 Emily, is there any reason or Matt or Melinda that we can't start now? I think it's okay to get going. Bonnie's popping in, we've got Steve, Pete, John. Harvey is present that said they were coming. We've got a full agenda, so I'd like to, I'd like to kick things off, okay? All right, I'm gonna open the meeting at 7.02. I'll welcome all to the town of Williston Development and Review Board for Tuesday, April 13th, 2021. First order of business is to open the meeting with the remote public meeting notice. I, Pete Kelly, as chair of the Williston Development and Review Board, find that this public body is authorized to meet electronically without a physical location due to the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott and Act 92 as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. In accordance with the temporary amendments to the open meeting law, I confirm that, number one, public access is available by video conference and telephone through Zoom. All members of the board and the public can communicate in real time during this meeting through Zoom. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. Number two, the publicly noticed agenda, including Zoom web address and phone number. Agenda materials and Zoom instructions are also provided on the town website. The URL is www.town.williston.vt.us. Click on public records and documents, then agendas and minutes. Number three, the public can alert us of a problem during the meeting. If anyone has a problem with access during the meeting, please use the raised hand feature or chat box on Zoom or call Emily at 802-878-6704 or call me at 802-878-6704. Extension three and leave a message. Number four, continuing the meeting if necessary. If Zoom crashes or the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to the next meeting, which is April 27th, 2021. All votes taken during this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote. We typically do roll call votes on all votes. And if it's not unanimous, then it's required that we do a roll call vote in accordance with the law. Now let's start the meeting now by taking a roll call attendance of DRV members participating in the meeting. First, just indicate if you are present, please. First up, Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarn. Present. Steve Lambrecht. Present. Scott Riley. Present. Dave Turner. Present. And I'm Pete Kelly, I am present as well. So that means we do have a quorum as there are six DRV members present. Next up is Emily who's gonna walk us through or is it Bonnie gonna walk us through some Zoom instructions? I've got it. So welcome everybody to the DRV tonight. I recognize a couple of new faces. Please keep yourself on mute. If you're not speaking to reduce background noise. If you hear an echo when you are speaking, lower your volume. Use the chat box for Zoom technical questions if you're having issues with Zoom that's located on your toolbar. The chat does become part of the public record. Use the raise hand button if you would like to speak and we will call on you when it's your turn to provide testimony during the hearing. If anyone is joining by telephone tonight, so if I'm not seeing anybody, but if you are on telephone press star six to mute or unmute and star nine to raise your hands. Tonight we are gonna use a lot of screen share. You can optimize your screen view by toggling the slider bar between the shared screen and the video gallery. So you can make sure that you're seeing all of the camera faces and the document. You can also toggle between gallery view and speaker view, whatever is your preference. If you are having bad internet connection tonight we recommend turning off your video, closing other tabs or computer or phone apps. You can also use your telephone for speaker microphone by pressing the up arrow next to the microphone symbol, clicking leave computer audio and then it'll prompt you to call a telephone number. Again, shoot me a message in the chat if you're having any Zoom issues tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Emily. Looking at the age of the DRP toggle, I don't know if we're quite on board with that but we'll do our best. First order of business is public forum. This is for anyone on tonight's Zoom call who would like to address the board or anyone else present tonight on issues that are not warned, that are not on the public hearing. So this is for things that are not on the agenda. Is there anyone present who would like to address the board and in this forum on items again, not on tonight's agenda? Hi, this is Kevin Brochure talking. Hi, Kevin. So I just wanted to bring up a letter that Zuzanna and I submitted maybe two months ago to you guys, gals, concerning, Claire, did you get it? Is that a question? That's a question, yeah, yeah. So we felt like- More specific about the contents of the letter, please. Well, it was, we sent it to Matt. Matt, did you forward it to the DRB? I believe I did. But when was the date I'm trying to bring up the meeting? Well, it wasn't at a meeting. It was after the meeting concerning the egress and the skylights, because I think through the process, we haven't felt like there was ever a meeting that felt like there was ever explanations behind some of the decisions that have been made. So- Pete, I'm gonna interject and say that Kevin is on the agenda or later on, and this may be appropriate to be picked up then. It definitely has some cross-pollination to the agenda item tonight, but it is a slightly different topic. But I think what I will do is, if it's acceptable to you, Kevin, is we'll weave that conversation into the agenda item that was warned. And if you could please win or turn, have more specifics about the date of the letter. And Matt, if you could go back and during this meeting, do some research on when that letter was provided to the DRB and what form, if it was, I recall that it was, but I'm certainly not able to come up with the date at this point in time. I found it on the webpage. It was October 13th, 2020. I'll drop the link into the chat below. Yeah, that's fine. I know in the past that it's important to make sure that your voice is heard at the appropriate time and not drop things off in the middle of the agenda. Okay, so is the letter dated October 20th or it was raised at an October 20th meeting? The letter was dated October 2nd. It was raised at the October 13th meeting after the September 22nd DRB meeting. So we'll continue that conversation, Kevin, when you're up later. Anything else from the public that's not currently on the agenda? Okay, nothing, Emily. Okay, so we're gonna go into the agenda items now, the public hearing portion of tonight's agenda. There are four items on the agenda for tonight. First up is DP 11-23.4, that's the Isham Farm. Item number two is DP 09-01.22, Snyder FC Commercial Properties, LLC and Riley Properties, LLC. Requesting a master sign plan amendment. And item number four is Mr. Broshu, appealing an issuance of a certificate of compliance. There is an item on the agenda that has been continued to May 11th. So we're gonna go ahead and move on to the next item. Item number three is DP 09-01.21, that is DP 21-11. Luckett and Farley on behalf of UPS, requesting a discretionary permit to do a building addition on the UPS facility at 454 Harvest Lane, that has been continued to May 11th. So first up on the agenda is DP 11-23.4, and who is here representing the applicant? If you would unmute yourself, please and formally introduce yourself as well as provide your address for the record, please. Mike Isham, 3515 Oak Hill Road, and Helen Weston. Thank you and welcome. Next, who's got this one from staff? Yes, I do. Okay, Emma Lender. This is a request for a discretionary permit review to amend DP 11-23 as follows. Add a parking area for Fall Festival, allow outdoor amplified music during the farmer's market and Fall Festival and allow outdoor performances to be held adjacent to the banquet facility at Isham Family Farm. The properties located at 3515 Oak Hill Road and the Agricultural Rural Residential Zoning District. The property is currently developed as an operational farm with retail sales of farm-enforced products and a historic barn used as a banquet facility. The farm hosts multiple community events that are permitted under Vermont Act 123-143 as accessory on farm businesses. And I will be discussing that during the staff report. The staff is recommending approval of this application with recommended commissions as drafted. In the history, you will note that the development, land use activities on the Isham Farm that have occurred over the last decade have been permitted under DP 11-23 and successive amendments, including establishing an indoor farmer's market in the restored barn and parking for that farmer's market, expanding parking on the west side of Oak Hill Road by the sugar house. The reuse of the historic barn as a banquet facility and modifications to parking and access for the banquet facility. And although these activities are somewhat different from each other, we recommend continuing to permit them under this DP 11-23 and an amendment to that permit just for ease of administration, I guess, both for the applicant and the staff. No advisory boards review the project. And the department of public works had no comments. The fire department commented that the applicants encouraged to review the plan review standard and to meet with the fire department prior to submitting final plans and the police department didn't have any comments. No comment letters were received at the time of the mail out. However, however, we did receive a comment letter from Catherine Hibbert after the mail out and that was provided to DRB members and uploaded to the website along with staff and applicants response to those comments. So the applicant's request pertains to some different uses. Some are allowed under WDB 31, particularly outdoor recreation, some that could be allowed under WDB 31 adaptive reuse of historic barns and approved under DP 11-23. And some uses that are not allowed, not normally allowed under WDB 31, but are allowed as uses accessory to agriculture under Vermont statute 24-4412 regulating accessory on farm businesses. And so I've tried to address these separately in a staff report for clarity. So first of all, the applicants requesting the DRB approve an additional parking area on the property west of Oak Hill Road to accommodate their fall festival. The applicant is also seeking DRB approval for outdoor amplified music during the farmer's market and the fall festival. These events are considered as accessory on farm businesses because they feature agricultural products under Vermont statute. The town cannot prohibit an accessory on farm business, but such activities are subject to site plan review and the DRB can require that such activities meet the same performance standards otherwise adopted in the bylaw for similar commercial uses. Performance standards include such things as parking access, hours of operation and noise levels, for example. The applicant is also proposing to hold environmentally themed performance events called first earth summer series outside and near the banquet facility, which will serve as a backup location in case of rain. The approval for the banquet facility does not currently include permission to hold outdoor events since the summer series doesn't feature agricultural products or practices. It cannot be considered an accessory on farm business. So the DRB will need to determine if and under what conditions outdoor performances associated with the banquet facility could reasonably be allowed. So, and then this section under agricultural rural residential zoning district just explains the different uses and how they can be allowed in this district. So the farmer's market and fall festival are proposed outdoor events that are allowed under Vermont statute as accessory on farm uses. Those uses are subject to site plan review and compliance with the town's development standards. And I've explained that before. Events that take place inside the banquet facility are allowed under WDB 31.12.5. This provision of the bylaw has no requirement to establish hours of operation. However, the conditions of approval for DP 1123.2 did establish such limits. Staff is recommending that the proposed first earth summer series can be allowed as a type of outdoor education, which is allowed in under chapter 31 because the series is environmentally themed. Portions of the proceeds are donated to a Vermont environmental organization. And a portion of the proceeds are contributed to a scholarship fund for environmental education. And each performance will feature a pre-show environmental lecture by a local expert in the field. For dimensional standards in this district, there is a 50 foot setback from Oak Hill Road in the ARZD. The existing barn is approximately 40 feet from the edge of the right of Oak Hill Road. But the barn was constructed prior to the establishment of street setbacks. And staff recommends that it is an existing non-conforming structure. Previously permitted parking areas and the proposed parking area complies with the property setback requirements. Outdoor sales and storage, other than agricultural products are not anticipated for this project. And this discretionary permit application didn't require a pre-application review because it's an amendment to a previously approved final plan. The scope of the hearing is limited to determining whether the proposed amendment complies or fails to comply with the bylaw. For access, no changes are proposed for the existing access to Oak Hill Road or Field Stone Drive. For bicycle and pedestrian access, the narrative describes how the site will accommodate safe pedestrian access. The applicant proposes to rope off the existing gravel parking lot by the sugar house to use as a tractor wagon turnaround area. A 25 foot grass strip will be designated for pedestrian access