 Go ahead. Okay, thank you Scott. Hello everybody, welcome to the Wilson Development Review Board. Today is January 24th, 2023. My name is Pete Kelly. I'm the chair of the DRB. If you are a Zoom participant, please sign in with your name on the participant toolbar. This is a hybrid meeting, taking place in the town hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to February 14th, 2023. Let's start the meeting by taking roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarten. Come here. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Turner. Shut off your mics on your computers, please. Here. Nate Andrews. Here. And the chair and the president. I'm gonna get my bag. We're gonna hold out until the... I like that one. Have a very good one. I feel like I'm gonna send it off the top. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. There's a cycle here or something, right? I should work. Okay. It's been a minute. All right, so we have six members present on the DRB. We have a quorum. We do have one opening, but six does represent a quorum. So at this point, I'll turn it over to you, Andrew, for Zoom instructions, please. Okay. Oh, that's not what I wanted. One moment, please. This is my... You can pull it up quickly. Oh, so welcome to everybody here in person and on Zoom. If you are joining the meeting via Zoom, please take a moment to name yourself so we know who you are. Yeah, for participants joining on Zoom, we have lots of features. The microphone button will turn your microphone on and off. Please keep yourself on mute if it is not your turn to speak. The video button turns the video on or off. Video is optional. Public testimony will be taken verbally. The chat is for technical questions, so direct questions to me or Simon, if you have them. And during public comment, you can use the chat... Oh, sorry, you can use the raise hand button to let us know that you want to speak. We are using screen share tonight, so everyone can see the same documents. We recommend using side-by-side mode. Zoom should default to this, but if you need to change it, you can click the green rectangle at the top of your screen. Then click side-by-side mode. You can optimize this view with side-by-side mode to increase or decrease the screen share size. If you're having bad internet connection, you can try turning off your video, closing other tabs, or using your phone as a speaker. If you have any questions, please use the chat to talk to me. I'll try to help you out. Great, thanks, Andrew. Okay, first up on tonight's agenda is the public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone present here in the room or participating by Zoom to address the board on topics not on tonight's agenda. So if you're here in the room, please raise your hand. If you would like to participate in the public forum, if you're on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand. Nobody on Zoom? Okay, we'll now transition into the public hearing portion. Tonight we've got two items on the agenda, DP 23-12, which is a pre-app for U-Haul Moving and Storage. And we've got DP 23-11, which is a discretionary permit for a limited service eating place as an accessory use at 21 Commerce Street. This is a continued application from January 10th, 2023. If the... So first up is U-Haul Moving and Storage, DP 23-12. If you would please come up to the table. I am going to recuse myself from this hearing. My employer has a business relationship with U-Haul, so there's a conflict of interest and I'm going to turn things over to John Hamilton. Please. Before you go, we should probably say that the Catamount Golf Course, phase two application, has originally scheduled for tonight. The notice went out and it has been rescheduled. It continued to February 14th. Okay, okay. So for those who didn't hear that, there was on the warned agenda, there was the Catamount Golf Club residential development project that was scheduled for tonight. That has been rescheduled for February 14th. And so if you are participating in Zoom, specifically for that application, you will not hear that tonight. Come back for February 14th. If that's the case, you're welcome to stay for the rest of the public hearings, but we will not be talking about the Catamount Housing Project tonight. Okay, Mr. Hemmelgarn. Thank you. So we'll open the hearing on DP 23, days 12, the U-Haul Moving and Storage Pre-App at 7.07. Welcome gentlemen, if you could introduce yourselves, name and address for the record would be great. Cheryl Stark, Doug Gulatt from Trudell Consulting Engineers, 240 South Ridge Road, Williston. Great. Jeff Bain, owner's rep, U-Haul 58 Howard Street, Winchester, New Hampshire. Great, thank you very much. Staff goes first. That's me. So this is a request for pre-application review for U-Haul for a new warehouse building to store you boxes in the Industrial Zoning District West. As you can see there from the aerial image, it adjoins the existing U-Haul facility and actually shares the curb cut. I believe the parcel line runs essentially down that. It also benefits, so the lot one of the road there subdivision, which is immediately to the east of the parcel benefits from an access easement across the front of it. The majority of the parcel is in the IZDW. There's a very small sliver in an adjoining zoning district. So staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony, discuss the application and approve it with the recommendations as drafted. The HAC did review this application on January 3rd and made recommendations. Those are included. The applicant submitted amended plans in response to those comments on January the 17th. In terms of dimensional standards, compliance is anticipated with both the height standard and the setbacks. The applicant was originally proposing that U-boxes would be stored on the front yard parking spaces. Outdoor storage is not permitted in the front yard only in the side and rear, so that would not be acceptable. I understand that the applicant is gonna be speaking to the use of those parking spaces for parking of overflow rental vehicles, particularly during peak times, and I'm sure they'll cover that. In terms of access, connectivity and traffic studies, the lot does have an approved shared curb cut onto Route 2. We do anticipate pedestrian compliance with the safe pedestrian access. As you can see in response to a HAC comment, the applicant actually amended the drawing to provide a safe parking space here and a walkway here, leading on to the loading dock and to the pedestrian and man door. In terms of parking, the applicant is gonna provide some testimony on parking. The DRB does have a lot of flexibility for industrial uses. The starting point is one space per thousand square feet. So we may be able to commit some parking in front of the property. In terms of the safe off-street loading, they are proposing a loading dock to serve the warehouse. The HAC have made a recommendation in terms of way-finding. The applicant consider providing curbing to differentiate the access easement which runs along the frontage here from the sort of apron at the front of their property. That would also be beneficial in terms of sort of providing safe access, avoiding the truck sort of reversing on the access road. And to that end, it's probably advisable to also provide some form of separation to the loading ramp along the shared access road there. We are making a recommendation that the DRB waive the requirement for short-term parking spaces based on there being no public access to the facility. However, there will be a need for one long-term parking space for a member of staff. And the applicant can propose a shared end of trip facility with the main building at discretionary permit stage. The HAC review the proposal. The applicant attended that HAC meeting and made a number of changes. One of those changes was in response to the HAC's comment on a dead wall on the sort of east elevation facing lot one. The need to provide articulation and more materials on that. So they've extended the sort of coloured lyrical design element that is currently was proposed for just the north and west sides of the building around onto the side of the building. The second thing they've made is the parking space and pedestrian path. And then the third thing they changed is to modify the storage to aid wayfinding and avoid the reference to drive-in self-storage and people driving into the loading dock. They set up a self-storage and then lastly they've introduced additional plantings on the Waterstone Road frontage which I'll touch on shortly. The parcel does share several boundaries. To the east is the undeveloped vacant lot one which is in different ownership. That property