sign and it, do I, do I see that that sign is going to be 24 square feet? So it's going to be within the requirements of the, of the bylaw. Well, it's not going to be oversized. And yeah, it'll, all of the signs will be installed. We'll import with the master sign plan approval dimensions. And all of those are shown here. The exception would be the freestanding proposed 11, which was, was proposed as 32 square feet will now move into the wall mounted category at 24. So that one will be 24. Not, it was listed 30. But that's going to be reduced. I guess that's my question. I just want to make sure we understand it. That's, that's actually going to be reduced to 24. Correct. Okay. There'll be some math to do. So Andrew, am I understanding this that the bylaw would say that for this, for a single property with this much carnage on commerce streets, which is, I think less than 330 feet, that would be allowed one freestanding sign. And we're being asked to approve for which are existing. So I'm, I'm trying to put together logic and reasoning of why we should put Rupal the number of allowed signs. That's a lot. That's a big over. So the, the development bylaw and also the town plan provide ways for the community to approve more signs than are traditionally allowed. The comprehensive plan discusses, discusses how signs can basically contribute to development of both market appeal and community value. You could make the argument that these signs are adding to the market appeal of these businesses or the community value. Additionally, the bylaw discusses how contribute to the economy. Well, the signs are important for businesses. So that is the language that the findings. So I understand that. I'm not. Well, Burma shade signs are interesting. I'm not sure they're going to help the industry of Williston. There are three separate. Buildings on his site. Correct. And then am I right to understand that these are not all the same business. Correct. So this is in some ways more like an industrial part than than a single business. And they all have separate projects. So can you go over what each of these signs is going to say? I mean, that's, I mean, that's the one thing I would say is, is kind of missing here is any kind of discussion about what these signs are doing with the purpose of them is. Sure. So the sign, the two existing signs relate to bearing specialties and the one free standing sign. If we go back to the site plan, the one free standing sign is actually behind the building and really isn't visible from the road at all. So there's the bearing specialty sign, which relates to the bearing specialty building, which is that center curb cut. And then the, the. Pose sign that will be on Williston road to is for the island homemade ice facility. And the proposed sign for the most distal driveway on commerce. At this point, no sign is proposed to actually be installed there at this point based on the uses in the back of that facility, which is a road facility. So right now, that would be a future use most likely in that use of that building changed. You're not looking at number 65. Right. Yes. So you're asking for a sign that technically you're not putting up. Yeah. Again, with the master sign permit. No, no, no, I'm just saying, so basically you're saying something in the future. Correct. And there's going to be physically nothing there until there is a change. Correct. That's on. And, and so really with this then turns out to be one free standing sign for. Which is proposed. So at this point, really within within. A few months of getting approval and getting things fabricated and getting the permit through the staff. So that's the one free standing sign would be that. Is there a significant difference between the text and of sign three and sign six. Since they both apply to bearing specialties. So sign three is just is a very simple sign. It's an example of it, but it just says bearing specialties and it's a sign that in the past had been internally lit. No longer internally lit. Again, it's just to the left of the building. And it sits back a little ways. And so it's really not very visible from the street. How would you feel if that was a wall mounted sign. I believe there's already. The free standing sign is redundant. There's a free standing sign to the left of the building. There's a free standing sign to the right of the building. Also a wall mounted sign. Yeah. Sign number five. And what is it? I think it's a five or so. There's a four and a five pointing to that front of that building. Yes. Either side of it. Right on the table. Sign number three is the is the sign. I was talking about kind of behind the building. Right. Four is actually a window sign that's in the doorway of the building. Five is the wall mounted sign that's mounted on the, on the building face that faces farmers. And then six is the free standing sign that's closest to Commerce Street. Okay. Okay. Well, like we can discuss this, I would feel much more comfortable if there was only one free standing sign free standing sign. The proposal was, for example, to relocate the free sign for number 47 from next to the building behind it. They can't see from the road. That seems like it would make a lot of sense. And to relocate sign three or get rid of it. I mean, you've already got two free standing signs for that one, one built. I can see it, you've got two for one building and none for the other two. Okay. Okay. That's for, that's for discussion. Yep. Okay. DRP members. Any other questions? Okay. Any recap from the applicant? Just to confirm that the change from the one that free standing sign 11 to convert that to wall mounted in terms of the conditions is acceptable. Okay. And of course, the revision to the laying of the sign. The downward. Versus Brown. Okay. Public. Public comments on this application. Anyone here present? Like to bring it up. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Everyone here present? Like the way in on this? Anyone participating by zoom like the way in on it? No reasons. Okay. Okay. Before I close how your finance work, this was confusing and a master sign plan shouldn't be. This confusing. And so there should have been photos and more legible numbers and I don't think that, That That this board should have been forced to ask as many questions and probing as we did So it's just feedback and you can disagree with it. That's okay, but That's my perspective Any comments on the header? Okay, okay So with that I'm gonna close close the hearing at 741 and Thank you for coming. Thanks Okay Next up is DP 24-04 The boundary line in Joplin on Mountain View Road Good evening, you would state your name and address for the record, please 10 Britain 2 3 6 8 Mountain View Road Good evening, Tim staff goes there and I think the engineer is online Hey, Mike. Okay. This is you Emily. Yep. This is me Hmm So this is a request for a boundary line adjustment to transfer 5.27 acres of land and create access for a landlocked parcel There's two lots involved identified as lot 2 and lot 3 a Lot 2 will decrease in size from roughly a little over 10 to about 5 acres Lot 2 has an existing dwelling and a driveway on it Lot 3 is landlocked and make it And it will increase in size from 8.36 acres to About 13 and a half acres and create 70 feet of frontage along Mountain View Road overall the property area is 18.73 acres and it is located in the residential zoning district staffs recommending approval of this application With recommendations as shown This is the first time the DRB is reviewing the request This property has unique history So a subdivision took place in 1973 that created five lots Including what's today Adams market and a couple other homes off of Mountain View Road In 1985 a subdivision took place To divide lot 3 And create two one acre lots where mr. Brisson and his brother Have houses At the time that subdivision Was fine and will go more into the landlocked in a section below, but here's the old site plan photos from 70s and 80s Advisory boards did not have to comment on this application fire department comments are included So the discussion about the residential zoning district access and non-conformities These lots lot 2 and 3 were originally created in 1973 And they had frontage both on mountain view road as well as a 60 foot right-of-way to the south In 1985 lot 3 was further sub-divide This boundary line adjustment resolves non-conformity by giving public road frontage to a landlock parcel Lot 3 does not meet today's frontage requirements Frontage on a right right-of-way was likely sufficient to meet the access standards in 1973 and 1985 But today our bylaw says that frontage must be along existing or proposed private or public road Therefore because of that non-conformity with our access standards Lot 3 is considered merged with lot 2 the house at 2268 mountain view road Because the same