from the parking area to the festival area. Vendors for the farmer's market are located between the blueberry road, between the blueberry roads. The site plan does not clearly draw and label these different areas. So staff is recommending the DRB included condition that these designated areas be drawn and labeled clearly on the site plan and especially areas for safe pedestrian access be clearly labeled on the final plans and delineated on the ground and a draft condition has been included. So for off street parking and knowing that this is not your typical parking lot, there's not, you know, they're not going to create an asphalt parking lot. Nonetheless, we do need to review it against the standards of chapter 14. So table 14A establishes the number of off street vehicle and bicycle parking spaces that are required for typical land uses and for uses not listed in the table, the required number of off street parking spaces will be determined by the administrator based on similarity proposed use to one or more uses in the table 14A. So staff used theaters, places of assembly as a comparable use and that is used to determine the required number of bicycle parking spaces. The applicant has indicated that they want to have three rows of parking with a total length of 280 feet and with an entrance and exit of 30 feet at each end of the parking lot. So by those calculations, I calculated that approximately 75 spaces could be reasonably accommodated using the dimensional requirements of chapter 14. So there's no accessible parking that's identified. And so the proposed parking area must either sign or identify a drop-off area for accessibility or provide a minimum of three accessible parking spaces. And the accessible spaces must be located as close as possible to the venue and provide safe access to the venue. Staffs recommending a condition to final plans, identify show accessible spaces with appropriate dimensions or identify an ADA drop-off area and draft conditions included for that. For bicycle parking, that has not been identified. Staff recommends a condition that requires a bicycle rack be provided and shown on the final plans and a draft condition is included. So the dimensional standards the proposed parking area is 70 feet wide by 280 feet long. And that is proposed to accommodate three rows of parking and a separate entrance and exit lanes for one-way traffic. That doesn't quite meet the minimum parking space dimensions of a nine foot width of space, 20 foot length of space and 24 feet minimum backup space. So to accommodate three rows of parking the width of the parking area must be at least 84 feet. And I'm calculating that at 280 feet, the back row of parking could accommodate 31 spaces. The front row could accommodate 44 spaces if you included three handicapped accessible spaces for a total of 75 spaces. So staffs recommending DRB included condition the final plans show all the parking spaces clearly delineated as well as showing the entrance and exit ways clearly delineated on the plans. And if three rows of parking are proposed the parking area must be increased to 84 feet wide. And I've included a draft condition. So the applicants requesting approval for amplified music on the farm for the summer farmers market and the fall festival the DRB can condition these events with limits on hours of operation and or noise levels. The applicant is also requesting the DRB to amend the conditions of approval for DP 2311.2 to allow certain events notably the first earth summer series to take place outside the banquet facility. This event will likely involve some sound amplification. And I've included a table just to provide an outline of the timeframe of these different activities and what noise levels are involved with those activities. So the Williston noise control ordinance limits noise as measured at the property line at 65 decibels one for a one hour average and 80 decibels instantaneous maximum between the hours of 70 a.m. to 10 p.m. And for purposes of comparison and average sound levels 60 to 70 decibels would be the equivalent of a normal voice conversation heard from a distance of three to five feet. So while the Williston noise ordinance will govern activities on the site staff is recommending the DRB discuss anticipated noise levels and amplification as well as hours of operation with the applicant and adopt specific conditions related to the hours of outdoor operation as well as noise generating activities such as indoor and outdoor amplified music. The DRB could also decide not to allow amplified sound outside of the banquet facility. So staff has drafted conditions related to hours of operation and with the exception of hours of operation previously permitted for the banquet facility, the specific hours of operation are left blank so the DRB can discuss this with the applicant. No additional outdoor lighting is proposed but the applicant's narrative does discuss the use of spaces on the property that are outside the barn structure. Staff notes that while outdoor lighting associated with events may be temporary in nature, it is still subject to the limitations of WVB 24. This means that any lighting utilized on the site must be must at a minimum be downward facing and fully shielded and that there should be no light trespass allowed off the subject property. Last, the applicant has not proposed any additional signage. If the applicant wishes to have additional signage beyond that approved in the DP 1123 master sign plan they must submit an application to amend the master sign plan. So I have drafted some findings of facts, conclusions of law and conditions of approval for your consideration. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Melinda. Okay, Mike and Helen, you can pass through your operational, proposed operational changes that are prompting this request. I think you're muted right now. Yes, we'd like to do a fall festival for four weeks in the fall on weekends. You know, in the afternoons from one to 4 p.m. You know, what we've been doing for the last several years is wagon rides, corn maze, pumpkin picking, and what we'd like to do is just allow some of the vendors from the farmers market to come up and participate with us and also have some outdoor music for the event. What we do is we just have a section of the metal, you know, we had it roped off to use for parking. We also had the first earth summer series primarily on weekends during June, July, and August. Non-profit. Non, you know, it's non-profit that we're having, like lyric theater, Vermont ballet, Vermont Shakespeare, Vermont stage. Barn opera. Well, barn opera inside the barn, just, you know, raising money for environmental purposes. And we just got approved to be, the first earth series is just approved to be a non-profit organization and we're fiscally sponsored by Tiny Sea Project. So all the money is gonna be going into the fund that Melinda spoke about. And all of the arts programs for the first earth series, there's, it's almost everybody is not using amplification. And there's no extra lighting and all arts programs, we specified that they had to be done by 10 p.m. as per stated, what Melinda spoke about earlier as well. Many of these are also matinees in the afternoon. They're all children, they're children. Direct, you know, a lot of them are very popular with children, I think Vermont ballet and some of the theater. Vermont ballet will have their children's summer dance camp perform and actually the environmental teachers on the day of ballet, Vermont will be the children of the dance camp because the dancers are learning a dance about the environment and they're going to be speaking about what they've learned about by dancing, what they've learned about the environment. Again, with really no amplification, I'm gonna be setting up a sound system for our environmental speakers, such as Ethan Topper, Bill McKibbin will be an environmental speaker. Tina Heath, the wetland ecologist will be speaking at one of our events as well. Feel like we're on the Hollywood squares here. Can I, can I, can I, I can pick anybody for help, right? Yeah. Do you have any other questions for us? Have you read the proposed conditions of approval? I realized that there are a couple of blanks under 17 that the DRB needs to provide input on, but the rest of the conditions of approval, have you read them and do you have any concern about the incorporation of those conditions of approval? No, they're all real easy. We've got plenty of space, we wanna go 84 feet or 124 feet. We've got plenty of room in the metal. And as far as handicap parking, that's real easy. We always just places, you know, label places up next to the, you know, the buildings for handicap, bike racks or easy people ride their bikes. A lot of people in the farmers market rolled their bikes last year. We always gave them a place to park. Are you speaking about the yellow highlighted that what you're asking questions about? No, it was a more global question about all of the conditions that have been proposed. I like to get input from the applicant if they've read the proposed conditions of approval and if they have any concerns about what's being proposed. Okay, yeah. And one of the things that we wanted to really make sure, especially for, well, for all the events, the farmers market fall festival and first earth, we are, Mike and I are not into hiring musically anything that's loud and amplified to the nth degree and the first earth series, I'm more interested in looking at things kind of like the Mozart festival and being more inclusive to things that are multicultural instead of multi rock and roll or something like that. We're not into that sort of thing. So if anybody asks are any concerns about volume level, we're concerned about that as well. We definitely don't wanna go that route. Well, my folks live here on the farm and we're too old for listening to that kind of old music ourselves. I'd rather do arts and theater here than weddings or anything that's going to be loud and more unruly. We like to have control over what's going on. The farmer's market is always done before dark. The contracts for the theater are, everything has to be done by nine. Everyone must be exited to property by 10 p.m. We like to go to bed early ourselves. Okay, members of the DRB, what questions do you have? Hey, Steve Lambert, welcome folks. My question is, what hours are you proposing for your Earth summer series? We have matinees. We have several matinees like Vermont Shakespeare, Vermont Stage and Ballet Vermont will be doing some matinees, which will, I believe they're around two o'clock and they run about an hour and a half. And the evening performances, most of them will be starting at seven and they, seven or seven 30, there's one performance that's starting at seven 30 and they are no longer than two hours maximum. And that one at seven 30, it starts at seven 30 is inside the barn, that's actually barn opera. That one will actually be our loudest one. Opera singers, no amplification, but they are pretty loud. But not to a deafening, not to the decibels we've speaking about anyway. Okay, thank you. Yep, you're welcome. Any other questions from the DRB members? Pete, I guess that's my question for the Isham's and maybe they can just kind of help us out here on the conditions of approval number 18, where we do have a little bit of fill in the blank. I guess I'd like some input from the Isham's so that we don't surprise anybody, ourselves, namely them. So maybe we could go through that. Yeah. Sure, the farmers market in June, July and August because of the summer hours start at five. We ask the vendors show up at four PM, be ready by four 30. So Mike, can I stop you one second? Sure. If we're looking at condition 18, there's three different items on there that the staff is asking the DRB to pencil in. And so the 18A starts off with, and I think I'm guessing you have in front of you, you have the conditions of approval. Do you? It's on the screen too. Yeah, I see it. So there it is, it's on the screen. So maybe we could just walk through those three things where the staff has called out specific areas and we can talk it out. Pete, you want to take care of that? Yep. So thank you, Scott. So number 18A, events held on the site shall not begin prior to X and shall conclude prior to Y. Set up and take down activities may take place outside of these hours, but are not limited as noted below. So when is a reasonable, we need to fill in those blanks. When would you start and when would you end on events held on the site? I realize there's different events and there's different time of year, but pick the earliest and the latest that you would propose. Probably noon for the two o'clock matinees. And the latest would be before 10, you know, as I stated earlier, we hope that all of the shows are done by nine and everyone's exited the property by 10. Okay, so probably the matinees, they would, you know, they would probably start setting up about noon. They start at two, you know, give them a little extra time. Well, 18B is where we take into account set up and take down activities. So what I'm hearing on 18A, which is the window of time in which the events would actually take place is two o'clock to nine o'clock. Is that fair? Correct. Okay. And then B is the set up and take down activities, the window would be noon to 10 o'clock. Correct. Okay. Pete, can I ask a quick question? Absolutely. Mike, you don't envision ever doing any farmers breakfast or anything like that on the, or? Not at the moment, no. Okay. Because you could go down to the 7 AM if you wanted to on your time. Yeah, thank you, Dave. The original, you know, the original application, you know, defined our hours of what, you know, between 7 AM and 10 PM. Okay. You know, and these are well within those hours, our times. You need to set some specific times on Mike to govern this process as we move forwards. And, you know, because this ruling is