can't be developed with a heavy industrial use which is not permitted in the GZDW. So staff is recommending a type 3, 23 foot buffer to provide a buffer to the sort of retail service or mixed use residential development that might come forward there. There is also a single family residential property to the south, the steady property. And the outcome will need to provide a buffer, a landscape buffer to that. A sort of a 36 foot type 3 buffer would be appropriate but it should be noted that when the DRB was discussing the lot 3 U-roll building, a different type of buffer was required. It was a type 2 buffer which is dense plantings with a 3 foot and a 6 foot vinyl screen fencing. And I believe from looking at the minutes that the primary reason for that was to do with headlights from operations on that U-haul facility shining into the adjoining property. So I think the DRB should probably discuss the type of buffer that should be provided on the lot to provide the applicant with recommendation. Street trees were approved for the adjoining property at U-haul and the applicant is essentially sought to just replicate those. Street trees are provided a regular 20 foot spacing on the east-west plane with some staggering on the north-south plane. And at the request of the hack, landscaping has also now been provided at the front of the property, low level truck landscaping to echo what's being approved on the existing U-haul and to provide a bit more screening for the building. In terms of signs, the property will require a master sign plan as they're proposing signs larger than 24 square feet. They have quite a large street elevation so we don't anticipate them going over the 8% limit. The signage will need to comply with the chapter 25 on signage design, including illumination. I noted today that the applicant did actually change the image I've got there to delete the reference to lit cabinet signs in the latest amended drawings. So they've already taken care of that one but there is a recommendation that a master sign plan be included at this discretionary permit stage. So that's it. What follows is a recommendation for approval and the recommendations are listed out there for you. Thank you Simon. Simon, I did one clarifying question for you before I turn it over to the applicant. I noticed that in the proposed recommendations there's a note at the very end that the hack notes of plantings that U-haul did not comply with the conditions of approval for DP-20903 can you? Just kind of put that out there as context. I think that was a reference to two things. I think they thought that the spacing should be 15 to 25 varied to create the natural look. By check the conditions of approval for the previous U-haul facility and it did state that they should be at 20 foot spacings. I think the second thing is that some of the landscaping has unfortunately died on the present U-haul facility. So this is a separate conversation we've been having with Jeff which is they are gonna replace that in the next planting season prior to getting their permanent certificate of occupation. Great, all right, well thank you for that clarification. So next I think we'll give you guys an opportunity to, I'd like you to do two things. One, I'd like you to kind of walk us through the site and the plan and whatnot to kind of more, less staff report or more plain English so we can understand the project. We're too much. And then I would ask you then to kind of address any of the questions that have been brought up by staff that you might want to respond to. Certainly. As far as the functionality of what we're proposing, this is a warehouse not to be served by the public. U-haul will use this as an internal storage of their U-box system. So you see some of those boxes on the adjacent site now. There'll be more of that on this site but it'll all be internal. I think there was some confusion early on that we would be storing U-boxes in the front parking spaces. That's not the case. Basically, Jeff, you might comment on the frequency of the tractor trailers coming in. They'll come in the shared curb cut and likely go to the west of the existing curbed island somewhat on to what is lot three and make the counterclockwise circle to again drive up to the past the loading dock and then back in. There's two loading, two spaces for two tractor trailers at that loading dock in which case they will unload and bring the boxes inside. Tractor trailers have a couple options. They can all, instead of doing that, they can always turn sharply to the left or to the right as they come through the main entrance and back in at more of an angle into the loading dock areas. On occasion, there may be trucks that are circling the site. There is a overhead door directly across from the loading docks on the east side. Again, to gain gain access for either to load a truck or unload a truck potentially from that location, but that's secondary to the main loading dock area. Again, it's not for the public, so there's really no main entrance per se for public use. There's just two man doors, one at each east end and west end for the proposed one employee. He's a forklift, he or she is a forklift operator interior to the building. Other than that, the site fairly straightforward. As Simon said, the landscaping we're proposing is matching what is next door. Utilities are straightforward all on the ground. Drainage will utilize great well-drained soils on the site. And that's about it. You have sense for frequency of trucks coming in and out. Frequency of the trucks, it will vary based on seasonality for this, but it's generally now we're talking a truck a day, two trucks every other day, that type of thing. There's certain times a year, there may be three, four trucks in during a day, but it's really more of a seasonality type of thing. So this is not a 24-7 operation? This is not a 24-7, our operation there is seven to five. That's when the trucks can come. The trucking company know these hours, those are the hours operation. So we'll not be doing anything at night. Trucks won't be coming at night, so we don't have to worry about lights, that type of thing. Interior, especially lighting, we've talked about overspilled. Lighting I think was brought up at one point. These are all aux sensors lights, so only when somebody is inside the buildings will lights come on. The lights are only down the center strip of the building on the interior, so there's no lights in the window because we stack boxes on either side of the center aisle. So there's no lights in the windows, and again, they're all on aux sensors and fit hours operation during the day. So light shouldn't be on during the evening, so there shouldn't be much spillage out of there. So can you just let us know what is exactly being stored inside the building here? Are these the storage boxes? Those storage boxes, the U boxes, they're five by seven by eight boxes. Customers goods are in those boxes. We use this as a storage location for those boxes, also as a terminal for transporting the boxes. The boxes will come into the building from UVM. The student will load, we'll put in here, they'll lead the store for the summer or we'll ship it to wherever they want us to ship it to. So people rent these boxes, they fill them up and you pick them up and bring them in here? We pick them up, right. We pick them up or we have a self-moving trailer that they can put them on, but that's dispatched and received over our center location. So the customers are not coming, there's no customers in the building, the customers do not come to the building. So NOAAG basically minimal signage that this is not the public? We're not saying it's not for the public, but we're not saying it is. Right, there's no customer entrance, there's no signage that says for the customer to go to this direction. I think the HAC had a recommendation to put a sign out on the island on lot three that indicated direction for customers to go when they do come into the shared driveway. And we're willing to do that also. That's something we'll have to deal with with administration on how we handle that. So we'll gladly put a sign in with an arrow pointing towards our center. But I think it's pretty clear when you come into that lot where the customers are supposed to go. And when the customers want their belongings that are in these cubes back, do they call you up and you go deliver them somewhere? Yeah, and we deliver it to them. Yeah, we coordinate with them. Well, one other functional question then is I wasn't quite clear about the access across the site to the next lot. And the idea was the HAC suggesting a curb along there or some kind of differentiation? They wanted some differentiation. Curbing