owner the donald and bernie's bristen trust on both of those lots Chapter 2 of the bylaw says contiguous non-conforming lots under the same ownership are considered merged So selling the house at 2268 mountain view road Without that landlock parcel would be considered an active subdivision and without per it says zoning violation It's very unlikely that that 60 foot right-of-way created in 1973 will ever be used for a road Um, it fronts along the heritage meadows common land with suspected and known wetlands um and wetlands that Stream across the other street from the cleanser property into that stream So it's very unlikely that that 60 foot right-of-way will ever be used Um Lastly because this Parcel lot 3 Was created before 1990. It has an inherent right to one dwelling unit This application brings access standards and into compliance Our bylaw requires 40 foot feet of frontage along mountain view road. They're proposing 70 feet any further access for Farming the hayfields or creating a residential driveway would require a separate access permit for public works What follows is standard findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval On this discretionary permit for a boundary line adjustment. Thank you Okay, thanks Emily Okay Pam or michael, what do you have to uh To augment staff report Basically that's going to Uh, it's purely uh, the straight forward proposed afterline adjustment to grant, uh, 70 feet of frontage to a currently land plot of farthole and uh at this time as part of this application No, we're starting in proposed. So, um That's the big straight forward. So, um, it might have anything to add to that Not really. No, I mean You talked about getting a permit from the public works down the road And I might do that so that the bad pups can come in and still hay all that field Because they've been doing an But that'd be down the road after Okay DRP members but Only, um, what I would I happen to be walking by that the other day. So sorry to thank I've always appreciated your house Oh Um, they there's a nice bunch of pine trees. It looks like uh, right along the The the property down there, right and that would be that's it looks like they're right on the property line Yeah, I would I'd have to have when we go out and restake it. We'll know for sure They're on the they're on my brother's property, but the Do which is so I appreciate you doing 70 feet here, right? That's why you're likely able to stay in the future Yeah, nice. Nicely done. Thank you I was all ahead. Okay This is really straightforward and well done Uh, any members of the audience like to weigh in Uh, both here in person or we assume Okay Uh, we're going to close dp 24 to zero and four of 749. Thank you very much. Thank you That's the way we kept farms. All right Next up is dc 24 to zero this Ryan and gang come on up So Yes, sir So um, previously I had indicated my intent to recuse myself on this application um, but I have since reviewed the town's conflict of interest ordinance and I Have discussed it with staff There's really nothing in there that would require me to to do that. There is no conflict of interest here I'm interested in the project. I have been following it closely. I'm very well informed on it, right? So I will be participating That's uh, that's good Thank you, john Okay, brine and can if you would state your name and address for the record, please Can bella vote 683 maple street, whatever he sent to vermont 0 5 6 77 Brian courier a larry berksville associates 13 corporate drivers tomorrow All right gentlemen. Thank you um So emily we had we had talked about maybe Doing a little a little out of order and And I did did you have an opportunity to reach out to the applicant? Yes, I did okay so what what we would really like is is to kind of start with uh with an overview of three different options and um, and and what is um, you know, what's kind of driving that design and and why Why you're proposing those three different options and have that be um Have that be a reference point when when staff Reads their staff report. So are you okay with doing that? Absolutely. Okay, so the floor is yours Okay. Well, thank you. So first of all, um, I wanted to uh To mention that jack laser who's a property owner Um, unfortunately was not able to attend tonight And so, you know, brian and I are gonna have to shoulder the burden ourselves There's been a lot of meetings that have been going on with this and jack had some Travel plans related to his business to prevent him from being So The first time this is in front of this particular board Although uh, as john mentioned, he he's attended some of the meetings that have been going on with the planning commission Lisa and scott riley Were also on there was a special committee set up by the planning commission To work out the details of the plan. So they are both very very familiar um with the plan so essentially um The glazers are pursuing what's called a specific plan It's enabled under chapter nine of the bylaw. It's a process that goes through the planning commission Ultimately requires approval by the select board and then if successful there would come back to the d rv um That's the plan That we want That's the plan that the applicant is committed to um But it's in front of the select board and there's no guarantee Uh, you know, so in the event that the plan is not approved by the select board The glazers would pursue an application for development under the more conventional process that all takes place in front of you So two of the plans are related to sort of the backup plan if you will And we'll get into the details of that Plan three, which we identified Is the specific plan. That's the plan that was developed in conjunction with the committee that Lisa and scott were on with the planning commission um As part of that proposal There was a delineation that was done There's two areas of open space that are being offered to be dedicated to the town free and clear No costs to the town. Those are in the the lighter green area The dark green area is a class two wetland and it's associated Wetland buffer around it You see there's two development areas The build out there is 109 dwelling units The after doing the wetland delineation you've got about 43 and a half acres of upland That would give us a maximum build out of 130 dwelling units That plan calls for 109 That's that's what we're committed to that's what we really hope is approved and that's what we really hope goes forward So that's the that's the The big thing right there. There's been a lot of work that's been done on it Then much more examination Of this plan then you would typically see it with a pre app. So there's a lot that's known about the property There's a lot of things that have already been worked out So we go to the plan b which is plans one and two So plan one Is 130 dwelling units per acre as I just said a minute ago when you do the math Three per acre times the upland areas you get 130 dwelling units That's a proposal for 130 dwelling units There's no offer of dedication land to the town It would be an open space subdivision The wetland areas would be preserved this open space as required under the basic provisions of the bylaw Plan two Is predicated on a build out of five dwelling units per acre So why do we go to five instead of three? Well, as you no doubt you've seen in the staff report the discussion about act 47 Recently enacted by the vermont state legislature, which says That in areas that are going to be served by municipal water and sewer You have to allow at least five dwelling units per acre Now staff has put forth an interpretation of your regulations as they exist today That would argue that they meet that requirement Um You know, you have very very well educated and and bright staff, but that interpretation may not be correct We have recommended that the board get a legal opinion from the town's land use attorney To make sure that everybody's on firm ground in terms of how All those provisions Get interpreted So that 180 dwelling units in plan two that's predicated on a potential build out of five Dwelling units per acre. So that probably pretty good overview for How we got here and where we are and what we would like That was great. That was very helpful. Thank you and Although it'd be pretty much impossible not to have Some level of awareness as a community member It hasn't come in front of the drp. And so that was that was very helpful. So with that, uh, emily, i'll turn it over to you Thanks, pete. Um, and thanks ken for mentioning the specific plan advisory committee I want to note that scott's role on that committee was as the representative of the development review board And so he was wearing the hat of looking at the proposed town plan bylaw amendments and helping make sure that Whatever language is proposed is clear so that if the drp ever