gonna last for a long time and it needs to apply to anything that comes in the future. So. Okay. But I heard you say that you would be starting events at two and ending them by nine, just like Pete said. And now you're suggesting that you might be doing something earlier than two? No, that's the B. That's just the setup time. They come in and set up. So, per what Pete said, you know, it would be noon to the setup and take down what all happened in between noon and 10 PM. Is that right? Yes. So I'm gonna fill this out to say, setup and take down activity shall not occur between the hours of 10 PM and I guess that'd be 12 o'clock PM. Right. So I think what we can talk about as a DRB or maybe talk about it now is we're just, you bring up a valid point, John, that I was contemplating how to address. And that is, that's the current programming. That supports the current programming and programming changes, it evolves to Dave Turner's point. It may include some type of breakfast at some point. Helen, maybe it's not envisioned today, but it might be in the future. And this is what you are bound to. So let's anticipate and contemplate that things change over time. Yeah, I agree, I agree. I agree with you, Pete, because yes, there may be a time that there will be earlier performances. Who knows? We might have a matinee at noon. Someone might wanna do a matinee next year at noon. Right. And through, for instance, through Ballet Vermont, I'm working with Ballet Vermont for the possibility working with the Vermont Council of the Arts to get a grant for next year for kids to come to the farm to study and do dancing at the farm as a performance and that might be an earlier show, for instance. So thank you for that. I agree with you, I think. And if I'm not mistaken, there's something about a 7 a.m. thing. I gotta reread that. Then she'll not begin prior to seven. Oh, okay, there it is. That would be 17 a. So this is Steve again. I have a question. This might be for staff, but what's the two questions? First one is, is there anything in the bylaws that governs what's allowed from a time standpoint? And the other question is, what are they currently permitted for time-wise? It seems to me that if they're already permitted to operate from 7 a.m. until 10 p.m., then I don't really see the benefit in restricting it further for things they have planned now just because those are the times they haven't planned for if they're already allowed to operate from 7 till 10 p.m. Yeah, so currently the events in the, I'm sorry. Let's let staff answer that, please. Yeah, so currently events in the banquet facility are there are hours of operation that were established previously by the DRB that events not begin prior to 7 a.m. and shall conclude prior to 10 p.m. And then set up and takedown can't occur between, they can't occur after midnight and before 7 a.m. So those are the hours for the banquet facility. Note that, that's inside the banquet facility. So you may want to have more limited hours for outside. But then the noise ordinance itself is not, I think it does establish some decimal limits for similar hours, like I think it's after 10 and before 7. So prior to now there's been no permitting of activity that's been allowed for anything outside the banquet hall. So the farmers market and all of this is brand new. And then the other question is, are there any current bylaws that govern the sort of activity in the hours of operation in terms of when could they operate in accordance with the bylaws? It only says that the DRB can limit the hours of operation. It doesn't give a specific hours of operation. And it just says that the noise ordinance basically governs noise. So it doesn't really regulate hours of operation except to say that the DRB can establish some limits around that. Okay, thank you. So, Pete, can I ask a question? Absolutely. So my concern here or my question is just like we are reticent to tell people what colors to put on their buildings or to paint, whatever. I'm reticent to have the DRB make up hours that you can operate. I would like to react to a specific proposal from the applicant of what they would like to get approved by the DRB for all three of these pieces. Then I feel like I can make a judgment. Yeah, I second that. Well, if that's the case, I would like to propose what Melinda just said with the statements on 17A. Bents held in the site shall not begin prior to 7 a.m. And shall conclude prior to 10 p.m. Set up and take down activities may take place outside of these hours but are limited as noted below. And then basically 17B as well, set up and take down activities shall not occur between the hours of 12 o'clock midnight a.m. and 7 a.m. And then I believe Melinda mentioned that there might be a consideration that the timing for this might be a little bit different in regards to outdoor events. Is that correct, Melinda? Is that what you said? Is that what you were speaking about? Yeah, that's correct. I think the DRB should consider, I guess, more limited hours given that it is outdoors and that the sounds will travel further. So what if we propose then set up, this would be 17B, set up and take down activities shall not occur outdoors between the hours of 10 o'clock p.m. and 7 a.m. Would that work for you, Mike? So 17B would have a B which would be like the indoors and a 17B B which would be the outdoors or something like that. Well, that's what 18 is trying to address. Right. 18 is trying to draw a distinction on our operation for outside activity. And so what we're asking you to do is provide us with your recommendations on how to populate those blanks. And you came back with just mirror the same as the inside banquet facility. So, whoops, sorry. And so I would ask you to reconsider that because then that gives you the right at seven o'clock in the morning to have amplified music. And I'm not necessarily sure that that's the right thing to do. I agree with that. No, I agree. So we're asking you to tell us what you can live with as opposed to telling you what you're bound to. We don't want to do that. We want to hear input from you, but I'm asking you not to just say keep it the same as the banquet facility because it's different. No, I hear what you're saying and I agree with you that. So then how about Mike and I discuss it and then bring it up right next to figure something up now? Well, our shows are gonna be done by 9 p.m. So 9 p.m. would be the latest, anything would go on. And their setup would probably start at noon time about noon to 9 p.m. Okay. Mike, you just mixed 18A and 18B. Okay, yeah. You can't do that to us, come on. So if I can jump in here for a second, just maybe we can kind of distill this down a little bit. When Mike, when you originally started talking to us about this, 18A was two to nine with a setup from 12 to 10. And then Mr. Kelly just suggested that if you're going to have an earlier show, maybe you wanna pull that back a little bit in the morning. So I think the board is probably comfortable with the latter, the later numbers. And what we're asking you at this point is what's the earlier part you might wanna start at with the understanding that we don't really don't think that 7 a.m. is a good time for you to start setup and or loud amplified music. So sometime after that. Noon. Noon. Noon. So it's like 12 to 10 or something. So A is, this isn't exactly aligned with the way it's written, but basically that would be the show times would be between noon and nine o'clock p.m. And then we'll give you a couple of hours to set up. So the setup would be, would start no earlier than 10 o'clock a.m. And you have to be knocked down by 10 o'clock p.m. Is that fair? Yeah, next summer, we might have Vermont Symphony Orchestra play, you know what? One o'clock Sunday afternoon, Sunday afternoon, you know, but that's not even amplified music. It's just horns. Yeah, that's probably louder. But, right, right, yeah. But we're just trying to, we're trying to find the bookends here, Mike. And Mike, I don't want to be rude, but I really don't care about who's performing. It's, we're just trying to provide the start and the end times that you can live with to accommodate your operation. At noon to nine. And then we'll give you two hours to set up. So start at 10 o'clock a.m. or later. And be knocked down by 10 o'clock p.m. Is that good? That's fine. That's fine. That's plenty. Okay. We're confused about the seven o'clock. That's inside the barn. Oh yeah, okay. Yeah, that's inside the barn. Yeah, I got it. I got it now. And then there's, there's 18 C, 18 Charlie, that is talking about amplified music. Horse or voice. Right. Amplified sound, yes, amplified sound. And so what we would like is input from you on what the book in that you can live with for that category, outside amplified music or sound. What's the earliest that you would propose that that would be allowed? And what is the latest that you propose that would be allowed? Noon to 9 p.m. Okay. That makes sense that it aligns with A. It does. And I wanna make sure that as this is written, it appears to me that the 18 C then is, it also goes hand in hand with number 19, that regardless of whether the sound or the voice is amplified, it still has to meet and stay within the limitations of the Wilson noise ordinance. Absolutely. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. I wasn't trying to get snarky there as that I wanted to hear from you. And cause I don't wanna impact your operations, but it needs to be fair to your neighbors. Yeah, we wish to be good neighbors as well. Okay. DRB members. What other questions does anybody have on this application? I have some questions about the parking. Go ahead. Mike, I'm not clear yet exactly how you're planning on parking and getting into the parking spots. I see that there's two rows of parking that are gonna be nose to nose. Does that mean that one car is gonna back in up against the road and then somebody else is gonna pull in and then you'll have an aisle and then you'll have another row of parking further into the field? The first row just drives out straight onto the road. Okay, well then I have some concerns in that how are bicyclists getting here and where are they parking? They're parking right at the sugar house, right on the side of the sugar house. So they have to drive along the lane there? Yes, it's metal right here. They can drive on the side of the lane. I understand my concern would be for cars that are backing out of that space into the lane because they're pulled in, right? And they're nose to nose. So they can't pull away. They have to back out into that lane. Well, they drive in. The first row usually just drives in. Right, but they have to leave again, right? Right, the cars drive in and then they just, they drive straight in and then they drive straight out. That nose to nose. It's not nose to nose. It's not nose to nose. It's no, you know, the nose. Well, I'm sorry, Mike, but your application says that they're parked nose to nose. I'm not sure how I would know that they weren't parked nose to nose when you said they were parked nose to nose. Yeah, you're right. But even so, even if it's the way you say, at some point, somebody that's parked along the road is gonna leave. And there's gonna be an empty parking spot there. And the next person is gonna come in and they're gonna pull in right there. Correct. Then they're gonna have to back out. And now you've got bicyclists and pedestrians going up and down the road. Pedestrians are not walking up and down the road. They're entering, they're usually parking and then walking to the West End. All right, well, then let's just talk about bicyclists. How are you providing a safe route for the bicyclists when you've got people backing in and pulling out with kids in the car and pets all over the place and lots of music and activities and people all over? We hire two people for parking. We have two parking attendants at Directive Traffic. Very well. Can I just ask a quick question? Sure. Sure, Mike, John Hemmelgarn is concerned about this and I think that's really important. But wouldn't it be safe to say that people parking on this side of the road, I mean, if you put the bike rack up by the sugar house, if the bikes come in on the access road for the sugar house, that would keep them off the grass. Maybe there's some basic signage that said bike parking this way or maybe you can cover that with your attendance and that way they're not getting confused with the rows of cars. That certainly makes sense that we don't want anybody to get run over inadvertently. Scott, I'm worried about the bicyclists that are actually on the lane and someone's backing out into the lane from behind a couple of minivans or something. Yeah, no, the lane of the grass or the lane of the road? No, the road. Oh, the road. Okay, I guess I, all right, I'm sorry. Well, I don't want to play for this point too, but give me one second, let me just finish. Well, okay, so I guess my comment is why wouldn't everybody come in on your road for your sugar house and then drive down the grass and then exit back out the lane and back out the road from the sugar house to get back onto the main road. And maybe there's tape put up along the road to keep people from driving from the road directly into a parking place. That way you control who's entering the parking and you control who's leaving the parking and no bicyclist gets run over by somebody backing directly onto a busy road. I'm not a parking engineer, but that makes sense to me. Our parking engineer's not here tonight. So maybe we should have two rolls nose to nose. We should just have one roll there and then one roll in the back. And if we need a third roll, we put a third roll, we go back 125 feet from the road. I mean, you're parking on a meadow. To a certain extent, you've got the ability to, you know, to move your parking around. And if you can contain the ingress and egress and flag it or tape it along the road so people don't pull in