was talked about. I don't think we're huge proponents of that for snow removal purposes and such, whether it be striping or some other thing we really haven't thought that through yet. And can you explain kind of what the, exactly what the concern is or what are we trying to accomplish? So as part of the Robeir Subdivision, there's a 25 foot easement that crosses right across the front of this property just to the south of the parking spaces. I guess the HAC's concern is this site may, well, it's not an issue until a lot one gets developed that somehow there would be some confusion as to making sure that lane stays open for people coming and going from lot one. And I think it would be willing to, we could stripe it, put arrows down and put directional signs there. Again, I think we don't probably do that now and then when that property gets developed on whoever purchases that property. Just trying to understand the concerns and the issues because you're gonna be looking at us to make some suggestions and recommendations. Could you explain like on the front of the building where the pavement end, is it butt right up to the building? Is there plans for storage or something in there or why would you pave that area there? You mean this whole area from the front? From there to the building, yes. Really for that truck mobility that has to, you know, the circles around the building, for the most part. Is this outside paved also or is there no room really? The whole building's paved. Yes, yep, it's not as clear as it could be, but yeah, this outside is paved too for full 360 truck access. So maybe Andrew, could you draw a line on the outside edge of the pavement around on this site or Simon, sorry, sorry. It's hard to tell who's moving their hands over there. Got lots of computers. The outside edge of the pavement, I think. I mean, it goes up against the building on all four sides, correct? Correct. Yeah, so I think it would end up. Nope, that's drainage, it's a little bit over. There you go. And you're gonna stop at that 30-foot easement along the back, which is a utility easement. So what do you need 16 parking spaces for if this is not for the public? Right now, we don't, but down the road, we don't know what our business model's gonna be here in five, six, seven years. Right now, we have one employee. Will we need three employees eventually there? Will we need four employees eventually there? We really don't know at this point. I hate to give up the parking, or at least that area, and not being able to have an option down the road to expand. Per zoning ordinance, we're required to have 18 spots. If that is recommended, we drop to one, I think. How will this building be affected by what's going on down at Coffee Cup in Burlington? Oh, there's no effect on it. What? It really doesn't, one doesn't affect the other. Oh really? Okay. Coffee cups is gonna be a freestanding U-Haul Center. You're closing north, you guys are closing the walls. We're not sure on what we're doing on Riverside at this point. We're in the infant stages there. Is there a reason you can't locate these parking spaces to the south of the building and just put the whole thing forward? Because of the easement, we've had to pull the building back to the back of the property. There really isn't any room to put it to the south side. We still need to be able to get a straight truck in around the building. A month old. So, I'm gonna. I'm gonna. And on the East side, we've expanded the, for the recommendation, we're gonna be expanding the buffer zone to 23 feet and not nine. So we're losing that space on the East side also. Jeff, let's back up one second. Back to the parking page. One, two, three, four, five, bottom of five. As no public is accessing the parcel and only one employee is expected to staff the parking at the front of the parcel should be removed. So my reading is we're taking the parking right off, right? That was the recommendation. That's the recommendation. He was based on that area. So, are we, where are we? So I just heard you say you want the parking. The staff is saying no parking. We want it to stay. We want it to stay. You want it to stay. So, okay, all right. Okay, so that was a little confusing. And then if you could put the site plan back up guys, you are asking for impervious surface on this whole entire site. Is that what I'm getting? What, maybe what I can explain that maybe. Right to the edges, front back sides. No, to the side backs. No, no, no, what? That's not what I, so do you want to draw a line? Show me where the pavement is. Well, I'll walk up there. Is it? This is 30 foot easement on the south side, so it's not ridiculous. This property line probably lives here. Yeah. Pass fault is here. Yeah. Stick here. There's a nine foot buffer that's going to change to a 23 foot buffer. So the pavement will be at least 23 feet off. Yep. It'll stop here and then we've got sidewalk, green space landscaping along the front to cheer. So that line will continue there. And while you're up there, what's stopping you from moving the building north and having locating your parking to the south? Well, hold on, let's, let's stay on the, can we stay on the pavement for one second? Yes, let's just do that. We'll get to that. So, it's still not 94. So, hey, Doug, you got one truck coming in a day, maybe two every other day, your words. You're paving the entire plan, pardon the expression. Why? I mean, you designate a truck turning radius and pave that and leave everything else. And then if you need it later on, come back. This is ridiculous. Well, we're going to need to drive around. Why? Around the building. Okay, so drive around. So, eight feet off the building, 12 feet off the building. What do you have? It's swift drive. Does that way have to drive around the building? We have straight trucks also. They're going to be accessing from, there's an overhead door on the east side that we're going to have to access when the straight truck comes in. They'll unload a truck there also on a straight truck with a donkey and bring the box into the building. And that comes in where? On the east side. On the east side, okay. So, in other words, you have a straight truck that could be basically sticking out and blocking the tractor trailer coming to try to drive around. Yes? No. Why not put it, yeah. So, the tractor trailers are going to stay on this side? Yep. So, I'll put something in there. And then Paul, let him talk. Paul, I'd like to see you try and show us where the trucks are going and what were they're taking. So, the tractor trailers are either going to come around here and back in where the option to is they can come in and back in this way. The straight trucks that we have need to get to this back door. Tractor trailers will not be driving around this building. Then why do you need to pay the back of the building so much? Where at the front? To access here, we're open to your recommendations on this one here. So, we do have the easement that kind of restricts us a little bit. And especially down the road, if this lot is developed, we'll probably want to be staying out of the easement. Well, the easement will be paved. That's for sure. Yeah, I don't think that, I don't think anybody's arguing that point. I think my concern is you are simply paving the entire parcel. And I know I may be exaggerating a little bit, but you are putting down an awful lot of pavement for not, for a use that I'm just not seeing. I understand you've got a box truck that needs to get to the east side. You can, so that's fine. I understand that. You have a couple of tractor trailer trucks coming in. I know Doug can figure out a tractor trailer, truck turning radius in an awful lot less pavement than you've got shown there. So to me, that's a major concern. This is something that we spend an awful lot of time on trying not to have impervious surface everywhere where I don't think it's warranted from what I'm seeing. But that's my, I guess, my position at this point. And I guess I'm gonna ask you to go back up and be dense tonight. I don't see how a tractor trailer's gonna come in that driveway, come down, straight down the site and make that hairpin turning come back. And by the way, aren't they driving through the loading dock to get to that position that the truck's showing it right now? Are you talking about this term here? Yeah. Or this term here? We have a tractor radius that we can take to the truck. Take your finger and show me how the truck has been to get to that loading dock off of Willison Road. Oh, it's gonna go way over there. Yes. We have equipment that's parked in here, you can see it. So it's got to actually come out into this area. I thought there was a drive that came