gets To be reviewing it and enforcing it It's understandable more so than maybe our sign chapter Where we're always making sure our bylaw language is as clear as it can be when we amend it Lisa's role was as the representative of the community at large And she was appointed at advisory committee a couple weeks before applying and being appointed to the drp So wanted to clarify their roles in that process So to the pre-application staff report Uh, there are three concept plans with various units types various layouts and unit count And pre-app is the time to present multiple concepts in an informal way to invite comment and discussion of alternatives Concepts one and two propose the same road layout with different unit types And concept three of the specific plan has fewer roads and units and is what's under review by the slack board This property is 97 acres. It's currently vacant not developed with any structures The proposed use is residential and has access on town roads It was not subject to design review. It's not in a design review district. It was subject to conservation commission review Staff recommends approval There's a few items bolded in the staff report for your discussion Where the drb might need to edit some recommendations This is the first time the drb is reviewing the request In 2003 there is a concept approval, but not a final approval for a two lot subdivision That never moved forward Um in previous to that in 1983. There was a conceptual plan proposed That subsequently developed into lots that are also known as neighboring properties like northridge turtle pond The town disc golf course behind Um central school So a concept plan for a much larger parcel was presented back in the 80s Conservation comments are included as well as the fire department Police did not comment public works also did not comment And we encourage the applicant to reach out to them when they've picked out their layout talk to public works about Looping water lines where rodent sewer and water connections are going to go It's very hard for public works to review All of those elements were differing proposals One comment letter was received at the time of mail out and no further letters received up to tonight That comment letter is included and we did provide a couple notes about the bylaws applicability for schools traffic and utilities So that specific plan has an informational session one last week with the select board won On the 21st and the select board would decide to warn Town plan and bylaw amendments. I'll go into the important ones for you later on in the staff report The earliest to hearing could be held is winter 2024. So maybe january And then the drb would have new bylaw amendments that could be reviewed in early 2024 A project only becomes vested when a discretionary permit application is submitted Um, there were another slate of bylaw amendments that went through on october 17th With significant changes to chapter 11 to adopt inclusionary zoning An adjust growth management applicability and scoring and i'm going to pause there for a moment and just back out to let the drb Know that on your meeting on the 28th We're going to talk about those all those bylaw amendments and the s 100 State law preemptions as their own work session. I know we're throwing a lot out here with New bylaw amendments state law and we can go deeper into detail outside of looking at a specific application next week or next meeting In the residential zoning district compliance is anticipated with one recommendation To discuss about focal points So this is an open space subdivision Um, and pedestrian friendly design is encouraged Ideally every dwelling must be within about 1300 feet of a focal point and the drb may permit minor exceptions to the standard This is an expansive development over almost 97 acres and it's bisected by a wetland So the discretionary permit must state the farthest distance between the community community building and a unit Um connectivity compliance is also anticipated And housing choice each concept proposes multiple homes, which are not required but strongly encouraged in growth management Now to the discussion of growth management So that bylaw amendment Created a new option inclusionary zoning If a project achieves a certain number of units as perpetually affordable They can go from pre-application straight to discretionary permit I've provided a table that shows how many units would need to be affordable at 80 percent area median income or 100 percent area median income Not shown on the table, but also in the bylaw is a mix and match So if the applicant wanted to propose some 80 and some 100 they could do that Option two is growth management with pay and lieu So this is the same process as we've known it before where you pre-app to go to growth management Now in addition to that allocation phasing cycle a project would have a payment in lieu fee Based on the number of projects. It's a graduated fee based on how many units are in the project This fee would range from just under 800 000 to about 1.38 million depending on how many units are in the project I do note that as part of that growth management amendment to include payment in lieu the scoring criteria also in change so Way more options more practical options to get energy Efficiency points that affordability score goes away because you either are inclusionary or your market rate under growth management Lastly option three is the Glazer specific plan phasing schedule So what I've included is the proposed language that the select board is considering If that amendment is adopted then the drb would have Directions on how to score and assign allocation that's separate from the other two options that would apply to conventional subdivisions Access so if I could weigh in yeah because this is a new territory for us So if the specific If the select board approves the specific plan And the applicant goes in that direction Um, then there's then it bypasses growth management but there's a requirement that that the proposed plan meets a A point threshold And those point thresholds are outlined On the bottom of page five of this staff Do I have that right? Yeah My understanding is they've proposed This as if it were growth management and that's part of the specific plan that would be approved Yes, and part of that advisory committee's work with the applicant We did a a mock growth management Scenario where they filled out a questionnaire We blind scored it And then the advisory committee talked over that score So what would happen at discretionary permit they would Provide that questionnaire to you guys our staff report a discretionary permit Would go through all those scoring criteria and your findings for discretionary permit approval Would list out what that score is So we basically take what you do in a growth management hearing and just stick it into part of the discretionary permit staff report hearing process So what safeguard is there for the applicant who has gone through all this this process And gets to a discretionary permit You know gets the specific plan approved Submits for a discretionary permit Comes in front of the drb And doesn't meet the threshold Then we'd be having a discussion. I see that being very unlikely Because there's been a lot of deliberations with the applicant and the advisory committee And that that concept plan that you see has evolved several times So I don't see anything major changing between that concept you see today and discretionary permit Some points might Be fewer in one category and more in another but I I see very unlikely for them to fall below that 50 points And if they do then the drb would be having that discussion of the applicant What elements can you tweak in your design to achieve that 50 point minimum score? Okay, could I add something? Yes, just that we Emily mentioned the 50 points And so when we were working with the committee It went from the the plan went from the planning commission And they set up there was a charge and there was a whole list of things that we were supposed to address and one was They wanted the project to achieve To show that it could achieve a growth management score of at least 50 points The idea is you need at least 30 points to get anything But they wanted they didn't want something that was minimal. So 50 points was that was the target And so we went through the growth management criteria at the time And I think it was 52 points my recollection And um, so that's always been our understanding. That's our understanding today That was our understanding going through the process with the planning commission and the committee So we're you know, we're committed to that as I said in my opening comment We're really, you know, the applicants committed to the specific plan And The other thing is I recall and staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but