and pull out willy nilly, this may make a whole lot more sense. Yeah, I agree with you. What we did last year is we just put fence post up and put, you know, horse tape and caution tape from fence post to fence post to identify a parking area. We just wanted to identify a parking area so we could control where people were parking. Yeah, we could do that, that'd be easy. That's a good idea, I never thought of that. The DRB can consider this when we go into deliberations. I think that John, I wanna thank you for raising this issue. This is pretty important. I don't want traffic directly on that road going from a parking space. That's a bad idea. You'll have people cutting across lengthy spots to pull out wherever they can and they won't be using the access points. Then inevitably you're gonna have people who are appointed in, they're gonna have to back out. Perhaps in the dark, there's cars that are exceeding the speed limit in that area. I just see a host of safety concerns. The bike issue is just one of the safety concerns. Well, Pete, this is only for the fall festival. This is only one to four PM. This is just Saturday and Sunday for four weeks, maybe five weeks. This is only one to four PM. This isn't during dark or dusk or anything. This is just, this is for pumpkin sales when we sell pumpkins. And then thank you for that clarification. I think if we still can regulate the ingress and egress from the road for your sugar house, that would be great. Right, that's when the most bicyclists and pedestrians will be there. They won't be coming in the dark. Right. And the other thing too is, Mike, is keep in mind that what we decide here is not tied to an event. It's tied to the global parameters of these conditions. Okay, yeah, you're right. Okay, and so maybe there's not an intent to do that during non-daylight hours right now, but things could change. We're trying to contemplate that. So, I'm sorry, Pete, I have another question. Go ahead. So we're allowed to dictate or look at hours of operation. What about days of operation? Or is this approval going to be that allow you to do this any day of the week, seven days a week? Is that what you're asking for? Are you asking for just weekends? Just weekends is what we've done it on. Okay, so Saturday and Sundays? Correct. And holidays? Yeah, good question, like 4th of July or something. Right. Yeah, that's not in the present plans, no, it's just during pumpkin season that's the only time we've done it. Well, it's not only this, but also the first, what is it called, the first fall series or the first earth summer series? That's on the other side of the road, that's on the east side of the road. I understand that, but are there particular days that you would like to get approval to do that? To do what? I don't understand your question. The first earth series, those are going to take place on a regular basis, so they're going to be always on Friday nights, Saturday nights, Sundays. Almost all of them are on Friday, Saturdays with a couple matinees and one show will be on a Wednesday. The opera inside the barn is on a Wednesday. Right, but the inside the barn is not in question here, is that right, Pete? Correct. So for outdoor events, I'm hearing you request the hours that we just talked about on Friday, Saturday or Sunday. Correct. That sounds compatible with future neighborly relations as well. Do you run a farm stand out of the sugar house to there in the summertime though? Yes, we have pick your own, well, it's pick your own blueberries and raspberries in the summer. Is that part of this application since it's the same zone? No, that's much smaller, it's just, you know, I just want to make sure that we don't, with what we're writing up here, we don't limit your ability to run your farm stand seven days a week if you want to. So that's something you need to consider. That's a good point because we do do Christmas trees. That's primarily, you know, that's Friday after Thanksgiving, and then mostly on weekends, we do a lot of solo Christmas trees. Yeah, we can talk about it in the meeting, but yeah. Yeah, I mean, that's direct agriculture, and I'm guessing that's not contemplated here. Right, right. I think that's the scope of what's being contemplated here. So you're not limited on that. Okay. Well, we do sell Christmas, you know, we do sell Christmas trees and blueberries and pumpkins and. Yep. All right, DRP members, any further questions? All said. I'm all set, Pete. Pete, there is one public comment in the chat from Frank DeVita. Rita, Emily, please. Frank, you should be able to unmute. Can you hear me? Yeah. Yes. Oh, hey, Mike and Kellen. Hi, I'm Frank. It's Frank, your neighbor. Yep. Okay, so I just wanted to speak up from the president of the Fieldstone HOA, the eight lot neighborhood next to you guys, as you know. And we love the goings-ons over there, but the noise levels have been an issue. There's several members that have concerns of the noise level, including myself. Last year, it was sometimes when it was too loud under the evening, and I could hear it inside my house with the windows closed. So I just, I think the reason is, is because the noise comes from the bank behind the barn. There's a hollow in between us, and we're on the bank on the other side, and it just doesn't, it's just not a good recipe. So I was wondering if maybe we could have a trial basis and tweak it as we go along. So you guys end up being happy and the neighbors here are happy as well. Just a suggestion. I don't know if you heard that. No, we did. We did. I'm trying to think how to appraise a return question. I don't want to say anything that's going to, you know, ruin everything for you guys, because you do have a good thing going over here, but I think just behind the barn that, you know, and that DJ was playing music and so forth, it was a bit much. I don't know if we've ever had any other issues other than that, but that's first one. Pete, why don't we take that up in deliberation? Farmer's market. Yeah, we can. I'll just throw this out, and that is that there's a noise ordinance, and that needs to be adhered to. And it sounds to me like that, if you could hear inside your house with the windows closed, that makes me believe that that noise ordinance was not adhered to. It was exceeded the decibel level, but we'll take that up in deliberation. Yeah, it doesn't take much out here. Right. Unfortunately. Okay, Frank, are you satisfied with? Yeah, absolutely. With your comments at this point? Definitely. Okay. Thanks. Thank you for those comments. Sure. Yeah, thank you for the way you presented that. Are there any other public comments in chat or otherwise or other members of the DRB that have any last questions? Mike and Helen, any final words? I know Emily. This is Steve Hackett. Can you, this is Steve Hackett. I'm sure you can hear me. Hi, Steve. Steve, can you please give us your address please for the record? Sure, it's Steve Hackett. I'm at 336 Fieldstone Drive, a neighbor to Frank DeVita and also to the Isham's. And I just wanted to reinforce what Frank had mentioned about our concern about the noise level. And historically during the summers, it is quite loud and it vibrates up the hill here. So I'd like to have some discussion or maybe find ways that we cannot have it quite so loud on a nice evening when we're trying to enjoy a barbecue outside. Okay, thank you, Steve. Any other public comments? DRB members, any last comments, questions? Good. Mike and Helen, any further, any last comments? I'm sorry that the noise was, they were uncomfortable with the noise. Yeah. I know Emily was at some of the farmer's markets and the sound obviously does travel very well. If it's heard to the neighbors, I believe, we have to do a better job at monitoring the sound. We wanted the vendors to be able to speak with the customers. We don't want it so loud that vendors cannot communicate with customers and talk about what they're selling on their products. So we don't want to drive away our customers either. That's important to us. We want the public to come and be able to visit and carry on conversations. Yeah, Mike, it's Frank. I don't think that the conversations were so much of an issue. I think it was mainly the music and the amplification. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But we want people to be able to converse also while they're selling and purchasing products. No, that's fine. Yeah, I understand. Okay. I think we've reached the conclusion on this. I'm going to close DP 11-23.4 at 8-818. Thank you for coming. Welcome. I always wanted to be on the Hollywood squares. Now you have. Now you have. I don't even want to know which character I am. You're on the Willis-Benz. You're in the center of squares, Pete. Hey, there's George Burns. Am I Pat Paulson or what? Paul Lin. Paul Lin. We're all showing our similar age. God, I just dated myself. Yep. Same as me. Okay. Thank you, Mike. You're welcome. Should we leave now? Yes. All right. You're welcome to stay and listen to the rest of this meeting. It's a public hearing. Yeah, go ahead, dinner. You're free to go if you choose. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP09-01.22. Project is Finney Crossing. It's Snyder Commercial Properties, LLC and Riley Properties, LLC. That's a pre-app review for a proposed multi-tenant commercial building and Finney Crossing at the corner of Holland Lane and Williston Road and the Taft Corners Zoning District. Mr. Riley, I assume you are recusing yourself from this one. Yes, sir. I am recusing myself. I do have a financial interest in the project. Okay. Thank you. Who is representing the applicant? I see Chris Snyder, if you would introduce yourself and provide your address for the record, please. Yep. Chris Snyder with Snyder Finney Crossing Commercial Properties in Shelburne, Vermont. And then we also have Andy Rowe and Clary Buckley here to also participate. Okay. Andy, if you would please state your name and address please for the record. Andy Rowe, Lamar Owen Dickinson, 14 Morris Drive Essex. Clary, good evening. If you could please state your name and address for the record, please. You got to unmute yourself. Hey, Pete, sorry about that. No problem. You on my address too? Yeah, please. So my name is Clary Buckley. I'm with Smith Buckley Architects or 431 Pine Street, Burlington, Vermont. Right. Thank you and welcome. Staff goes next. Who has this one from staff? I have this one, Pete. So I'll take you through. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen starting with the staff report and we'll go from there. Just bring this in since it's a little easier to see. All right. This is a pre-application request to construct a multi-tenant commercial building at Finney Crossing along with parking, lighting, pedestrian facilities and other appurtenances. This is at the corner of Holland Lane and Route 2. And the applicant is proposing in addition to the appurtenances for this building end of trip facilities commonly discussed as shower and locker facilities for commuters that would serve this building as well as a few of the tenants over in the other commercial portions of the project that are not currently served by such facilities. So it will serve things for this proposed building as well as existing buildings on the site over at Building J. This is in the Taft Corner Zoning District. The staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate tonight on recommendations and approve those recommendations forward them to the applicant and authorize them to proceed to discretionary permit review. And this is the first time the DRB is discussing this request, Finney Crossing as an overall project has a lengthy approval history. The commercial portion of the project has an approval history related to the construction of Union Bank, the Hilton Home 2 Building, the commercial streets, market street, portions of Holland Lane, et cetera, and Building J, the Healthy Living and H&R Block Building on the site. But this is the first time this building's been discussed. This project did receive review from the historic and architectural advisory committee on April 7th. Their recommendations have been attached to the report and there's a design review. Addendum staff is prepared that I'll go through once I get through the overall report. And a lot of the review of the pre-application proposal really is about the design standards in chapter 41, the Taft Corner Zoning District Chapter as well as 22, the Design Review District Chapter tonight. So we'll spend some time on those. This project was also put out for interdepartmental review in the town and we did receive comments from both the Public Works Department and the Fire Department. Staff is recommending that their memorandums be passed on as recommendations to the applicant as well. DPW's comments were essentially just that discretionary permit plans need to show all utilities and the Fire Department's noted a number of their requirements from their plan review document, particularly noting issues around making sure the location and type of alarm panel is discussed with the applicant prior to discretionary permit plans being submitted. We've had some internal discussions recently with the Fire Department about their desire to continue to participate in development review and make sure that new development in Williston is as standardized as possible when it comes to how they're able to serve it when they do have a call. So that's important for the applicant to work out with them. We did not receive any public comment letters about this project by the time of our mail out on April 8th. And as I said, we are advising the DRB adopt recommendations tonight, move them on to the applicant. There's a broad variety of allowed uses in the Taft Corner Zoning District, including virtually all kinds of retail, as well as restaurant and a number of office service and medical uses. We understand that there would be a retail use in at least part of this building, but