all, yeah, right through there. Is there a drive that goes on the side and turns the car all the way to the back? All the way to the back, yeah. Both sides, that's like a two-lane road right there. Right. Right. Not just this way. You're telling me that besides that two-lane road, now you want to basically have the tractor trailer that's looping through your previous construction. But you said you weren't gonna have the tractor trailer driving through that area because you had that area and now you have a full of equipment. You said the tractor trailer would be... We do have term radius is where you're back in this direction. Right. See if we have all that equipment now. You said you told us before, I got pictures of it in my old applications of yours. You said that was where the tractor trailers and the trucks were gonna be coming through. And now it's all full of storage. I didn't think we allowed storage on the side of a property. Anyhow, just interesting. Back to the question I asked, there's a follow-up to that. Are you willing to give up the impervious surface to the north to gain a little in the south and shift that building north? But you're a lot closer to the easement to the south than you are up there. You're saying by shifting this building forward. Right, then you give us some green space in the front because you said you don't really need that there anyway and you can gain a little in the back where you want to be doing most of your work flow. It sounds like... And we're back in the back? Yeah. So a reason that wouldn't work for you? We're gonna have to check on again for the tractor trailers this way, but it might work. What do you think it's? I will tell you that I would like to see this rethought with the minimum given what you're proposing in that it is a true non-public warehouse with no access. I'd like to see you come back with a site plan that eliminates all of the impervious surface that you possibly can without while still taking into account your turning radiuses and the access that you feel you need for a box truck. I'm assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you have some form of internal layout that you need for that side access for your managing of the boxes on the interior. Correct. So I understand that. That's what I would like to see. The loading door on the east, how high is that? Is that gonna be 15 or 20 foot? It's a 14 foot line. And is the floor, is that door at grade? That's at grade, yeah. But the loading dock on the other side is raised. Is that grade? That's at grade. So it'll be at the press grant, that's it. So no, if the forklift operators can be operating outside in the winter. Correct? Possibility, yes. Yes. Is that at grade or is that a raised platform? That's grade. That's grade. Okay, so they'll just slide into the end of the road when they slip on the ice when they're trying to move stuff around. Just wanna make sure that they're not falling off of a dock. No, they're not. Well, I mean, there is a great change. Well, that would be it. No, you're missing what I'm saying is I'm not talking about the fact that if that was a raised dock and they're trying to drive around that little square, it's got ice on it because it's gonna be an outside loading dock. There, I'll be with you. I'll be with you. I think you're falling on one side of the center three. Yeah, I guess you get to fall off into where the truck is. Well, all of our just to let you know on that, our loading docks have ice melt, radiant heat in them, so there won't be an ice issue. We do that for safety for all our employees. Any concrete has radiant heat. Sooner or worse, the ice melts until it hits the non-heated part and that's where it forms. It's ice-slip, right? I'm just saying is that they try to with heated highways, not really. They try to with heated highways and what do they find? They found they had a nice ice-slip right on the breakdown lane. All right, so let's refocus on this proposal. Okay, go on. So any other questions? Any other subject to the Board of Electrogramming? Just in regards to the landscaping, sounded like maybe some from the site next door didn't make it through the winter. And I also heard that we were gonna be duplicating that same landscaping. Is there a plan to change the ones that died? Yeah, at this point we do not have our certificate of compliance for the other lot at this point and we've been in touch with staff on this and come springtime we're gonna address the landscaping. They've got a temporary one. They haven't got a permanent one. Yeah, we're gonna address that at the other lot. We had a vendor that didn't quite follow direction. And one thing on the landscaping to think about maybe is if you could put some planning in front of the building on the north side too. Instead of, if you're looking at the pavement maybe put some planning closer to the building or something because right now it does look like the pavement goes right up to it and you got the dead wall there. And I have to recommend this wall right here under here doing some type of bi-block planning on the building and just the landscaping. They have a total, they didn't see that on that. So that was recommended by the app. If someone's storing in your building in one of these five by seven by eight boxes are they able to go to the building and you guys take it down off the rack and they can access it there? They can't access it on that property. They'd have to access it in that store. Got it. And you would just move it. We'd move it over there. So imagining this is a very successful operation and you don't have enough room, you don't have enough room for all the boxes that people want to put in there. Are you thinking that you might at some point expand this facility or haven't got that far? It is a possibility, expansion. There's still a lot, one is for sale. I mean I say that because I'm thinking what Nate was suggesting which was moving the building further forward because right now if I look at that site, the place, the logical spot to expand this is towards the road where we're saying that you don't really need. Right, I don't think we wouldn't expand on that existing thing. Okay, well that's what I was expecting. Yeah, I don't think there's room to do that. I don't think it would give us room to move trucks around operation wise. It wouldn't work. It wouldn't work. Okay. Well, I'm hearing from the board that we're suggesting that you try to minimize the amount of pavement on the site, increase the amount of green space. Is that accurate, guys? That's absolutely. We'll be obviously discussing this and get you some written recommendations if you need phones, but. Except already made your change. It is. So I guess we can look at this and talk about a couple options here. One, we could continue to hear tonight and have you come back with a second site plan that starts to come back or to respond to those recommendations. Or we can make our recommendations and you can roll your dice at the discretionary permit. I'm glad to do either of those. I'm not sure about the rest of the board here. I think we can make you happy at some point with moving forward with knowing what we've heard. As long as you understand, we have to have 360 degree truck access to the site. We have to, we know eventually there'll be a 25 foot paved road going through the front of it. So that's already kind of a given that that will be paved. But we can certainly look at truck turning and wherever we don't expect trucks to be there, we can try to get some green spaces going. We can look at moving the building to the north. See what that does for us as well. So what's your hall's policy if a trucker shows up early and you see a lot of the park on your property until he's ready, until you're ready to load it? No. No? We have constant contact with the trucking companies on these where we're pretty strict on when they can come and when they can't come. Are there gates that keep them off that site before? No. We're not putting any gates on it. Yeah, well, we'll get there in just a moment here. Thanks. That's okay. Fun. I mean, one other thing we didn't touch on was, I think the, she was on, Mrs. Steady was on the Zoom meeting. We did want to talk about the buffer to the rear. We definitely know we will be beefing up while we're not showing anything now there. So buffer, I'm sure there'll be some recommendations. Would that be similar to what was built previously? Yeah, if that, if that's what the board wants and the studies wants, we'll do whatever the studies want to do back there, I think. If they want to do a type two shrub type of buffer, if they want to burn and continue the fence, I think we'll rely on them. I would recommend that you