What the planning commission said in terms of growth management was that The applicant would have some flexibility to utilize Some of the new criteria under the new bylaw Specifically that the thinking was especially around the energy efficiency stuff, which is kind of like an all or nothing What it used to be whereas now apparently there's more flexibility. So that was our understanding so traffic to They looked in there to the traffic section or not traffic sustainable transportation. Yeah Yep. Okay. So this is this is the same this is the same criteria that we judge projects in march And growth management exact same criteria because because 50 points is Is is a lofty score. So the way you've been doing it all along Okay, what you do in this coming march with new projects will actually look different than the criteria that are listed here So, you know, when the planning commission established this charge, they looked at the criteria that were in existence At that time and until very, you know Late last month. Yeah so This project if the bylaw amendments under specific plan go through Those amendments identify this very specific pathway and says, you know, the d r b needs to look at the score based on the following criteria with the following flexibility around those energy and sustainable transportation categories And make a finding that it's still honoring that that minimum 50 point score of the planning commission wanted to see Okay, we're going to take pause here. The rv members says this is an Fourth topic. So are there any questions for for something? I got what we are. I know I'm from Mildon Any questions if I got it I mean, I think since this is it's a different process obviously than the typical growth management And why do we not have in the packet how Through that mock session you've got the 52 points Simplicity um And that's part of the planning commission select board's legislative process. So If that bylaw amendment package goes through there'll be appendix k new appendix to the bylaw That's everything the advisory committee worked on that whole process that questionnaire minutes staff memos So if if these questions come up in your drb process, we'll have all those accompanying materials to go back and ask questions And and look in what was proposed then versus what comes for a discretionary permit So you're saying that would be in the packet At dp. Yep Whereas normally for a pre app on any project you really don't that's when we always have the little phrase in there that says don't forget to think about Growth management points and here the here the criteria, right? Right. Yeah, these guys clearly are familiar with that All right access connectivity traffic standards studies in general compliance is anticipated here They're proposing some new street and in one scenario a new driveway curb cut Bicycle and pedestrian acts s a compliance is anticipated But we're going to discuss units one through five that are shown on concepts one and two in a moment Multiple points of access compliance is also anticipated So they're not proposing more than 40 units on a single point of access I do note that a comment came up in the fire department memo where they would prefer a loop road However, our bylaw cannot require a loop road. Um, it says no more than 40 units on a single point And in this scenario, they've proposed a cul-de-sac Connectivity compliance is also anticipated They're proposing a future road right of way that would extend towards the bat door of parcel parcel If that parcel or martel to the west wherever to develop The intent is to be able to create connectivity with future neighborhoods unfortunately due to Known and very likely presumed wetlands It's infeasible to create road connectivity towards coyote run or north ridge Uh, lastly traffic study. We do recommend one be submitted at discretionary permit Parking and loading compliance is anticipated here We're proposing single and multifamily units where Vehicular parking and bicycle parking can be accommodated for each home And end-of-trip facilities are not required because no commercial use is proposed On-site infrastructure so circulation The drb and applicants should discuss units one through five and concepts one and two So these are five homes proposed on a residential driveway With access onto turtle pond road, which is a town road And currently the plan doesn't show any pedestrian connection for someone to be able to walk across the street That would be the means for them to access the community member amenities as well as go out turtle pond cross old stage Due to property ownership and wetland constraint. It's not feasible to provide a sidewalk along that side of the road so Some pedestrian connectivity needs to happen here to loop those homes into the rest of the neighborhood But compliance is anticipated with all other standards of chapter 15 Where they're proposing sidewalks and in some cases multi-use path on both sides of the road Including a multi-use path along the mountain view road frontage Neighborhood parks compliance is anticipated They're proposing a 1200 square foot community building to neighborhood gardens and that connecting multi-use path between the two main neighborhoods Discretionary permit must also demonstrate compliance with utilities underground and municipal water and sewer service Maintenance snow storage and removal The discretionary permit must include a snow management plan Including association covenants and bylaws to that manner particularly that Snow removal is required from fire lanes sidewalks trails and other required improvements I bring that up for that connecting multi-use path If public works does not desire that to be a public amenity and it's to remain private then It should still be maintained and plowed through the winter time Accessory uses and temporary structures, etc So the discretionary permit must include a construction management plan in compliance with 1714 This must describe the various phases of construction and include locations for materials and equipment storage This plan must explain how access and parking will be managed after the streets are built But homes are still under construction Especially the management of contractor and subcontractor vehicles The drb may require security fencing or other measures to prevent entry onto construction sites or access to stored equipment and materials Planning staff also recommends that this plan be posted on a temporary construction sign So it isn't accessible to subcontractors new to the site the reason where Including this and putting a closer eye on chapter 17 is in Some recent subdivisions and developments in town. We're having compliance issues with Roads are built people are parking all over it makes it very difficult for the fire department to access these areas and it also creates erosion and maintenance issues so That this is pre-planned before work takes place. So everybody working on the site is Operating safely and not creating constructive nuisances chapter 19 density so This was where ken was mentioning the s 100 aka act 47 preemptions Williston has a definition of a dwelling As a building typically a single family home or separate space in a larger building like an apartment That contains complete housekeeping facilities for one household Note that definition doesn't talk about number of bedrooms Williston measures residential density Using the dwelling unit equivalent du e Where one du e is a unit that has two or more bedrooms and half is a studio or one bedroom And Williston determines maximum residential density by calculating out constraints wetlands steep slopes Uh, whereby there's several different unit configurations at that base density of three du e per acre And our bylaw also allows a bonus density to five du e an acre Where 30 percent of the homes are affordable at 100 percent the area median income In the application the applicant has not represented what proportions of the homes Will have two or more bedrooms I believe the plan is for them to all have two or more bedrooms. That's correct So because of state law, um, there's a change to chapter 24 vsa 44 12 That states in any area served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure that allows residential development Bylaws shall establish lot and building dimensional standards that allow five or more dwellings per acre for each of our residential use This became effective in july and preempts our bylaws However, title 24 Um, does not complete a definition of dwelling And Williston defines dwelling as above without regard for number of bedrooms Title 24 and the various subsections do not contain a definition of acre Nor do they contain a definition of density or residential density The those uh statutes are also silent on calculation methods for density that remove constrained lands prior to determining a