that other tenants might not be determined yet. That could have some impact on the amount of required parking and how shared parking shakes out. And at this point, we're just sort of noting that for the applicant to consider as that build out and tenant fill up continues. In terms of some of the requirements in chapter 41, there's no outdoor sales or storage proposed, but that can become an issue when various uses wanna occupy the building. So that's something for the applicant to think about. There are allowances in the bylaws for occasional sidewalk sales and the like, but not sort of permanent outdoor sales areas. So that's just something for folks to think about. And in terms of development pattern in the Taft Corner Zoning District, there are some standards related to architectural elements, including thinking about quote unquote dead walls. These are lengthy pieces of facade wall that don't have a lot of architectural variation or imitation or windows. And there's some discussion of that. We're gonna go over in the report tonight. This project is anticipated to uphold the infamous five of nine criteria as part of its discretionary permit application. Five of nine is shorthand for the required or incentivized design elements in chapter 41. There's a list of different things that can be provided as part of a project. And this project as part of Finney Crossing benefits from the way those are provided throughout the development. But we will go over them and talk about how this project contributes to the five of nine criteria. The Taft Corner Zoning District also contains some statements about Adirondack views to the extent that they exist on the site, how to use them as a feature of the proposed development. And there's just a direct quote from the bylaw here in the staff report that development should find a way to use that natural asset, whether there are urban parks with views to the west, windows from indoor public spaces that face that way or outdoor areas that are created that take advantage of the views in Taft Corners. In terms of vehicle parking with this portion of the development, the applicants proposing the construction of 98 parking spaces. There's some space where additional spaces could be proposed, again, contingent on the uses of the additional commercial spaces in the building. For those folks who are wondering about, why does parking demand change a lot? Just by way of example, a retail store has one amount of parking it generates the same space put to use as a sit-down restaurant can generate an awful lot more parking demand for the same square footage just because of the way people use those spaces differently. In terms of bicycle and as I mentioned, end of trip facilities, those are proposed as part of this exterior racks, bicycle storage for employees of the commercial spaces and shower and change facilities for those who might choose to commute to the site by bike. And the plan is that those facilities would also be accessible to folks working over in some of the building J, healthy living building tendencies who don't have access to those facilities in that building. If anybody's wondering, healthy living has their own but the other tenants don't have them. In terms of the maintenance requirements of the bylaw, there does appear to be a dumpster enclosure in the pre-app site plan sort of at the corner of Holland Lane. And sorry, is that Market Street? Yes, thank you, Andy for nodding the corner of Holland Lane and Market Street. So there is some discussion in the bylaw about how to handle solid waste on commercial sites. The preferred way to screen these kinds of containers is to have them be in the structure they serve. In other words, part of the overall building rather than in a outside enclosure. So we're recommending the applicant consider a way to do that. And there's also some discussion in our bylaw of the need to provide trash receptacles on the exterior of the site as we have sites developing that are walkable and encouraging people to sort of be out and about around them not just from their car to the door and back again. We've been recommending more attention be paid to that requirement for outdoor trash receptacles. We're almost getting to the part about talking about design review. I've just done a quick summary here in the overall site, sorry, staff report discussing a couple of walls in the elevation that are a little bit less activated than some of the others. This would be in the top of the photograph there. I think we have the wall that faces Holland Lane and some of the Williston Road elevation as well. So just as we've watched the Finney Crossing project overall develop particularly building J with Healthy Living noted that there's some spots where the walls are large enough without windows that they start to be a little bit monotonous and the DRB should pay careful attention to how those are broken up by architectural features when we get to discretionary permit. So within this staff report I have a list of recommendations as I've sort of summarized and there's a whole long list here that come out of architectural review under chapter 22. I can take a breath for a second and answer questions if the chair would like or I can just move over to the design review addendum and start working through those. Thanks, Matt. So I think what would be helpful is to hear is have you walk us through the hack comments and kind of I mean, everybody can read what's in print on the screen in front of us now. So what I'm really asking for is more of in Matt's words. Sure, let me go over to the addendum for a second just cause there's a few illustrations there that'll help that. Right. This bullet list is exactly the same as the lettered list in your draft recommendations. And then we can kind of go down through till we get to some of the comments. So a lot of this is about the exterior appearance of the building in sorry, let me zoom into this. In 2231, the statement about respect to the context the hack recommendation was to look at some of the other roof lines that are a little less modern looking in the taff corners area considered design elements that are provided in the area. Maple Tree Place and lot 30, the Panera bread building there's some examples in those sites of buildings that just have a little bit more going on at their roof line and that helps with some compatibility. Similarly, the discussion of form should follow function. We have these taller green elements that are shown on the draft building elevation. And for those to have a function, one of the functions they could have is actually to carry the signage a little higher up on their elevation. In other words, they belong there because they look like they're doing something. So that was a recommendation that the hack provided. Provide enclosure, this one's more about site development. So the idea that the way you lay things out and fit them out with urban park features and benches can provide a sense of enclosure for people who are accessing the building and site on foot. So more information at discretionary permit about what patio materials would be like, how would there be seating planters? Is there the use of retaining or seating walls? Again, just making the exterior of the building more human scale, more inviting to people who are walking to the site or walking by on the bike paths and sidewalks in the area. Then have a comment about our famous use variety of colors and materials, but with restraint. And a couple of things the hack pointed out here, one was to provide some material samples of those facade materials at discretionary permit so the board can actually see what those materials look like. And then the idea was to consider some accent colors, white accent or cornice or crown molding feature. And the hack mentioned the Union Bank building but avoiding the concrete block facade. So if you were to go on Google street view or drive by and look at the Union Bank building, you'd see that there's a little more prominent top to that parapet on the flat roof. Dead walls. So where I mentioned that there's some walls that are relatively uninterrupted by architectural features such as windows or changes in elevation. Consider some features along those walls along Williston Road and Holland Lane to help break those elevations up. Windows work, cornices work, sometimes a pillar that has some reveal off the facade works or a different color. And landscaping can help as well. So I think in looking at building J at right at the corner of Holland Lane and Williston Road, which is essentially the back of house for healthy living. There's a fairly large, fairly uniform wall that faces Williston Road. If you take a drive by, you'll know what I'm talking about. It has one wall pack light mounted kind of in the middle of it. It looks a little lonely up there because it's a pretty small light in the midst of a pretty big wall. So as we're experiencing these things in the field, there's an opportunity to comment and try to impact future projects a little more positively. So that's the comment there about dead walls. We do have a letter of the law definition of dead walls that I believe sets the limit for an unornamented wall at 30 feet in length. Farm color and materials, this is an enlargement of diagram I previewed in the staff report. And again, just looking at these fairly large expanses where you don't have windows, you have two colors, you have this sort of thin top along the roof line and that's a fairly decent distance in both cases. This is Williston Road, I believe down here and then Holland Lane over here. Don't use reflective materials. We didn't see any proposed. We would recommend not proposing any since the by-law says not to. Make entrances more prominent, always using architectural features or changes in how far the elevation stands out to make those entrances really, really highly visible. It's a pretty large building. So to make them prominent from a distance, there may need to be some additional ornamentation around those. Wayfinding should be reinforced by the site plan. What does that mean? It means when you get to the place, you ought to know where to go without having to look at a map or look for a sign that says, hey, the door's over here. So there's a pretty good walking distance along both Holland Lane and Williston Road to access the entrances of these buildings. There is a portion of these buildings that'll be oriented to the parking lot because a lot of people using them will be driving there and parking there. Using landscaping and landscape beds and other elements creatively to help guide people where they need to get to go is important in our design review chapter. Direct relationship between buildings in the street. So this comments strengthen the principal entrances on Williston Road and parking lot side. I would say this is similar to the make entrances, more prominent comment. And so it's a pretty big building. Williston Road's a really big road. Helping people feel like that's a side of the building you can walk in on may take some architectural emphasis there. Depicting service areas as part of the discretionary permit. The general idea with this bylaw statement is people who are accessing the site shouldn't have to walk past a dumpster or back of house sort of service area, a place where there's a pile of pallets or recycling or whatever in order to get to the building. So just making sure that that's shown at the discretionary permit stage. Provide airlocks, principal entrances to buildings must incorporate an airlock. The comment here was to do that on the entrances that face the parking lot. As much as we'd like everybody to access these buildings by walking on the bike path, we know that the doors on the parking lot side are probably going to be swinging more. No reason to not want an airlock on the street side as well, but the emphasis here would be to think carefully about what those principal entrances would be and identify that on the plan. That's really helpful to the staff because we end up in a situation where we're often handling interior fit-ups administratively later on after the building's been constructed and having guidance right there on the discretionary permit that says these are the ones that are airlocked, these ones don't need to be, or if you want to change this, go back to the board, that gives us a lot of guidance. Couple with not really much of a comment here, compatible visual pattern or rhythm, just overall the building ought to work with itself. There's other recommendations about design. We don't think there's going to be a lot of issue with lights built from windows, the site's relatively flat as are the areas around it. Architectural design, roofs, this goes back to what I was talking about before about making sure the design of the building has a defined top to it, that's not just where the building ends and the sky begins, but there's some kind of a feature or some change in the roof line to make it a little less blocky feeling. And that can also be something that's utilized to shield mechanical equipment without it having something on top of the building that really just sort of screams out that the only reason it's there is to surround some mechanical equipment. So if there's an architectural extension of the roof that helps do that, that's really useful. It's the hax that we're considering the context of surrounding developments in tap corners that use pitched roofs, not replicating them. So there's some discussion in this report and some examples of buildings that have sometimes complete, but usually not a full pitched roof, but an element that adds some kind of roof pitch or parapet to the building. And again, we don't want that cloned necessarily here is what the hack is saying, but think about how that works on the building. There are awnings and overhangs proposed that would protect entrances from the weather. We already have some recommendations about roof