reach out to them. Yeah, we'll reach out. We have reached out to them in the past. I just wanted to make sure they, they understood as part of this meeting that we'll, we'll be talking to them and trying to mitigate their impacts to their property. Okay. I guess at this point, I'd like to open up the comments from the, from the audience or either in person or online and I see that we've got one hand raised here in the, in the audience. If you want to come forward or stand and give your name and address. My name is Jay Huller. I am the marketing company president. I oversee our operations. I just wanted to give you folks some sharing. We're already doing this work. We're already doing it there. We're already considering 20 acres and we don't allow an idle in our parking lots. Yes, if somebody showed up at 630 quarter seven, how are we gonna kick them off the property? We just, you gotta shut the truck down and you're ready for us to do the same. So we are doing this. We just need a break or something. We found that there were a lot of students and all our families, we still needed a health grade through the college process. We actually got pretty blown up this year. It was crazy. But we felt really good about the product we brought here when it's at the end. It's safer to come. You have quite the unique situation with college kids that have to reach their departments just two weeks and come back and all these homeowners and stuff have to do like some kind of evaluation of a home for the two weeks, maintenance, and then they let them back in for the next semester. So this is just gonna enable us to do that part of the work. Did you get the name and address? It's Jerry Hulette and it's 380 Union Street in West Springfield, Massachusetts. Thank you. Great, thank you. Thank you for your comment. So is there anyone online that would like to make a comment or have a question? Yes, my name is Michelle Steddy. Thank you. I first would like to just preface that with that U-Haul has been a top-notch neighbor. Putting industrial next to residential is very, very difficult and they have been nothing but wonderful. The second thing, I just have a question. Moving the building north, how would that impact the activity in the south part of the building which butts up to our property? That's a fair question. Could you read? So as I understand it, her Michelle's question is that if you move the building north towards Wilson Road, how would that change the activity at the rear of the site on the south side of the building which I think is in closest proximity to her. Right, I don't think it would affect it. If we move it a little bit further, no, I don't think there's really gonna be room. We may ask to have some parking back there possibly. Right, I think that's from what I've heard tonight, that's probably where it would be is there might be, if there was an addition of a couple more employees over time, they would have parking spaces back there. Correct, if we're gonna move that forward, I think we would ask for a few, a little bit of parking behind the building. Does that answer your question? Yes, it does, thank you. Great, well thank you. Anything else? No, that's it, we totally support this project. Great, thank you for that. Anyone else in the audience, anyone else online? No. No, okay. Any other comments from the board? I'm inclined to close this with the recommendations we're gonna make. So we've chatted a little bit more, if you're asking us our preference, I think our preference has come back to another pre-app. So we will continue this hearing and take a quick peek at a new site plan. Great. So looking at staff, when might that happen? The next one is on February 14th. I will say I will not be here that evening. I also will not be here that evening. Okay, turn it just like a nine hundred. And with one recusal, that puts us at three, four numbers. So it can't be then. So it would have to be February the 28th. That would be growth management. That's March 28th. Oh, I'm sorry, so never mind. I take that back. I will be here on the 24th. The February has 28 days, so it's the same dates in February of our new year. I will be here on February 14th. 14th. So we can do it. I will not. Okay. Great, everyone else. Will you be your name? Yes, I think I can do that. It is balance. It's my life. I've got to cancel some reservations, but I can make it happen. See. Tough night. Is that enough time for you to redraw the site plan? Yes. Okay. Okay, so. We are continuing to look forward. So we will continue this hearing until February 14th. Correct. Okay. Thank you. All right, thanks for your input. All right. Thank you, John. Back to you. Pass the baton. Okay. Next up is DP 23-11. Well, gentlemen, if you would state your name and address for the record, please. Bob Lake, 87 Comer Street and Willis. P.O. Boss 9S extension. Okay, Simon, you're up. Okay, this is a discretionary permit application for access reuse in the Industrial Zoning District West. The project was presented to the DRB two weeks ago on January 10th and continued to January 24th to allow the applicant time to address the concerns discussed by the DRB at that meeting. The main site plan changes include reorganization of the parking lot, closure of the Route 2 curb cut and incorporation of a new outdoor seating area. In terms of, I'm just going to focus on what's changed. The, so the new site plan has a grounded path running up the side of the parking lot. The, I guess the outdoor seating area would just need to be adjusted. A final plan is to stay outside of the Route 2 setback. The application does show closure of the Route 2 curb cut. So we've, if the DRB is minded to approve that, we drafted a conclusion of law stating as reasonably proportionate and a corresponding condition. The applicant has attempted to address the DRB's comments on safety through that closure of the curb cut to stop people cutting through. That's allowed reconfiguration of the parking lot to provide a pedestrian path protected by curb stops on one side. And they have also added the notations to the site plan stating the tractor trailers won't be allowed to access property at any times and other deliveries will be only when the sort of accessory retail use has closed. So the DRB should probably discuss whether this address is there concerns. If so, there are conditions that have been drafted. In terms of vehicle parking, this can be set by the DRB. We don't have a limited service eating place in our bylaw and there's no equivalent in the IT parking generation manual. The most comparable is a fast food restaurant, but I think that generates with industrial use sort of 27 to 22 parking range. But I think in staff view, the sort of turnover time for customers is likely to be quicker than your standard fast food restaurant. And the applicant did provide testimony that the staff at Park Elsewhere on their joining parcel. So sort of feel that the DRB can exercise its discretion on industrial uses to set the parking requirement 20 spaces. So the outdoor seating area does meet the requirements being limited to 500 square feet. And we can deal with the physical barrier under final plans. In terms of landscaping, there is no buffer to the Southern property line with number 87. Landscaping doesn't generally tend to farewell between industrial sites. So we're not recommending correction of that non-conformity at this stage. And then the applicant has introduced two street trees in the area of the closed curb cut to try and bring the property back into conformity with our bylaw chapter on street trees. Staff do feel that there's probably room to put an additional street tree closer to your commerce tree at the 40 foot spacing without interfering with vision triangles or utilities. But the condition has been drafted such that if it does raise objection for tree trends, they don't need to do it. So that's just a very quick update. I turn it over to the Wackton board. Okay, thank you Simon. Okay, so you did a good job delineating the changes Richard in your cover letter. So thank you for that. If you, do you have anything to supplement your cover letter? Well, if we go to the site plan, so I'm just the list, the summary of our visions. It's over on the right of the screen right now. We can zoom in on that. On the right, just a, so what have you asked? If you slide the image to the left to get the summary of revisions list. So it's just to the right. Okay. Off the right hand edge of the screen right now. There we go. So Simon's covered almost all of those. One of the things that wasn't discussed was bicycle parking. And so we've actually added six bicycle parking spaces to the plan. As was mentioned, curb cuts closed. The parking