 I have a neighbor who has one. Yeah? Do you hear it? I don't. I don't. I don't know. You can just sit there. I'm going to do some of the nice little things. You don't need to do all the room. You can just flip it on. I do all the stuff. You can just go to the windows. You can just change the doors. You have the facility. Go on, you're outside as hot as it is inside there. You can just put this in your truck. You can put it in your body. Even up on the front door. Everybody sign in? The town of Wilson's Development Review Board. On Tuesday, September 26th, 2017. We're going to bring the hearing to order at 7 o'clock. There were three items on the agenda for tonight. One of them has been postponed. We're going to start off with DP 15-11. Amendment number one for Allenbrook Development Act 701. Staff gets the honor. Okay. Actually, before we go out of my apologies, you would state your name and your address. Sure. Brian Birch, Allenbrook Development, 31 Commerce Ave, South Brownington, Vermont. Nice one. Yep. Okay. This is an application for discretionary permit. It's to amend a food master sign plan. What do you have, do you have one more time? The chairs have just died. Does it even? Thank you. Okay. Apologize. Go ahead. Okay. I'm just going to give you an opportunity to give your name and address. Brian, you're a little late coming. No problem. Did you sign in? I did, yes. Scot Sirrell, Chef's Corner. That's 701. Staff is just about to go through the master sign plan. Okay. So this is an application to amend an existing approved master sign plan at 100 to 400 cornerstone drive, generally known as the Taff Farm Shopping Center. We are right at Chef's Corner. Right, so on, et cetera, are located. This is an application to add signage or change signage on building C, which is the building of 300 cornerstone drive. The applicant is proposing to enlarge existing approved sign 3F and add a new wall sign called 3G. Staff is recommending a slight renaming of the sign designations there so that there won't be two signs labeled 3G on the plan. This is the window sign named that. A master sign plan is required at this shopping center for a number of reasons, one of which is that it's a multi-tenant commercial site. Another is that there are some signs existing and requested on the site that are larger than can be permitted under the normal limitations of our sign chapter in the bylaw, which is Chapter 25. The new proposed signs, 3F is 36 square feet, and that's a wall sign, and staff proposed designation 3K, labeled on their plans. The applicant's plan says 3G is 16 square feet. Those are the only changes to the overall master sign plan. This brings the total amount of signage on the site up to 1,507 square feet. The theoretical maximum amount of signage on the site is calculated as a percentage of the street-facing building facades on the site, and that percentage cannot exceed 8%. 8% of the area of one street-facing facade of each building on the site is 1,671.44 square feet, and again, the new proposed total sign area is 1,570. So the applicant's proposal remains under the site-wide maximum established by our bylaw. Because we do have signs existing, proposed to continue, and new signs proposed that are in the excess of those limitations under Chapter 25, as I mentioned before. Number one, a master sign plan is the only way an applicant can get that size of sign, and number two, the DRB needs to be willing to make some special findings which I've drafted for you, finding that those larger signs in their context on the buildings where they're proposed are in keeping with the intent and letter of the town plan as it relates to signs, and some of the more general bylaw language about signs, which essentially says that signs are an important part of the way a site looks and works, and it would make sense on the site and on the facade of buildings where they're located and be proportional, et cetera. So I have drafted those signs for the board to consider, as well as a few other findings of fact, conditions of approval and conclusions of law leading to the approval of the proposal, as submitted by the applicant. Great, thank you very much. Scott and Ryan. What was your idea? Not much, that was pretty good, Pat, thank you. So we've read the conditions of approval, and they have no issues with any of those. So approval here tonight would allow us to apply for a final plan, submit final plans, and then an administrative permit to finalize this. So if you have any questions, we're here to answer them. Let's find out. Any questions from the board? Are there any questions from the audience? It seems like tonight's going to be an easy one. Thank you for coming. Great, thank you. Okay, we're going to close DP 15-11, amendment number one, Pat, 706. Okay, next up on the agenda is DP 1803. Peter and Allison Judge are requesting a discretionary permit for a boundary line adjustment. I hope it's a period in 706. Mr. O'Leary, do you state your full name and your address please? Paul O'Leary, 13 Corp. of Drive, and that's the junction of the line. Great, welcome. This is a request for a discretionary permit to approve a boundary line adjustment between two adjacent parcels of land located on the southwest corner part of that road in Shadbark Drive in the agricultural world residential zone in the district. So in this particular case, both parcels are owned by the same property owners. But we have essentially two parcels of land, one which is 18.15 acres and the second is 2.59 acres. And the applicants are requesting to move 2.19 acres of land from the big parcel over to the small parcel. That essentially is the kind of the long and short of it. And the big parcel is on the plan set that you have in front of you is on the south and the smaller one is on the north. So boundary line adjustment under most circumstances can be approved administrative or administrative procedure. However, there is a limit in our bylaw and it says that the amount of land to be moved is enough to subdivide then it has to be approved by the DRP. So this is probably one of the simplest, lowest level type of applications that the board tends to see. We don't have an issue, the subject, the large parcel is so large that we don't have an issue with it creating a 9.1. So that's really sort of a non-issue. It doesn't affect either of the properties getting access to roads, none of that sort of stuff. The one issue I think that the board needs to consider is that in this zoning district when you have a lot of area greater than 10 half