colors, compatible forms and materials. We're not concerned about the view from above. In this case, there's not really anywhere you can see right down onto this particular site. We're gonna wanna talk about lighting as part of the discretionary permit application, of course, with shielding and meeting the maximum and minimum lighting levels, as well as the other metrics we require lighting to meet. And then just, again, form and function when it comes to signs, and this is particularly sign size and placement. I think the strongest designs we've seen in tap corners are ones where the building has a feature that's clearly there to carry the sign, whether it's a sign band or a location that the sign fits in. So that's the breakdown of all of those. I have a couple of other not-applicables related to more multi-building or multi-tenant sites, residential sites. We've talked about the dead wall recommendation. We've talked about building facades having a beginning, a middle and an end or in this words of the bylaw, a top, a base and a wall in between, preferably sloping roof, clearly defined band for signs. Talk about that. And then again, a number of the five of nine categories here. So we know that the building and certainly the Finney Crossing site provide multiple uses. Finney Crossing has a lodging use as well as residential uses that include affordable dwelling units. There are multiple story buildings that are part of the Finney Crossing project. There are wide sidewalks within the Finney Crossing project that are used for outdoor dining and seating. And there is an urban park proposed as part of Finney Crossing. This is a junction of Holland Lane Market Street next to the hotel. There's also, I'll just note a couple of other smaller urban park elements throughout the project. So we have compliance site-wide on the five of nine criteria and they are allowed to be met site-wide under our bylaw. They don't have to be met by every single building within the site. So that's what I've got. I'll flip back to the recommendations just because then we have a summary of those hack recommendations A through M and just note that the other recommendations we have here there will need to be an updated master sign plan submitted for the project as part of the discretionary permit to handle the size and placement of signs on this building and how they work with the rest of the site. Shared parking studies. So we understand that parking demand for the commercial portions of Finney Crossing will be met across sort of all of the parking at Finney Crossing and any opportunity to build less parking because we have uses with different peak hours of demand should be looked at by the board and considered so that there's not parking that's built unnecessarily. And finally, updated traffic study, just identifying the vehicle trips that will be generated by the new development and added to the overall vehicle trips generated by the Finney Crossing project. Now I'm gonna stop there and Pete, if you want me to leave this up, we can do it or I can end screen share so we can all see each other better. Why don't you end screen share at this point? Okay. So what I'd like to do at this point is to turn it over to Chris and his team. And I think it would be helpful not to dive in initially into some of the points raised by the hack but kind of raise it up to a more global level and walk us through the project. I personally would love to hear from Cleary and hear a little bit more about the design intent and some of the things that are trying to be created. It's pre-app, it's early and we recognize that and realize that there's gonna be an evolution that takes place. We're not naive to that but I'd like you to walk us through the program, the design intent, what you're trying to create for a feel and then once you've done that, then touch upon whatever you wanna touch upon from the hack comments. So I think you've got the floor for a bit here now. Perfect. Thank you very much and I'll appreciate the time of the board and as I've seen many of you before, I do appreciate it and it's always an interesting process and helpful process as we go through the pre-app through the preliminary and final so our discretionary permit application. So I think from generally, and I don't know, Matt, if you can pull up the overall site plan that is as part of this application, I think it's important to sort of get a global look at the Finney-Crossing property and what we have done is over the last two years we've constructed the western portion of the street facade along route two and that's the Healthy Living Building and we are filling that building up and had a design and plan for that, which was great and we've had positive comments about what that looks like and you're gonna find that in the next six months that we do have the entire building is almost leased up other than a small portion of about 2,500 square feet. So there will be an additional Foligno's location coming in on the west end of the building. There's also, Xfinity is gonna be relocating or adding a store to the site adjacent to H&R Block. So we're gonna find that that building is being activated and utilized and filled up and so it's very positive. And then the next piece, the next big piece is this eastern piece to the east corner, eastern side of Holland Lane. And so what we have been working on is developing a couple of plans that have addressed a need of some future tenants and they have different space requirements and so our goal is to sort of mimic a little bit but yet have different aesthetic along the route to corridor. And so you're gonna see that we have parking areas behind the building. We have street frontage along Willeson Road and we have entry points into the different spaces along Willeson Road and they're all connected to the bike path that is already in existence and I have to take a moment and say that I actually saw people walking on the bike path the other day going into healthy living and I was happily surprised about seeing people utilize the bike path and as a connection point and so I think it's important to note that that bike path is there, there will be front entrances there for all the retail spaces as we're proposing and then there's also gonna be on the northern side of the building, the parking lot side, there'll also be entrances along there as well. So when you look at the overall scope, what we're doing is filling in and we sort of break these up into quadrants and this is our southeastern quadrant of Finney Cross and Commercial and we are trying to infill this area and based upon the recent retail activity that we have had and interest in Finney Crossing, we're excited to be presenting this application now and we are very interested about moving forward pretty quickly on this project because of the interest is now not so much down the road and so that is you're gonna find that we're gonna be submitting these relatively quickly application process. The next round of applications depending upon how tonight goes in your comments, we will be working pretty quickly to get there. So that's the general scope is to say, okay, we have this quadrant, we need to fill it in and we wanna fill it in with something that has a, an aesthetic that's relatively similar to what we had created for Building J, the healthy living building, but at the same time have some differences to it and so that's what we're proposing at this location and I guess I'll allow Andy and Cleary to add any other comments you might have, general comments about sort of the overall site plan or building aesthetic. Andy, you wanna go first? I think there's probably less to say about the site layout than there is about the building. Maybe we can circle back to the site layout after the building discussion and see what comments the board members have on that. Perfect. Cleary, how about you? You wanna talk a little bit about the overall aesthetic design and what your thoughts were when developing this? Sure. Well, so we're pretty excited about continuing this development and it's an interesting challenge because the building kind of has two fronts, the route two and then the parking lot. It's interesting that the hack mentioned the Panera Bread project because we kind of have three sections to this building. There's the one closest to Holland and then there are two kind of smaller architecturally defined pieces between that and the bank building and the middle one in some ways is a lot like the Panera Bread. Some of the hack comments were pushing us towards the more traditional forms but when I look at the Panera Bread, I see a very branded contemporary look without a lot of cornice but it's a very strong expression and I think that we're trying to emulate some of that. Another project in the area that we think is very successful was the sort of revitalization of the old Toys R Us to become the REI and so part of this project is trying to pick up on some of that aesthetic. So we've been trying to acknowledge the front that is the southern side of the building with pedestrian-scaled features and materials that signal entrance as well as creating a similar kind of welcoming experience on the north side and I guess I would say that we're not really trying to be traditional with this. We think that there's strength in being contemporary and of our time and there's plenty of context in the area that's successful that is taking a more forward-looking attitude towards design. So I may have to answer any more questions but that's some of my thoughts. And so Pete, I don't know, do you want us to walk through sort of some of the other comments from the hack at this time? Yeah, I would appreciate that, thank you. Yep, okay. So, well, we obviously presented to the hack last week. And so Chris, before, sorry, sorry. Emily, could you put those hack comments up so we could follow along? Sorry, interrupt you, Chris. No worries, I'm used to it, it happens a lot at home. So I think we can start right at the top and maybe if you can scroll up even a little bit higher, Emily, and it just said, I guess one of my questions is, it says the discretionary permit application must address the historic committee recommendations. And I guess that's a question, is it a should or is it a must? It's, the hack is advisory. Yeah. And so there's no mandate to follow the hack recommendations. The DRV has discretion over their recommendations. Yeah, okay. So I think that's a good starting point. And I think this first bullet point, bullet A, context of the building, respect the context. And I would actually say, we're trying to respect the context in that we've already sort of created the modern aesthetic along route two and we're trying to maintain that. And we are willing to consider some different parts and pieces at the cornice or some elevation pieces along the roof. And, but at the same time, when you do that, it becomes too, it can become too traditional looking versus what we've already been designing. Item B, form should follow function, use the taller green elements for signage. We certainly can consider that as we work through some of these items. And so I think that we certainly can work through that as we get into the details. And then providing closures, we are certainly gonna be doing some seating walls along the bike path and some shrubbery along that bike path, along the front section, variety of colors, but with restraint, I think we certainly will provide good material samples that will show that there is some variation within the building, each building pod. And also as we go across to the different buildings. Now, obviously they don't wanna be a lime green on one and a bright red on another. We're gonna work through that and make sure that they are compatible between the different spaces. The next item, item E is avoid dealt walls. We do understand along Holland Lane. And I don't know if Emily or Matt, if you guys could pull off these elevations at the same time, can you share the screen or do we lose one or the other? Why don't we come back to the dead, to the elevations? Okay, okay, so we can certainly work through, we know that we need to work through that, that's an item that we can do and we will address that during the discussion during our next application. So there's the dead walls. And we understand that we need to address those and we certainly will do that. Going into item F, no reflective materials. That's not gonna be an issue. Entrances in architecture, we certainly can, we understand that we're gonna try to highlight some of the entrances along the, both the route two and the northern side. I think we actually do a reasonably good job of this some of the spaces and we just need to improve it along some of the other spaces. And I would say that the hack probably acknowledged that and it really didn't have a whole lot of comments about some of those items other than the one space on the corner. Then we're doing item H considered a raised planters or landscape beds to define entrances and outdoor seating areas. We're certainly going to have some outdoor seating areas and some landscaping and at this pre-app we just have not finalized where, how those are all gonna go and where they're going at this point but it will be something that we will be incorporating. Relationship to the street item I strengthen the principal entrances on Wilson Road and parking lot side again, it's the same entrances we're trying, we will try to address that and I think we can accomplish that. Airlocks, we will have airlocks on the far facing the parking lot side. Pitch truth K is something that I think we would say if you add a pitch truth to this overall building one is gonna be extremely tall and two, it totally changes the aesthetic of the building. So I guess I would push back on this and say, our intention is to have a flat roof and to have some parapet around the flat roof to hide the rooftop mechanical that we're gonna, is gonna be necessary. Item