was reconfigured because of the closure of the curb cut. So our parking numbers have increased to that 20. The, we spent quite a bit of time talking about pedestrians could safely navigate through the parking lot to get to the entrance of the limited service eating place. And now the plan shows a pedestrian path that's along the north edge of the parking lot to provide a safe travel route to the main door. I think everything else has been covered. If we, the very last number 10 there relates to, we talked about end of trip facility. There's some discussion whether it's required under the rules but Mr. Lakers said, look, I'm willing to do that required or not. And so the footprint of this space has been bumped up to meet the 30% to accommodate that end of trip facility. So you'll see on this plan, our total square footage is 1,440, which is 30% of the total building and before we were at 1,200 square feet. So we're still at the, or below the 30% allowable for that space. So that orange rectangle that you see within the beige is the, are the limits of the proposed limited service eating place. Also based on discussions and the idea that outdoor seating requires your approval. We said, look, as long as we have your captive attention we'll show you where we might put some outdoor eating space. And what will most likely happen here to accommodate staff's comments that the space can't be within the front setback even though we're proposing to do this on the grass would be just to turn those tables 90 degrees and make this space slightly longer and slightly narrower but still within the 500 square feet. So I think we can easily accommodate staff's comments related to that. I believe that's, that highlights the changes. I would like to zoom in if we could on the loading dock. So the text we've added here is that the loading dock to be used only when the limited service eating place is closed and the tractor trailer units are prohibited at all times. And so I think that addresses the concern about safety within the parking lot and loading or unloading at that dock. So no tractor trailer units will have no stopping or backing within the public roadway system to back into the lot with the tractor trailer and that other vehicles would only be there when it's closed and so could fully maneuver inside the parking lot to gain access to the dock. The conditions as written say that no deliveries will occur during times of business and that tractor trailer units can never come to the parcel. We'd like to clarify that the dock would not be used and no tractor trailer units would come to the dock because there's a possibility and we actually discussed this before tractor trailer units coming through kind of the side or back of the parcel, the south of the parcel at some point in the future and we wouldn't want to limit that but clearly no tractor trailer units in this parking lot are at the dock and the dock use would only be when the limited service seating place was closed. What we don't want to have is if there's a UPS truck that comes to make a normal delivery to the business during the day that they're prohibited from coming into the parking lot to any normal delivery that you'd get say at your home would be prohibited under the way that the conditions are currently written and so we'd like to just focus that it's the dock that we're talking about. That, let me just quickly look at the staff notes. For a moment. All right, so we talked about the outside seating area and that's, I think, very easy to address. The two is closed, talked about the dock. So, and again, we concur with staff that limited service seating place is considered as a fast food restaurant probably is a higher number than reality. The convenience store, so that's at 15 per thousand. The convenience store at four is probably a little low. The reality is probably somewhere in between there. In fact, ITE says for a bread bagel donut store without a drive-through, they predict about eight spaces are needed. So it seems like staff's support of 20 is right on the money in keeping with other standards that the DRB might reference. In terms of bicycle parking, again, we were required to have a space or two. We're gonna provide the six. And again, in the staff notes, you'll see that long-term bicycle spaces total proposed by applicant is zero. It's actually one, there'd be one inside as a part of that end of trip facility. So on the page that shows the parking summary where the compliance at the bottom column says no, that would actually be yes. There'd be at least one space inside within the warehouse area. Just as a follow-up, I think we discussed this at the last hearing, but Public Works had some concerns about the actually number 23 commerce, which is the unaffiliated building use. The meter has been installed, which was the primary concern of Public Works. So that has been taken care of. There was also some discussion about trash and recycling. The intention is that all of that would be inside the building. There would be no outside storage of trash or recycled materials. So I just wanted to touch base with that. There's a condition related to the floor plan requesting that a full set of floor plans be provided. We had a little discussion, whether that was necessary since we're showing the perimeter of the limiting area that gives us our 30% coverage. And because of the dock and the zone and access to the warehouse, it's pretty much limited to that space. So we'd like to revisit whether we really need to have. What number is that, Richard? So I'm now looking at accessory and temporary. Number 28. Yeah, yeah, it's chapter 17. So this would be 17, I don't have a page number here, but. I was actually referring to the proposed conditions. Okay, so in the staff notes, it's listed as condition 27. And I believe the intent there was actually condition 28. So if we look at condition 28. Yeah, that's accessory use. So that's a floor plan demonstrating the floor area eating places not exceed 30%. And as we discussed last time, we're showing that's where it is and it won't be any bigger than that. And so there's the 30%. So we'd like to have a discussion about that if we might. And again, that's condition 28. With regard to the site plan, if we could zoom out just. So, excuse me. So just so I understand. Number 28, your concern is about, is about the requirement to provide a floor plan? Yes, yes. And so, I mean, to me, that's an architectural drawing that shows a lot of detail. When really the regulatory requirement here is, are we more than 30% or less than 30% or equal to 30% of the entire building size seems to be the test in the rules versus where's your door, where's your window, where's. So if we do a floor plan, that's an architectural plan with a lot of detail to prove out the 30% and we're committing that it will not be outside of those limits, dimensional limits shown on the plans. So, if I may derail you a smidge here. So Simon, where in the bylaws can you provide any support for providing a floor plan? So, I think chapter 17 sort of does require everything to be contained within that defined area. So the 2000 square feet or 30%. There's no, we do have it delineated on the plan, but it would be helpful to, I think it's quite to show that you do comply with that final plan stage. And also in terms of one of the things we do when we're administering administrative permits, is anyone changing the internal layout of a property at all is required to provide a floor plan to show the changes to secure the administrative permit. But that's not necessarily a blueprint. That's just simply. No, it's not an, we're not asking for an architectural layout. It's something that shows, where's the plan. And that's very helpful that, yeah. So hold on, he didn't finish the sentence. So continue with your. So I think shows that the things listed in WDP 17 and any new sort of walls or anything like that, any changes to the internal layout that are required. I know that I'm gonna do an end of trip facility. So presumably that involves walls. And that's something that we do require from everyone building the very large developments to someone putting a bedroom in the basement. Oh, okay. And Richard, go ahead. Yeah, so that's very helpful that it doesn't have to be a full blown architectural plan schematic that shows generally walls, doors. So something with either two scale or with the dimensions marked on it. Okay. Showing the layout. All right. So that's, it's not, it's not like a full set of, you know, architecturally, architect generated. All right, because those architects would be very expensive. The word is over price. So it was an engineer. Those two. So noted. So that's, that's fine. Okay. And