lot build out Therefore, um If the drb would like a wreck an opinion from town council Um staff supports that and a recommendation is included We would seek this legal opinion prior to growth management or discretionary permit, whichever comes first However, we do not recommend continuing this pre-app hearing What follows is a list of questions that planning staff have drafted for consideration for the legal opinion Some of these questions are more broad base. These preemptions don't apply just to this project They apply townwide So the drb and staff would be seeking this legal opinion not just for this one project, but for the entire bylaws I'll pause there if we have any questions I get her I think it's a great opportunity to get the legal opinion right away It's a lot of good put into place so that we can we have that legal opinion going on And I'll just note and we we'll talk about this in our work session You know at the time that this law was enacted Very shortly before it was enacted the builder app was changed to make all of these changes effective july 1 Not giving any Vermont community enough time to actually amend its bylaws So all are preempted Until they can adopt bylaws that comply with this new legislation We're going to enter into that process At the time that this bill became law and this july 1 deadline was imposed on the municipalities Williston had no fewer than four potential bylaw amendments in process already We're essentially going to be joining up this s 100 act 47 Response with the fourth of our four the village bylaw Bring that through the planning commission review and hopefully select court adoption process this winter in spray so We would we would value the staff level this legal opinion for anything residential that comes before the board prior to that The legislature as people are fond of saying in its infinite wisdom Used some terms that don't have exact parallel to the terms used by the town of williston or many other towns They were silent on how towns are or are not allowed to calculate base lot area for determining density But very vocal on the idea of that density being preempted Presenting a challenge So We'll help the planning commission write something that is way more clear than what we're showing you right now But we would value that opinion from the town's attorney Just for this project for other residential projects that may take advantage of these changes in law I'll just note on the side. There's another provision of this law that gives definitional affordable housing Developments an extra floor in height And we have an application before us that's asking to do that and Had to talk with our attorney about what extra floor meant in the context of a whole bunch of design standards. So Um, this is very much a moving target. Nobody's got it, right? There's Nothing nothing wrong with an applicant wanting to look at this. There's nothing wrong with the drb seeking clarity and we'd be happy to do that Um, I would ask if if members look at those questions abcde That's our best shot at asking clear questions But if you have any feedback or if those raise other questions for you that we can put into that request We'd love to hear it. So we can you want those tonight or is that something we can look at think about Next couple of days next couple of days I mean, I'd like to get something tomorrow morning. I see got you. I'd like to get something going with council soon But i'm happy to add on to it and you know, the legal bill comes out of the manager's budget anyway, so Mike I if i'm understanding this right if this Option three is the specific plan is approved. This is kind of moved. We don't we don't have to worry about any So can you give us in four sentences or less kind of why it makes a difference on this? So it it makes a difference If the project is not seeking the density bonus That is identified in the bylaw as the pathway to to five dwellings per acre Dwelling unit equivalents meeting everything is more than two bedrooms and five of them per acre So in those in those larger build-out projects if that's the case And if they're not identifying a minimum of 30 of the dwellings is affordable, which which they're probably not They would need to be taking advantage of these state law preemptions to gain density. Okay Got it In concept i'm not even going to pretend to understand the math and uh, and exactly what which often needs one So, you know taking it it's plain as state law says if you've got an area served by water and sewer that allows residential uses You need to allow five units per acre density there And that's that's what it says and that's all it says and within that There are the clarifying questions that we'd like to seek answers to. Yep. Yeah, got it okay question so in other words No matter what the legal people say If they suddenly go Rogue and say no, we don't want to do this these gentlemen could go to go to court and sort of like This is in handwriting This is going to be approved. So it's kind of a moot point. Isn't it sort of? Well, part of the purpose of seeking legal opinions for the drg is to keep us out of trouble and me out of the box at the environmental court so That's not fun. No Not when chris roe makes you look Which was my experience. Oh, so so the reason we would ask for some guidance on this Is to try to get it right avoid a costly and time consuming appeal um You know in the way this works and we're not you don't just get to be right If if we say it one way in the applicant sees another way Potentially we go to court. We spend a lot of money. Yeah, but what I'm trying to say is this the state has already made A ruling Well, they have but they haven't told us what density really means. They haven't told us what dwelling really means. All right And none of this unfortunately or fortunately for those other communities has been litigated anywhere else here So there's no case law. So if they haven't told us how is the legal Okay, squeeze blood out of a rock. What's the legal opinion going to tell us? Well, what it's going to tell us is In in council's experience What is the standard for interpreting stuff that's ambiguous? um in local zoning and in state law generally That falls to the applicant And and and ambiguity falls to the favor of the applicant as opposed to the municipality because zoning is a limitation on constitutionally Objective property rights the attorneys have this in a copy-paste format. They still charge the same early rates So that's that's that's the really is is just Or is there a definition of dwelling or density that I couldn't find in statute that are that are attorney That they would that I didn't draw from or blacks law and dictionary and so Generally, I'll also say Nate When we go to the state agency of commerce and community development and department of housing and community development Who are tasked with advising communities about this stuff? Most of what they have said is You should adjust your bylaws in the most generous interpretation of this And that's great when we're adopting bylaws because bylaws even get adopted or they don't And there they are but we're fighting over the interpretation in terms of appending application It would it would be better, you know We could be really generous and we could end up on appeal with someone who doesn't like the approval Or we could be really stingy and end up on an appeal that the applicant doesn't like so Again hence hence the reason to go to a legal opinion It identifies the firm as ground for us to stay At least shaky anyhow Okay, Emily continue Um It's downhill from here so landscaping. Um, provide it provide a good, um Landscaping plan at discretionary permit. Um, there's several properties in play here There's one unique recommendation that the buffer be provided adjacent to the proposed homes rather than directly along the property line Particularly near the moss windswept farm property Uh street trees Uh demonstrate compliance at discretionary permit street trees along the proposed New roads, uh, the drb may waive the requirement for street trees where a road passes through Existing woods or to preserve a scenic vista Recommendation to g is included Um, I do note that if the specific plan goes forward It'll be written into the bylaw that they don't need to do street trees on old stage or mountain view to protect those views Conservation commission reviewed this application on november 1st. Their recommendations are included Uh, this area is identified to have significant wildlife habitat A habitat tap disturbance assessment shall be prepared I do note that as part of that recent bylaw amendment package Uh, the contract is funded by the applicant but taken on by the town So that hda is done by a wetlands consultant on the town's behalf Farmlands of local importance, um, are mapped on this property However, chapter 39 states that