acres you're subject to a minimum set aside for open space of 75%. So in this case we have a parcel of land that is today, it's 15.18 acres and the applicant is proposing to make it smaller. But the board I think needs to decide what you want to do about this open space requirement. Now typically what we've done is to say well there's no subdivision involved today we simply would put the property on my notice for what they would be faced with an open space set aside at some point in the future should they come in and decide to subdivide. So what the staff is recommended is that the open space, any open space set aside that would be triggered with a future subdivision be calculated on the 18.15 acres. And so that would mean that the open space set aside would be a minimum of 13.61 acres. It's up to the board to decide. The bylaw doesn't give precise instructions on that requirement. Part of the reason why this is here is because what's being proposed doesn't carry it by. So in the review from other town departments and boards the fire department and the public works department well the fire department had no comments public works has said that prior to the issuance of an administrative permit that there apparently there are two curb cuts serving a larger parcel on Butternut Road and that one of those be closed. Well so I've noted in the staff notes that there's a house on each of these properties so it's we wouldn't necessarily have an application for an administrative permit that would create a trigger. So that we're recommending that that be resolved prior to signing final plans. And then I've also put in the staff notes the recommendations that came from the Conservation Commission and those recommendations really have to do with future subdivision and namely that be subject to wildlife habitat assessment natural resource assessment as well as there's a comment there that it would be subject to the 75% open space set aside. I would note as Paul most likely will that their comment is that the 75% be off the 15.9 acres not the 18.15 which is what the staff is recommending. So that's it. That's it in a nutshell. Great. Thank you. Good evening. Mr. Judge gives his regrets. I couldn't be here tonight. Excuse me. I had some surgery on his leg this morning so he's got to be hospitalized for a couple more days. So essentially I can did a good job on the overview. Back in 2013 we were before the port with another bottom line adjustment that was done on some of the property that Peter owns behind it. And essentially Peter and Allison are looking to downsize. It's been kind of a painful process. I think originally they were going to build on that back piece that went through about two years of growing pains and I think they finally decided that that wasn't a practical thing to do. The other parcel on the 2.590 is what they decided to do is they're going to remodel that house and they're going to move into that house and they're going to sell the big house on the large parcel. And they put it on the market about three or four months ago they actually got a buyer for the main property and currently have a purchase and sales agreement for that property. And when we were back in 2013 when we did the bottom line adjustment there was a comment about eliminating one of the curb cuts at that one time so we were caught a little unaware about that comment and we're a little nervous it might screw up the deal that we have with our potential buyer but I would like the board to consider maybe removing that condition from the approval. And I brought some photos so we can see just what is there today. The first photo is just a top view and it shows that there's a driveway that comes off Shack Barclay in the service house and has that little loop driveway that you'll see there. Ken do you have any insight into why they are requesting a reduction of one curb cut? They look for one point of access for a house on a public road. But I would add though that that condition was there at DP 1403 as I recall. I don't recall that. I recall because you know Lisa looked like she was just reciting it again and then I just took note of the fact that what it said a couple years ago was when an administrative permit gets issued and then it's like well there's already a house there. There's not an administrative permit at issue with this particular point in time. That might be correct. But it was not acted on at that point in time. Is that what I'm hearing? If it's back in front of us then. No obviously the curb cut wasn't removed. They never pulled an administrative permit. They didn't act on the permit. They never requested an inspection and certificate of compliance because they never acted on the permit. They got the permit and then they just... I guess my question is at that time was the removal of one we know the removal of one of the curb cuts was a condition of approval. That's my recollection. So if you look at the overall photo you can see the house with the orange roof and there's a driveway that comes off Shahgwar plain and that has the loop on the driveway that most people use to access the house. As you go along butternut you can see the white structure is the existing barn and the first driveway goes on the north side of the barn and that goes to the house. The house has a garage on that side. You can't see it in the photo but you go by this garage door there. The second curb cut basically accesses the agricultural fields and moves most of the farm equipment and hates the property and fails it or whatever. As you can see from the photos it's kind of difficult to access the field from the first driveway cut that serves the house. The other photos show the two different cuts. I don't know what order it in but both photos show the barn and you can see where the curb cut is to the north of the barn. You can see the basketball hoops in the background and around the corner is the garage. So that's the primary way to get to the garage. The second curb cut as you can see in the photo goes on the south side of the barn basically goes straight through and accesses the field. We would be fine with the definition that the curb cut could only be used for agricultural use. No problem with that but we just want to be able to get to the fields without having to wind through the barn area. Now I'll admit that the access to the agricultural portion that looks like quite a row and I'll give credit to Peter's son law is one of the sons of Don Weston and sons. So when you need something built Don Weston shows up in full force