so that eases our thoughts with regard to that requirement. All right. So we talked about water. We talked about trash. We talked about, again, if we could go back to the site plan, and this is just really a clarification. So you can see if we could just zoom in kind of on the four street trees and then the two new proposed area. That's great. Thank you. So the light green, two are the ones we're proposing. Those fall within the limits of the proposed or generally within the limits of the proposed curb cut that we're closing. And so the requirement or the suggestion that a third tree get planted is fine. And we're just assuming that it would be in that line along the face of parking is, is where you're looking to have it to comply with the offset from sewer and utilities and still keep us outside of the site triangles. So is that? Yep. That's exactly right. Okay. Perfect. I'm very happy to do that. I would just suggest that then on condition seven, that an additional street tree beyond the two shown on the plans be provided. Otherwise, we end up with one instead of three as that condition is written. Okay. Yep. Okay. That confused me when I read when I did a pre-read of this. So it's, we're all clear in the future. And then condition 23. How about we reword it? No commercial deliveries utilizing the loading dock to number 21, Thomas Street shall take place during women in service. Does that make sense? Yeah, that's fine. So. So UPS can deliver, they just can't show up and say we want to deliver up. So what I would like staff to do, I was going to do this slightly different order, but let's just do it now is just pull up 23. Yep. And we'll amend it right now and in real time because what the applicant has suggested makes sense. It's human people can't read that so we'll zoom in. Paul suggested the word commercial in front of deliveries, which I thought. The first reading makes sense. And again, we're talking about the loading dock and the reason we focus on the dock is because if something's at the dock, there's the potential for it parking at the dock and staying at the dock, whereas UPS, FedEx, US Postal are going to pull in deliver and leave. And so that's why we just focused that the deliveries to the loading dock and that seemed to isolate that because UPS won't be at the dock or FedEx won't be at the dock. So that's why that's. Yep, makes sense. Are you good with what's been amended there? Yeah, that's the. The RV members, you have an agreement? Yeah, the only thing I would suggest is that no tractor trailer deliveries to the number 21 commerce street loading dock. Yes. Are allowed at any time. So again, loading dock. So if we want to pull a tractor trailer up around the back, we can do that. Otherwise that would prevent us from doing it. So. Yep, great. I agree. Okay. And then the very last is 26, as long as we're right there. Final plans show an easement construction maintenance repair of a sidewalk to route two. And I think that should be a long route two. Okay. Is that correct, Mike? Mr. Miles? Actually, I would, I think it would go two ways there. I'd like to see it go two ways anyways. One would be a long route two. And then either you provide a graveled walkway to that sidewalk to some location along your property. I think that's what they want. That way, because bicyclists coming in on a sidewalk or something, we'll have to go down Commerce Avenue and come into your yard or go across your yard every place. And eventually there were a path there. So you might as well put one in. So right now, 26 relates to the future sidewalk that the town of Williston may install on that side of the road. So your installation only occurs after that Williston installs that sidewalk? That was certainly, yeah. What I didn't want to have is us having a sidewalk to the edge of the road for a mid-block crossing, which right now I could see. So yeah, that's fine. Yeah, if the sidewalk gets built. So you're going to have an extension of the sidewalk to Williston Road, as opposed to Commerce Street? Yes, yes. If it's. So when the town of Williston constructs the sidewalk along route two, the project would then have a sidewalk that would go pretty much directly from the entrance door, end of the ramp, directly out to that sidewalk to allow access to the building. That's where I want to go. So I think we add the word future in front of sidewalk? Yes, yeah, yeah. And I'm understanding it to actually that the word two would be corrected, unless I'm not understanding that. Two is fine, although two wouldn't require an easement for construction maintenance because that walk would be private from the. As long as it goes. So 26 is to accommodate Williston, the way I understand this, under the rules, that 26 is to accommodate, to ensure that when you go to build that walk, there's enough elbow room. And as we talked about before, there's 15 feet from the edge of the bicycle lane, the current edge of pavement. There's 15 feet to the right of way, and the grades there are extremely flat. So right now, there's more than enough elbow room to build a sidewalk. You've got multiuse path on the other side, and actually even multiuse path within that zone. So there's plenty of elbow room to build a walk in the future. So and the rules require us to demonstrate that there's sufficient space for you to do that as a part of your future plan. And as I say, there's provide testimony this evening that there's 15 feet, and there's more than enough space for a normal sidewalk to be built within your right of way. So you're just suggesting we change the word too to a long? It actually is a long. It should be a long. Now I understand. Thank you. So and I'm sure when the sidewalk gets built, whether it's Mr. Lake or the future proprietors, whatever's happening there would, I mean, it only makes sense that they would want to build a connection to that that walk. So I don't think it's a requirement. It's going to be built as soon as the sidewalk gets installed there and got it. Scott, you had suggested adding the word future in front of sidewalks. Yes. I agree with that as well for construction maintenance and repair of a future sidewalk along route two. And what we can do is add a note on the final plan that just says that if construction easement is necessary during the time of construction that one will be provided. I don't imagine it's even needed, but that would be the only thing that might come up in the future as a construction easement. OK. And with that, I think that completes our comments. OK, great. Board members, questions? Yes. John? The outdoor seating area, just so I understand. It's a nice green rectangle on this plan. But what I think I heard during the presentation here is that that's just a couple of picnic tables on the existing lawn. Correct. So there's no enclosure around that? Well, under the regulations, it has to be delineated by some barrier. So whether that's split rail fence or some bollards or something to demarcate where the limits of those are. Or a couple of bushes. Or something so that our 500 square feet doesn't grow to 600 or 1,000 or 2,000 square feet. So I imagine. And final plans, you'll indicate the proper setbacks and how it's the demarcation strategy. Yes, what will happen is those two picnic tables will turn 90 degrees. That green space will become narrower and longer. And we'll have a detail of what Mr. Blake would like to have. Yeah, no landscaping. Explore rail fence. Oh, fence. People sit on it, too. I don't design, but no landscaping. Landscaping dies. Yeah, exactly. The other question, or I'll start with a comment. I know I was one of the people saying last time that we're really, you know, safety is paramount here. And I appreciate the pedestrian walk we put in. I think that's a good element, the strategy. The one, I'm still wondering, that's good for the people who park nose into that lot, or into that path and get out of their car and go up and go in there. I'm wondering about the bicycles still. And I'm looking at where the bicycles are parked on this site. And I'm just trying to imagine my 10-year-old, who's going down with two other 10-year-olds to get ice cream. And they're just zipping in there on their bikes. And they're going to just go right through the parking lot. If that sidewalk went out to the street where they could drive in, because they're going to be in the road with their bikes, there's no doubt about that. And if the parking of the bicycles was accessible from that pedestrian walk, it seems like that would be a lot safer. Unfortunately, bicycle parking is parking. And if we go, and the pedestrian path right now is actually within that limit zone where parking can't exist. So anything to the north of that