protecting farmland is not a primary goal in this district Uh scenic view shed The drb and applicant should discuss concept one and two and their impact on the view shed These homes would be visible in the Foreground and middle ground looking towards the views of camels hump and yantts hill Chapter 39 does state that partial protection of a view Maybe confined with good site planning And there's a couple of those view shed and habitat maps Watershed health provided erosion and runoff control plan Protect class to wetlands a delineation has already been done for that dark green wetland in the middle Um more wetlands are suspected but not planned to be impacted by development Um official map compliance is anticipated So they're proposing to construct a segment of multi-use path along mountain view road And they're accommodating other facilities By not putting any development in the way that would prevent an easement or trail Towards martel park or the north bridge open space Though official map does show a desire for grid streets through this property The wetland propose a physical barrier barrier And they are maintaining connected connectivity to the back door parcel Outdoor lighting, um There are standards for lighting on one and two household dwellings versus Dwellings that have or unit buildings that have three or more units Um and then what follows is Standards about temporary construction signs And impact fees will be assessed at the time of administrative permit Uh what follows is a list of recommendations um Number 2g the drb would want to make a change about street trees And then provide any additional recommendations. They see fit. Thank you Okay, uh Hannah brian I don't have anything for the body of I have a couple conditions Go ahead, okay Uh, basically deals with the construction management plan and compliance with 17.14 Including a plan for fencing materials and slash or gated access for security grant construction So though we are submitting three plans tonight if we are allowed to move forward and a specific plan does get approved We move right to discretion um This isn't a hotel downtown Not a commercial project It it's expansive, you know the expansion of the residential use of this property though slipped by the wetland is 40 acres You know the road gets built first and the sequence of the houses when they get built You know it's determined by the market at the time and what sales can happen. So Coordinating a detailed construction plan that you know, this is detail enough to show where fencing limits may be I just wanted to put it out there that you know, my interpretation of this section is that speaking in generalities And that my experience with this section is that most times comes from zoning stated enforcement And if that was acted and we didn't agree with the solution, you know, we do have a right to appeal to you folks so I just wanted to that that's the first time i'd seen that make it into the approval condition So I don't have experience with producing that plan, but just given the type of project side project in really unexpected build out from residential You know, I just wanted to state that and see if the d r v then So I I recommend that you go back uh to if you haven't go back to meeting minutes and staff report of Of a month or two ago Where this This topic was raised On a ongoing project here You know here in wilson and it's It's it's really about The developer paying attention to um To Homes in the impact that On occupied homes and and uh You know on the reasonableness this is this is this is not intended to To be naive to the construction process and and The natural sequencing that's associated with construction projects it's uh In in the in the case um that was brought forth to the d r v recently um that The standard of reasonableness was violated and so um, so this is just to bring it out there and put it in the forefront and Um and and have people thinking about it in that ahead of time Yeah, I know that's vague but um, I my message is um is That if you're acting in good faith in the paying attention the probability of Having a problem is low A couple a couple things not related to the project you're referencing pete, but that we've encountered and and As a zoning administrative also counts encountered the incredible limiting limits of my ability of enforcement uh in a residential subdivision things like Storage of construction materials in a way where there's no access control on that storage yard Um, including in partially built developments where there's you know kids living and it's basically creating an interactive nuisance um Partially built swimming pool full of water with no fence around it was one I encountered um failure to control access to the construction site such that the excavator was arriving on site at five or six in the morning And and going to work with the contractor saying what am I supposed to do? He shows up and it's like well You need if you have to you you put a chain across that road To to tamp down that noise nuisance that otherwise it's very difficult to enforce um Any utility vaults with uncontrolled access or or a person-sized hole in the top of them needing to be covered and and Securing with something of sufficient weight that a kid can't move it. Um, a lot of this could probably be addressed in plan notes And general operations standards as opposed to necessarily a drawn plan saying You know, this is exactly where my fence and my gate and those sorts of things are Going to go certainly plan notes about vehicle parking or a plan for temporary construction vehicle parking You know Again zoning enforcement is a terrible tool when someone from the fire department calls me and says There's contractor cars parked on both sides of this new street And if that house under construction caught under caught on fire at the end of the street, I can't get to it so Some when all of those things are talked about and anticipated on a plan as the administrator It gives me something that I can walk out on site with and say it says here on your plan That everybody's going to park on one side of the street. You need to follow that and You know, it it also really protects the town in that we tend to get a class of complaints about sites where construction's underway from citizens that are Kind of legitimate, but not really and then the zoning administrator is left to say well This complaint I can tie it to something in the bylaw This one I can't you have to make those judgment calls Makes you very unpopular with the neighbors It's much much easier if we have a plan that's part of the final set that that addresses as much of that as we can get So everybody knows how it's going to go on site for the intent's not to have this this plan that every time there's a There's a house that goes under contract you you go back and draft up a new plans and reflect No, I just want to make sure it's generated You know, it's about it's about notes. It's about contractors parking on one side of the road It's about all the different things that that map was was talking about and it's and it's really if a site supervisor is Is is just looking through a commonsense plans This is unlikely to be an issue and I would add on this specific project That green area that you see that's kind of backed right up to where there's a bunch of houses Are going to be horses And horses react to loud noises some of them react one way some of them another way But they're going to have to be there while you're building it So some addressing of their knowledge of that might be useful. There's nobody in the audience tonight because you know They're not always empty seats here for this project sounds like we're on the same page and then uh Moving uh to 2g just talks about street trees that just like note the specific plan specifically One of the bylaw amendments was to take the street trees off a mountain view when old state road We'd hope to be or be to see that consistency maybe with the And then the fire department memo dated october 20th 2023. Is that the one we received from specific plan? I don't believe it's not if it was october. Uh, just if we get a copy of that, that would be great. 