and I don't care in a way I think when I'm going to build something for Peter but that would be our request. Two things actually. One, we're fine with staff's recommendation on the 75% feature set aside on the original parcel size. No issue with that whatsoever. As I mentioned we do have a valid purchase and sales agreement and if there's any way you could speed up the approval we could appreciate whatever could be done to move that along and then obviously we'd like to modify the condition to restrict that second curve cut on but not to strictly agricultural use. So Mr. Chairman I'm reading from the minutes from the DRB meeting of October the 8th 2013 through the magic of wireless internet access and it says here in the comments from the Public Works Department the Public Works Department has provided comments in their memo dated August 23rd, 2013 the parcel with frontage on Butternut Road has two driveways serving the existing dwelling. Public Works requests that one of these two drives be closed. So we would come and basically only one curve cut services the dwelling of the second curve cut really just serves the agricultural use. Anything else? No, that's all I have. We're fine with this. Questions for the board? Do they still do the sugaring operation down in the backfield too? Yes. I think that the second curve cut is the primary way that they would access all that. Peace? Nope. Questions from the audience? Ma'am? Nope. Any other questions? No. Thank you very much. We're going to close DP18-03 720. DP18-04 Village Associates has been here for a fact hearing or not. Very good. We're going to go into deliberation for the camera. Thank you. Have a show. That's great. I would access right there. So there's already an approved curve cut. It's like, well, no, that's not an approved curve cut. It's something to, you know, move in the tractor. That's right. This has to be a Don Luffin standard. Well, yeah. That's true. That's quite a lot. In fact, we recall two weeks ago that was part of the issue with the handyman. I think Bruce had looked at what was there in terms of where they were getting in. It's a big exception. So first of all, one of Mr. O'Leary's EITs engineers in training tried to submit this as an administrative request for a boundary line adjustment. And it's like, I don't think it's, you know, we eyeball these all the time. First of all, we hadn't talked to anybody about it. It was a large parcel. It's got to go to theater. So, but they went through this three or four years ago, they would have had a condition that was similar to this. So there should be no, there should have been no surprise that we would have done it. The amount of time that we had. We can't hop on that. Can I have a question? I don't think that we're much slater. Well, as you may recall, the last time he was here for the boundary line adjustment, he had Marx-Perry with him. We will miss you. We usually piss off former applicants so much that they don't want to be screwed out of the theater. I'm taking German on that one. And then the other thing I like is that he served with Thomas Chittman, right? He served with Thomas Chittman, right? Yeah. Are you going to try and do it again together? No. I can't do it at any of the Handys restaurant. No, I can do that. I might have to do it in Patson County. I'm kind of going to have a spender. I'm going to have a spender. I'm going to have a spender. Handys, I want everything. I had two. I've approached two people. Little red light. What's that? You want a button? Okay, I was not. No problem. There's a little red light. Perfect. Do I have a motion for DP-15-11 amendment number one? Allenbrook developer. As authorized by WDP 6.6.3, I, Peter Kelly moved the Wilson Development Review Board and we reviewed the application materials submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Unified Development Bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 26, 2017 except the findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval proposed by staff for the review of DP-15-11 amendment number one and approve this discretionary permit for a master sign plan. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for future development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans in which this approval is based. Great, thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Four ayes, no nays. Motion carries. Okay, do I have a motion for DP-18-03 Peterham Allison Judge as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 I John Benzunis move the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and development by law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 26, 2017 and the findings effect and conclusions of law proposed by staff for the review of the DP of DP 18-03 and improve this discretionary permit for a boundary line adjustment subject to the conditions listed above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. We're going to amend one condition condition number two which will read the access on butternut drive may remain but must be used only for agricultural purposes. So can we change that or would it make sense to change that to say the western access? There are two access points and as I can see it is an eastern point and a western point so if we said the western access condition of approval number two will read the western access on butternut drive may remain but must be used only for agricultural purposes. Great. Everybody okay with that? Yep. I'll second it. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Four ayes, no nays, motion carries. A couple more. A motion to approve the minutes of September 12, 2017. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of September 12, 2017 as written. Any further discussion? We'll have a second. I'll second. John seconds it. And now for any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Four ayes, no nays, motion carries. The board and the chair would like to thank John Benz and this is service for the past eight years. It's been a pleasure working with you. I think that's good for everybody here. Good luck to future members. Whatever you get yourself into. With that in mind, the chair would like to nominate Pete Kelly as vice chair. Everybody okay with that? Enthusiastically seconded. All in favor? Aye. Four ayes, he gets to vote for himself. No nays, motion carries. He's now the vice chair of the developer and board of Williston, Vermont. Anything else? Minutes. Okay. Anything else? The meeting gets 7.35. Still moving. All in favor? Aye. All in favor? Aye.