would then put the bicycle parking in an area where parking isn't allowed. So that's why the bicycle parking ended up on the south side of the parking lot, because that's in a zone where parking is allowed under the rules. Parking is not allowed within 35 feet of the right-of-way. So you're saying it's more than 35 feet from the top? Yeah, and actually, I think if we go back to the staff notes, I think one of those first images in the staff notes shows that 35 foot demarcation. There you go. That 35 is the red line that we're keeping in. I'm just wondering, there's the whole area there for the handicapped parking. And we'll just let that down. We'll only take one parking spot. We'll move over to the other side. I'm designing. I'm just trying to think that if the bicycle parking where are accessible from that gravel walk, the 10-year-olds that are the most likely to not be paying attention to a car backing out of a parking spot. So I expect, if I'm a bicyclist, actually, what I'm going to do is I'm going to come down commerce. And I'm going to enter into the parking lot of bearing specialties. And that parking lot is not a double-stack parking lot. It's only head in to the building. So the travel aisle for that parking lot is what's up against the bollards. And if I'm going to ride in, my strategy is going to be to ride in to that parking lot and come into those parking spaces from behind. Because there's much less activity. That's a paved surface next door. I can roll right in and get right to those racks and then walk across versus riding down the middle of the parking lot. Or the right across the lawn. Suppose it depends on which direction they're coming from, doesn't it? Tell you the shortest distance. Yeah. They will walk around as soon as they can. So the DRB does have flexibility to lose one of those parking spaces to move the bike parking where you suggested, John. I think you're right. People are going to be coming from the one side. We'll talk about that. We'll talk about it. It's really great, clearly. Did I have any other questions? I think those were the. So I guess I'm going to reiterate something you wrote up last night, Pete, which is, so if the trucks do show up and they do deliver, then what? You mean the tractor trailer? Or any other truck that decides to deliver two cups during the time that the ice cream shop's open? We'll change the delivery address to 87 and not 21. I'm just trying to keep these guys from leaving these up. They won't take delivery. But I think for the most part, when we put the change the address from 21 to 87, that's where the TT units will go. And again, it's very limited a couple of months. Yeah, besides the tractor trailers, all the other trucks you control. We control. Yeah. Otherwise, I think adding that tree is a great idea. It provides a little extra screening, more soft surfaces along Wilson Road. It's all improvement. So I appreciate your efforts here from our repair specialist, Austin. DRB members, other questions? I've got one question. So this is a question that has no bearing on our hearing tonight, and it's non-binding. So you've got a big gray long building sitting on piers out there that kind of looks like hell. You've got a great opportunity to do something with that, like paint all kinds of palm trees on it. Do you have any plans for gussying it up? Yes. Without making it look like a sign? Yes. Perfect. Good. I encourage it. We've had little volunteers to do murals. I'm assuming it's your wife in the background? No. She was snickering. Are you good, Scott? No, I'm done. OK. Let me just clarify. Ma'am, do you have a public comment? Can you turn 26? No. No? No. OK. OK. On last night. So the one last comment we had was it didn't look like Future got added to that 26. I think it was stuck behind a graphics of the people. But pull that back up again, if you would, please. There it is. There it is. Yeah, it was just hidden. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you for that. OK. Any members from the public participating in Zoom? Have comments? Read again. No raised hands. No raised hands. OK. Any last questions? Any last comments? Just off the record and not finding, what are the limitations on murals on buildings? I would defer that assignment. If it's done by bank, see there's absolutely no limitation. Just call it public art. So take a look at the LL Bean Building. Well, yeah, have a look at the LL Bean Building. Yeah, let's do it. Let's do it. Let's just do it. Looking for a staff. Yeah, do that with staff. So before I close it, which I will do momentarily, I just want to thank you for your responsiveness on this. This is a greatly improved application. And you did a really good job. So thank you. I appreciate the input. OK, so at 8.27, we're going to close DP 23-11. Thank you. Thank you. OK, we're going to go into deliberative session. Boarding in progress. OK, thank you, Scott. Welcome back to the Williston Development Review Board of January 24, 2023. It is 8.45. The DRP is out of deliberative session. Is there a motion for DP 23-11? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, remove the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff, the advisory board required comment on the application by the Williston Development By-law, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of January 10th and 24th, 2023, except the findings of facts and conclusions of law for DP 23-11, and approved discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. The approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval to these plans from staff, and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans in which the approval is based. We are going to change our strike condition 7A and replace with a third state tree shall be provided on routine frontage compliant with WDB chapter 26, unless evidence submitted that E-trans do not support this location. And we're going to strike number 20. 3, and in place with no commercial deliveries the loading dock to number 21 Commerce Street shall take place during a limited service meeting place open hours. No tractor trailer will increase to number 21 Commerce Street. Loading dock are allowed at any time. And we'll strike number 26 and replace with at final plans the applicant shall provide with easement for construction, maintenance, and repair, future sidewalk along route 2 within the rehearsal. Future sidewalk shall include a connection to the gravel path ordering the parking lot. OK, thank you, Dave. Point. Yeah, hold on. Is there a second? I'll second. Hold on. Hold on. Just have a sequence. You'll get your chance. Is there a second? I'll second. John, thank you. Is there any further discussion? Point. It actually should say the current loading dock on the tractor trailer denial, because if they install a secondary loading dock, that statement would technically cover that as well, the way it's currently worded. So should you say that no tractor trailer to the current loading dock? I agree with that. Dave, do you accept that? Friendly amendment? Yes. John, is your second still stand? Yes, it does. OK, condition number 23 is amended. Thank you, Paul. Any other discussion? OK, yay or nay? Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. Nate? Yay. Chair is a yay. Six in favor, none opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of January 10, 2023? I'd like to move that we approve the minutes as proposed with one change, which would be under on page 10, where the third last paragraph, I'd likely read the word not in front of the word safe. It makes it sound like I was saying that the parking lot with the access to Wilson Road was safe, because there's a double negative in there. OK, I'm sorry, what paragraph? Third from the bottom. Third from the bottom. John Hummelgarten reiterated his concern with safety stating that he thinks that neither the access to Wilson Road nor the parking lot with the loading docks is not safe. I think you should say it is safe. You can do that. OK. Exactly the other. Yeah, got it. So that's my motion. OK, so there's a motion with one amendment. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds. Any further discussion? Hearing none, yay or nay on the approval of the minutes. Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. Nate? Yay. Chair's a yay. Six in favor. None opposed. Meeting minutes are approved. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? Paul? Congratulations on your appointment. Thank you. That means something to me. I'll say that should be in our record. It's good. It will be made in that subcommittee's minutes. OK. Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion. Second? Second. Third before. All in favor? Aye. Thank you, everybody.