4a Talking about the hda The app should contact staff following drb review of the pre application to discuss the procurement of an hda. So My understanding is that the conservation commission made a recommendation of the town To select the biologist for the habitat disturbance assessment Yes, and it's a bylaw standard So this was changed. That's long We we found that, um The public uh That was critical of our development review process Had a lot of angst over the idea that the applicant was paying someone to do the the disturbance assessment Um, so the the town has taken on that responsibility at the applicant's expense You pay for it. We hire a consultant They write their report and that's considered By those who supported that amendment to be a more impartial review than having the applicant do it themselves So the town gets yelled at study you yeah, I was going to propose a third party We don't do those studies in house. I can see if they were in house, uh, them being less impartial, but uh, I didn't realize And then At the end of it, uh, it talks about the wetlands delineated It says a functional assessment of class three wetlands must be included Uh, I believe in the body of staff reported it says the b or b can request that There are a few class three wetlands Within the uplands on the northern side of the site Uh, that's a new condition that I haven't seen before I'm essentially a class three wetland as part of the definition Function and values don't warrant protection on its own. Usually that's hydraulic connectivity size is a too big indicator but, uh Not a huge deal just something I haven't seen seems redundant to the state wetlands programs What would be your suggestion I would say if they were delineated class three and conformed by the state wetlands program that Nations that function value should warrant protection I don't think a side and a separate analysis each pocketed class wetlands I don't think that's a valuable exercise Right, so what chapter 29 says is the drb may require may require a functional assessment of class three Um, it may require class three with significant functional values remain in their natural vegetation So in this instance, there's three Very small pockets of of class three wetland one is hidden by this text box um I think it's fair for the drb to strike that recommendation if they see fit There's not many and they're very small class three in this area has all been done by the state Um, it just was one section of chapter 29 to bring to your attention Okay, thank you. Does that make it does it make a difference whether this is the option one two or three I mean option three Which is the specific plan it doesn't get anywhere close to those right it making that recommendation would be a moot point In that instance, it would be two and three where um Some houses and streets. There is a class three. That's In fact, there's one up by the intersection Plus there. Oh, okay Thank you And then uh, or c it just says proposed development must not encroach in watershed buffers Uh, if you would just consider changing the knot to minimize Uh, we may need force main water crossings within that wetland uh area So Uh, I would just ask that you consider minimize Okay, which we need a state permit to do but Okay, is that it? Okay, I have one. Yep. Go ahead. The wildlife habitat assessment. Yep If you look at the map for this area where it's a question as to whether or not Uh, it's a wildlife habitat area Um, it's not exactly but it pretty much approximates The open space area that's been promised under plan three, which is the specific plan So what's been what's been proposed by the applicant is that The permanently protected open space that would go into town ownership And what I would say is it sort of begs the question as to why we would need a wildlife habitat assessment Of an area that's proposed to be permanently protected open space You know with what would the assessment say it would say wildlife cross through here And we should make sure we leave an area for the wildlife to cross Okay, that's already been resolved. Well, that that would be my point. So in the event I could see where the board might require that for plan one or plan two, which is our Backup plan if you will But if the specific plan gets approved to me, it sort of begs the question What would we be accomplishing? And you know, it's interesting to note that despite all the review and analysis of this proposal This has not come up until now And the plan was in front of the conservation commission several times. So Um, I get that it's there But I would question it's applicability if we do propose if we do pursue the specific plan Andrew can you put the the map That's in here up on the Because I'm having a hard time imagining. I'm not sure what the different colors on this map mean Because it's this wildlife habitat map. That's the only one we have to go on tonight So which which which striping or which colors are the ones of the Areas that a wildlife habitat the green. Yeah, so the green is habitat brown dashed is Is corridor And it's funny that it's all the Meadowland and the forest is not shown as either On that on that map, right? Yeah, that's the pasture out there Well, this is all forested. Yeah, yeah so Who kind of you're saying that that all of the green Well the hatch there of the hatch area Well, that And that has that has um, that's where the horseshoes going through no the hatched area. That's where the cul-de-sac is Right, so there's a road crossing there, but it's 15 acres of preserved open space Again, that's not exactly coterminous with the hatched area, but It's it's most of what's in that hatch here So so again my question was what would that what would that set what would it show? That wildlife cross through there. That's probably what it would show and Again, it's you know, it's being proposed as permanently protected open space The wildlife will be able to walk through there to their hearts content From this day forward if the plan is approved Okay, so yeah Something conditionally Okay, anything else No, I would just I would just reiterate that that We are committed to plan number three specific plan That's what we hope to get approved and that's what we hope to come back in front of you again with At some point in 2024 and you know fingers crossed that's that's what we do so Appreciate all the work that That all the folks have put into the plan And here the questions all three The little spur that was in one and two is that given to the town too? Yeah Okay, so that basically that little plan three down to plan three. I'm just saying a little spur Yeah, it is a no develop part of the town. It's a different scale. So you don't see it No, no, but I say you know I mentioned the one and two and then all of a sudden No, it's not a good question. They should all So that so that open space area is it's it's used by windswept farm For their course operations and that's part of our proposal with the specific plan is We would Dedicate that land to town and then the town can you know, whatever they want with it do whatever they want with it If we're not in the specific plan It changes That's one way to confirm. Yeah Other questions, um The focal point can you address the distances there? The 1,320 feet walk from focal points Is there any Have you uh Looked at like a permitted path with the army core across the wetland or anything like that. Yeah, so um, so the 1st question the uh Distances to the focal points. So there's really two hardware growth management scoring was the community building within the horseshoe on the southern half And then there's a corp proposed midway path between the two units So if those are your two focal points the furthest uh piece that's away is the northern cluster Um and options two and three the furthest unit is about 2,400 linear feet And that's walking not at the bird glass and uh option three It's about 1,600 specific plan options Just a shade over what what the So when you say when you're giving those distances you're saying that's from Be great if the map was up here You just and are you talking about going from at the end of the call stack happen go up the call stack Down the rec path and over to the public building as opposed to Dipping across yeah, not not not going through the wetlands. Yeah So we're close it says you can prove a minor minor change that this Yeah There's a pretty unique circumstance in this plan it's wetlands through the middle Yeah, you know, it's a lot of the specific plan conversation was the two different clusters and They kind of act like separate developments, but they're not and uh, we thought the rec path and the courts actually if they were Our original thinking was pickleball courts. Apparently they're quite noisy. So putting it in the middle of the field there Was something that we thought was kind of cool. You need to You know, I haven't seen before We had the building over there too This is a good plan So what what about a consideration of like a primitive path through the wetland anything of that because I must what I'm seeing is people that are On the the right side are going to walk through there anyways to go over to the buildings Yeah, so the uh staff and the wetlands program Not staff but the bylaw requires a demarcation of the wetland limits And then they're supposed to be left untouched and vegetate naturally So whether it's done with boulders or maybe sections of split rail fencing or trees or whatever that Delineation, you know may look like as we get closer to the end of the