L is considered cornice or moldy and that complements the Union Bank. We will certainly be looking at some different materials as we continue to work on the elevations. And then we do need, item M is provided elevation of the East facade, even though it faces the Union Bank it's gonna be very close to the Union Bank. I think there's only 15 feet between the two buildings. We can certainly work on developing an East elevation for that. So those are, I think the most important component of this is that, I think what Cleary has in Israel have done is they've created a building that is representative of kind of what we have seen with building J and carrying that through over to, we're calling this building E. So I'm excited about that. And I think maybe not everybody at the hack was it, they had some different opinions on that. And I guess we'd like to get your opinions on the direction that the DRB would like us to go. Okay. So I'm gonna start right out by having a conversation about pitched roofs. Might as well, might as well go to the elephant in the room. And I would like to hear from DRB members what their opinion is on the hack recommendation for pitched roofs. Don't be shy. I'll go first. I think that what I would say about that is the same thing I would say about most, if not all of the hacks recommendations. And my question to you would be, do you get the Williston Front porch forum and do you read it? And I ask that question because it seems resoundingly apparent that the bulk of the citizenry that has decided to comment on the future of the development of Taft Corners is overwhelmingly unhappy with the architectural style of Finney Crossing. And it seems to me in particular that building E offers an opportunity to perhaps change the course of that and simultaneously help to conceal those buildings that are behind it. Which is I know not what you probably wanted somebody on the DRB to say, but I think we have an obligation to echo the voice of the people that we hear from as well as public servants, as public servants. So I would encourage you from my perspective to embrace when you mentioned the Panera building, people seem to be pretty happy with the way that building looks. The can't, I can't say the same thing based on what I'm hearing about the other buildings that have been erected in Finney Crossing. Okay, thank you, Steve. Who else from the DRB would like to comment on this? I would, I really would like to hear from each of you, so. My echo is Steve saying too, and along the street frontage, I think the pitch roof would block more of the view in the elevations and stuff from the surrounding area. So I'm with the roof design that they have now in not going up with the pitch roof that will take up that space. So can you say that again, Dave, you are in favor of a pitched roof or? No, no, I am not in favor of the pitch roof because of the extra space in the elevation that it would take up and hide the surrounding elevations from the area, from the buildings and the mountains if you did do the pitch roofs, whereas the flat roofs would maintain less of that. Thank you for that clarification. John Hemmlegarn. Yep. I was just letting some other folks have a say. Do you want to wait? Well, how many more are there? We haven't heard from Paul tonight at all, have we? But that's okay, I can go. You know, I guess the first thing, Chris, that actually good evening, all of you, I know all three of you, I feel like at this point. Chris, you asked about addressing the hat comments. Now, addressing them in my mind is way different than incorporating them without comment. Addressing them means listening to them. It means considering them. It means responding to them. And in my mind, a legitimate response is, we consider that and we don't think that's the right thing for this building because. And I'm certainly willing to consider those things. I think I've probably shown that in the past. So again, I think you can't ignore them. They've been made and they are pieces and you've actually started to address them this evening. And I appreciate that. Speaking about the pitched roofs, I'm always concerned about the DRB or its subcommittees here, micro managing the design of a building. And I recognize, Steve, that there are some, I've heard that there are negative comments out there. Yes, I get front porch forum. No, I do not read it. I find it to be a lot of people talking about things. They don't necessarily know anything about. So it's great if you've lost a cat or something, but otherwise I don't have other things to do. But I think there is some disappointment, perhaps, with some of the buildings in the rest of Finney Crossing. They're very different buildings than this and they are in a very different context. And I don't think that it should have really much bearing on this building. What I do want to see is not only perspective like we've got of this building, especially along Williston Road, but I'd like to see that those images extended to include not only the Union Bank building, which is very close by, but also building J or otherwise known as Healthy Living, because I think that they are really, especially given how close temporarily they are being constructed, they're essentially one construction. As we look down at this development through history, they're really part of the same street scape and they're going to have been built within a year or two of one another. And therefore I think they do speak of the same time and that that is in some ways the most important piece that this design is compatible with. I am not going to say that I don't think a pitch roof could work. I'm sure that Clary, who I know to be a very talented designer, could make that happen. But I don't write off, I don't see that as being the best way forwards in this case. I'm not even sure I would consider what was over at Panera Bread to be pitch roofs, but... So I guess I'm not hot to kind of dictate a pitch roof on this building. Thank you, John. Paul Christensen. I'm not in favor of a pitch roof, primarily because of the complexity we've introduced for all of the heating, air conditioning, infrastructure has to go into this building. When you throw a pitch roof into the whole shooting match. And let me clarify, Pete, if I may. I am not, I did not mean to imply, you did ask about specifically pitch roof. I responded with respect to a great many things. I don't really feel a pitch roof is a way to go either. I'm speaking more about the other design elements that were mentioned by the hack. Okay. Okay. I was trying to address that. I was trying to address the pitched roof topic because I think when I listened to Chris Snyder and I draw on the experience that we've had as a board with all of Finney Crossing and the incorporation that he has made of recommendations in the past recommendations that we've made, he's a team player and he produces a good product. And I heard broad acceptance of everything except for the pitched roof comment. And that's the reason why I'm bringing it up because I have a degree of confidence personally that he'll do the right thing. The buildings are of high building material quality. And I think the healthy living project came out very, very well. So I had identified the pitched roof as being the issue that appears to be the biggest disconnect. And that's the reason why I was raising that. I will share with the group because it would be unfair to not have me weigh in. I think a pitched roof would be a mistake. Early on in this master plan, I distinctly remember Chris talking about a tiered approach from Williston Road working north to gradually increase the height so that you didn't feel like when you're on Williston Road, you were driving next to a wall of building. And I believe that what has been proposed conceptually, I mean, it's early, is consistent with that vision. And I'm in favor of a flat roof. I think a pitched roof would be a mistake because of the visual impact and inconsistency of architectural style. And the healthy, we're calling it the healthy living building. And this building that we're talking about today is really, really needs to be cohesive. They're built in the same timeframe. If you give the liberty of a year or two, which I think in architectural context is the same time. And I think there needs to be some continuity and consistency there. And I think this is accomplishing that. So I'm opposed to a pitched roof. I do not support that. Okay. So with that, I want to open it up to the DRB members to provide comments, questions, et cetera, on any, anything else that has been raised in this staff report. I have one question to Chris. Is this, is the largest building going to have any kind of dedicated delivery to it? One, this isn't the largest building. So building, the largest, the largest of this set of three, the largest. So it actually has no, there's no plan for a loading dock. It is. I was asking by double doors. Okay. So everything. So it's not going to be getting loads of stuff. I mean, it probably will be getting truck loads of stuff, but it's coming in in boxes. Okay. That's I needed. Thank you. Probably by UPS, I guess, or FedEx or however they get their product. Okay. Probably by drone in a couple of years to the flat roof or beta air, air. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Ready to see that flying over. Nevermind. Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, Paul. Yeah, I've got a couple of feet. There's a couple of things I noted as we went through. One, I think Matt's comment about the, the dumpster location at the corner of market and, and Holland Lane is something that you need to look at. I'm not sure that's really what we want as a feature there at that intersection, especially with the park right across the street. I think we ought to be able to find a way to, to kind of make that less of a feature. The other interesting piece that we've got going on here that I saw is I just want to suggest as a potential opportunity is, you know, this building is, is very close to the union bank building. Yes. Right. So there's a little bit of tension between this building and that neighboring building. And rather than just have it be kind of this, gosh, they got kind of close, but, you know, they're, they're the minimum distance between them that we can make is, is there an opportunity to kind of make something of that space so that it's, because we've got some bigger spaces on this site, we've got some open spaces is, is there any opportunity to actually make that a positive feature of this development rather than kind of this, well, I had, I had a colleague that called it sloop space left over on plan, you know, that doesn't do anything. It just kind of sits there because it was what was left at the edge of the paper. So anyway, I just, I just suggest that as a possibility. And I know that it's hard because this is the way we're reviewing this whole development. But, you know, as I heard Pete was reminding us earlier about how the progression from the front to the back here of the site, it, it starts to remind me of, you know, reading the Harry Potter books and wondering how the heck she was ever going to bring everything together in the seventh book that actually connected everything she started in the first six. And at some point, you guys are going to get to the last couple of buildings here and it's going to have to finish about six different progressions that you have going. And, you know, when you get the building after G, it's going to be very interesting to see how you do that. And, and I would just have you start to think about, you know, we're starting now to put things along market street. And, you know, as a start, we're putting a bunch of cars. And that's how we're going to start the market street development here. So I don't know if, you know, how we, how do you treat the edge of that? Those parking lots along market street, but let's think about the fact that, that we're going to have people, there's going to be stores up there. And, you know, what, what is the pedestrian experience as you walk along market street. And then finally, a similar comment about Holland Lane and the sidewalk there, you know, across Holland Lane, there's that nice, you know, I know it's hiding the loading dock and whatnot over there, but it's a wood fence and it's, it's a unique material. It's something that I think is, is a nice treatment as you walk along that sidewalk. It's a more human scale. It's got some tactile value. And it's a lot different than just the, the, the staccato rhythm of parked car bumpers. So I'd like you to think about the, the, how the parking lot relates to that sidewalk along Highland or the, the bike path there along Holland Lane as well. I don't want to tell you how to do that. I just think that these are opportunities that we could really kind of make this a better, better place. I mean, just, just the beginning, you know, comments or conversations that have started on our form base zoning effort in this district. Is really, I think starting to focus on the pedestrian experience. And you know, and you mentioned about people walking along the bike path and going in the front door. I think I just want to think about the pedestrian experiences. We walk along every, every possibility here because what we really want is people wandering through these streets from one store to the next. After they parked in one store, one of these lots, and then kind of move on from, from, from place to place. And if we can do that, I think we'll have a success here. So I'll, I, okay. One last, one last comment on dead walls. Sorry guys. You know, I know that I know what the rules say, and I know that, that those walls that, that were pointed out to you are probably qualified as dead walls. I don't think they're very far from not being dead walls. When you can, when you consider them in the context of the rest of that building elevation, we just need to look at the scale