cul-de-sac Maybe it's a little more intense to stop people from crossing You'll also see uh some notes where we have a stormwater pond That's likely going to go at the end of the cul-de-sac that holds the person uh people maybe when the grading plan Turns up a discretionary that that might um Be something to consider but uh It is quite wet too. I've walked through Standing water most of the time. Okay, as you move to the north, let's not be always bad or the west Thank you. Yeah Well, I was just gonna say that during our earlier meetings, um with those committees that Public comment we primarily got was around with one swift form which apparently needs that um Land around it in order to be economically viable so These concepts one then two will have a lot of public comment about that Having houses over there But the other thing that people commented a whole lot about was a little we had a little parking area up here for folks that wanted to Walk on the trail through there and and I see that you're not showing that anymore. So what you're seeing there It's I mean ultimately that's up to the count the soft If you may recall we said there was we had commentary in both directions when we were at the committee Somebody asked us to put it in we put it in and then somebody else slapped us Silly for putting it in and questioned our sanity Right so You know the land would go into town ownership and there's How will the town use it? long term Art enough and it would be determined through some process What's the best way to do it is a is a parking lot for people to You know to stop and Enjoy the view there is that desire? It's possible. There could be a public restroom that goes there and that's something You know staff is mentioned as a possibility. So It's it's really it's up You know, that's kind of our point Yeah, so it's shown on concept plan three Is One and two Where concept three plan really puts the view shed at the forefront of concept two Looking more efficiency Yeah, that's why Okay Any other questions Okay, uh Is there anybody on zoom? great Anybody participating remotely have any questions For the d rv. Okay Any last uh last comments? Thank you I actually have one more question. Okay. No problem. Um, well Will all these units be for sale or would they be rental units as well? And um When you looked at the affordable housing will it be a mix of all the houses it can be affordable We haven't determined which ones are going to be affordable yet, but we are bound by the old growth management standards about 10 so there will be If growth management goes forward the other two they'll be on we have committed one way or the other if those directions were Thank you Tell me tell me the truth They'll be on the horseshoe Because the cul-de-sac is going to be the nice Believe it or not if if you've been out that we've done a few site visits the the lower horseshoe I think is a better site than the northern side. Really? Okay, it's higher than you think It's some really spectacular views of mount man's field but the more southerly part and You know we we the committee we did a site visit walked around and It's You know if you're looking south get these great views at camel sump. There's no denying that but If you're looking north, especially if you go south you really get some really nice views of uh of mount man's So There's just nice views. Yeah every direct I mean coming up old stage With the force bar in there and the fields in front. It's it's nice to It's a nice property. I paid that field so Okay, so I know where it's it's a great it's a great view when you're sitting there going down. Yeah Maybe if we built right on mountain view that'd be better, but Okay Uh, so we're gonna close dp 24 at zero six At eight Thanks Okay, welcome back to the town of wiliston development review board for tuesday November 14th is 9 56 We have returned from deliberative session. Is there a modem for 23 dash 11 21? Yes As authorized by wdb 6.6 point 3 i nathan andrew's move that the wiliston development review board having reviewed The application submitted into all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application By the wiliston development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented the public hearing of november 14th 2023 Except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for dp 23 dash 11.1 And approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict performance with On which this approval is based Uh the conclusion of law number two the proposal Does comply with wdb 14.9 Therefore the drb will waive the requirement for an end-of-trip facility All right. Thanks nate. Is there a second second john seconds it any discussion Hearing none uh yay or nay nate yay paul yay lisa yay Dave yay John the chair is the yay six in favor of non-opposed Motion carries Is there a motion for dp 23 dash 11.2? Yeah As authorized by wdb 6.6.3 I john hemmelgarn moved that the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials Including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson development bylaw And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of november 14 2023 Except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for dp 23 dash 11.2 And approved this description permit for master sign plan subject to the conditions of approval above This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek administrative sign Permits which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based Will make some adjustments to the law Number three shall read three freestanding signs at 21 Day 67 commerce street are allowable under wdb 25 and for the Um Conditions of approval Number three we will be striking Wallside number 17 Associated square footage from the from the table as well as freestanding something Three and it's 32 square feet And then Condition number nine Shall read uh final plan shall make the following changes to the proposed freestanding signs Better a Freestanding sign number 11 shall be replaced with a wall sign no larger than 24 square feet in the final plans And b Freestanding sign number three shall be removed Uh, thank you john, uh, is there a second? I'll second uh, Dave seconds any discussion? Hearing done. Uh, yay or nay. Nate. Yay, paul. Yay. Lisa. Yay Dave. Yay john. Yay Chairs yay six in favor none opposed Motion carries is there a motion for dp 24- 04. Yes as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 I david turner moved the dualism development review board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials Including the recommendations of the town's staff and the advisory board is required to comment on this application By the wilson development by-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of november 14th 2023 Except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for dp 24-04 and approve this boundary adjustment subject to the conditions of the approval above Thank you, jave. Is there a second second? Paul seconds it any discussion? Hearing none. Yay or nay. Yay. Paul. Yay. Lisa. Yay Dave. Yay john. Yay. Chairs yay six in favor none opposed Is there a motion uh for dp 24-06? Is authorized by Wdb 6.6.3. I the subredin Carter Moved at the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials Including the recommendations of town staff and the advisory board's required to comment on this application By the wilson development by-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of november 14th 2023 except the recommendations 24-07 and authorize this application to move forward for growth management and or discretionary permit review with these changes Section 2 E we want to strike the last sentence this legal opinion should be provided at growth management or discretionary permit Whichever comes first striking that sentence to g Wdb 2060 Street trees street trees will not be required along mountain view road and old stage road section 4.3 We want to strike the last sentence a functional assessment of classroom wetlands must be included strike that and force see Proposed development month minimize encroachment into watershed Okay, great. Thank you. Lisa. It's their second all second eight second fit and session Hearing none. Yay or nay. Hey, hey Paul. Yay, Lisa. Yay Dave. Yay, john. Yay chairs. Yay six in favor none opposed motion carries Is there a motion to approve the minutes of october 24? Yes, I move to approve the minutes of the meeting October 24th as written. Thank you, john. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it any discussion Hearing none Yay or nay on the minutes nay. Yay Paul. Yay Lisa Dave. Yay John. Yay Here's the yay six and Six in favor none opposed the meeting minutes are approved. Is there anything else to bring forth? Is there a motion to adjourn the meeting so move second I'll second it. Dave, second it. I'm in favor. All right. Any opposed? Thank you all Thank you