of the, of the pieces and elements on those. And that's, I think going back to where I started, which is I'd really like to see this in the context of all the buildings along. Williston road, because I think we really want to make sure that the scale of the elements is similar and compatible. And other than that, then the colors, the heights, the, where the signs are, I think are, are, are going to fit into place pretty, pretty easily. And I'll shut up Pete because it's getting late. Thank you, John. Anyone else from the DRB? On the buildings facing the front and goes kind of along with what John was saying about the walkability and stuff. One of the things that we might want to think about is making the windows on those buildings in the front, depending on what you have for clients going in bigger windows so people can do walk by shopping and browsing and give them a reason to look in the building and entice them to come in. What else Steve or Paul. Yeah, you know, I just want to. Sort of build a little bit on what John, John said earlier about, you know, you've got a bunch of different architectural styles to the eye going on inside this development. And trying to tie them all together in the seventh book as, as John used as a reference is going to be the challenge. When I look at building E, I see more of the hotel and apartment building behind it than I do the adjacent buildings, B and J. So I would encourage you to try to make those, make it more complimentary to what's adjacent to it than what it at least looks like at this stage. In the architectural drawings. Do I have a couple minutes to respond to a couple of those comments? Yeah, yeah, you do. I just, before you, you do Chris, I just, I just want to say that the, you know, the, the bigger drawings that we received in our packet, and that means nothing to anybody. That's not on the DRB. I apologize for that, but it's the, it's, it's from, it's from clear, it's from SBA, from Cleary's firm. And they're, they're color elevations. And what this building will ultimately look like. I don't think these elevations are really doing it justice. And, and, and I, I just, I just add that because, because it's, you know, it's just, it's kind of the way the graphics work at this early stage. And maybe, maybe you can, maybe Cleary can speak to that for, for a, for a minute before you turn it over to Chris, but I just wanted to, to point that out to the, to the group that it, it's, it's going to look quite different than what you see there. It's, it's hard to know exactly what to say. Cause I haven't seen the, the job that your printer did. But I would say that we're, you know, it is early in the, in the design phase. I, I feel confident that you're right, that the renderings at this point, probably are not doing a great job of representing the materiality and the kind of detail that will go into, to these buildings. And at the next phase, I think we'll be presenting some actual materials that'll give you a better sense of what the different colors represent. And so your points will take and then we'll, we'll try to do better. Chris, the floor is yours. Perfect. So one, I appreciate all your time and comments, positive and negative. So I, I realize that over, I mean, if you think about this neighborhood, we started designing this neighborhood in 2001. So for 20 years, I literally had been working on this neighborhood and seeing the iterations and from there to, to where we are now. And if you go back from, you'll look at what was proposed and approved in 2007 and eight by probably nobody on this board. I don't think anybody's been here, but we've, we have done and carried through, I think reasonably well of this transitional idea of that along route to it's the commercial district, you move into a transitional area, which is where you see the hotel and the apartment buildings. And then you move back into the residential portion, the more residential portion, which is the, you know, town homes and courtyard homes. And we have really tried to do that pretty consistently through the last 12 years since we've been constructing it. So I appreciate the recognition that we are staying focused and, and not trying to go to the newest fad today. It's something that we have held true. And to be honest with you, I think the overall public is extremely happy with it. We have over 586 residents at Finney crossing. And maybe they don't all love where they live, but we have 586 people who are joining their homes there. And people in the hotel and in the, in the commercial areas. So I think that's a good point. And I think that's a good point. I think there are 586 people who are joining their homes there and people in the hotel and in the, in the commercial areas. So I get it. We get complaints. Not everybody loves our designs. It's okay. And, but we do want to create, create some consistency. The length of our property from one end to the other end is something that we can certainly provide and we will be providing at the next application. And I think that that will help address some of the concerns about connectivity and aesthetic along there, but at the same time, they're not the same buildings. And so we really want to show in one of the things that I've heard about lot 30 where Panera bread is, you know, over the years and I sit through many of these DRB meetings and I hear a lot about lot 30 a lot, is there's some change to the store along the section in that people think that that looks reasonably good. I would say we have some of that. We probably need to improve on that and I think some of the ideas that were clearly has developed here are sort of tried to address that, if not perfectly explained at this pre application. I would agree that the trash building location is not ideal. I think we're going to continue to work on where we could potentially put it. It is a challenge. It's kind of funny we talked about two things more than anything else on basically every neighborhood that we in every building that we do it's trash in parking. We talked about buildings we talked about trash in parking. And so we know that that is a challenge for us and we will push us will keep working on it and I'm hearing you say we need to keep working on it. John, I would agree with you the space between Union Bank and the Eastern edge of building E. I would agree we need to create a space there. I'm not I don't want to create a corridor. So I'm not sure what that's going to look like yet but there needs to be a little bit of it and acknowledgement that that we're going to do something that whether it's windows or landscaping or I don't know what it is but we need to we need to address that both for Union Bank. People people coming off the street and also for for our potential future tenants. I think the other pieces and I've actually Matt and I have had this discussion on multiple times is the pedestrian experience is changing in in in task corners right now, and it has been over the last four or five years, and it's being used. I think we're used to see people and Matt and I have had, as I said multiple conversation. There are people using sidewalks bike paths. And so, although it costs a lot of money for us to put those in. It is one of those things that people are using and find that it's a positive piece of the neighborhood so I think we're going to, we can certainly address that and try to acknowledge that through some of the design. And I think the healthy living building like you we all said, one of our concerns and one of your concerns was the loading dock along Holland Lane. Nobody knows about the loading dock along Holland Lane. Nobody even says anything about the loading dock on Holland Lane. And it, that's the best part about that building is nobody says anything about the loading dock on Holland Lane. I think we got pushed and we also wanted to address that and I think we did and so I think it has worked out really well. So I think we'll, we're going to take those comments and I think over the next couple of weeks we're really going to go to work at this. And I think there's opportunities to improve what we've got and in terms of the presentation as well. I think we'll just step it up. We're a pre app. We're going to, we're going to, we're going to really try to show you guys what it's going to come together and I, and I think that the overall project is coming together. And I think you're going to see a couple of other things come in over the next six months. Unfortunately, you're going to see a lot of me, but there are going to be things and they're going to parts and pieces are going to come in here and so we are going to finish off the book. And we're excited about that. It's a, it's been a long time in the making and so I appreciate your comments and challenges that we've heard tonight. Thank you guys. Yep. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Members of the public. Now is your opportunity to address the board. Are there is there anyone out there that would like, like the floor. Can I press the raised hand button on the reaction part of the toolbar or common in the chat. I'm not seeing anybody. Oh, wait, yes, DR has questions. DR, I'm going to unmute you please state your name and address for the record. DR, you need to unmute CR. You're not unmuted. Matt, I see your comment. I don't think this is a phone participant. Can I get this is Donna Rosa. I have two computers going because this one computer dies after about an hour and 40 minutes. Donna, could you please, could you please give us your address please for the record. Yeah, it's 42 wins low line. So, um, quick couple quick questions. This is the first time this building is coming before the board in the original application for Finney crossing. I'm assuming there was always this building plant here. Is that correct please. I'd have to go back and look at the footprints but there were there were building outlines shown along the Williston Road frontage in the original Finney crossing approval and then there were preliminary elevation designs and likenesses that were that were part of the original submission to the board. So the sizing I'm assuming is similar whatever originally was kind of planned for this area this is about the same sizing. Is that fair? Yeah, I would I would say in terms of in terms of building footprint. Yeah, what what's coming up on the screen is as good an example as any actually a little little bit more bulky and sort of connected to what ultimately became, you know, Union Bank closer to Zephyr Road. The idea that there would be buildings up on US to and up on box what's called Boxwood Street on this is now Holland Lane. Yes, that was part of the proposal. The only reason I ask every member attending some meeting that that you were at and you were saying how you were a little disappointed that there was less open area in Finney crossing than had originally been proposed. So I was just trying to get context, you know, just trying to figure out if this was originally supposed to be there sizing and that type of thing. For this area that being proposed height wise, I'm terrible with conceptually visualizing maps. I'm kind of wondering are we talking similar height as healthy living building or are we talking a lot taller or kind of what are we talking about? Chris a few Chris or Larry if you could address that please. Yeah, it's a 20 foot building, approximately the same height is healthy living. We're not talking we're not going to see the height of the REI building or an apartment building it's going to be kind of a one storage one story type of building. Yeah, very similar to healthy living with the parapets on there. Yes. Okay. Is this the last building that will see in Finney crossing and then are we done with it or. This is the last building there are other on the overall site. Building a is still to be proposed, building F and G, and then building H. Okay. And I have to say that it would be nice to see a little character in this building. I, again, everybody's opinion, everybody has different opinions, but I think a lot of the buildings in Finney crossing, the commercial buildings are blah. The hotel I know I had looked at a DRB board meeting minutes. And, you know, it was, it was kind of raving about how the building was constructive criticism is it constructive input was taken and it was going to be a beautiful building I, I don't see a beautiful building. A couple of those apartment buildings are really ugly. That reddish apartment, I think it's an apartment building. There's another bluish one that same design I think, I think there's absolutely no character at all so it would be nice. And I, you know, pitched roof sounds like it's not going to happen and I, but it would like, it would be nice to see a little bit of character, rather than a blah, another blah building. And then I have to say thank you to Steve. It's kind of nice to hear a board member saying that they appreciate and hear residents of the town. It's nice to hear that, whether it comes to fruition that any of our comments happen, but it's kind of nice to hear somebody say, I'm reading, I'm listening, and we, I appreciate it. I appreciate the input from the town. I think that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to address the board. I'm not seeing any raised hands or other comments in the chat. Okay, DRB members. Any additional questions, comments, concerns. Chris and team, do you have any final words? Andy or Cleary doesn't I'm good. Yep, Andy was. He's saying he was good as well. Yeah. So we're going to close. DP 09 dash 01.22 at 940. Thank you for coming. Thank you for this exchange. I think it was very helpful. Thank you. Okay. The next up is DP 09 dash 01.21. This is a master sign plan amendment for Finney crossing. And who is present from the applicant. Chris, you are representing yourself again and probably is Andy on this one. Okay. Oh, there you are. You changed spots and the Hollywood squares. Sorry, Andy. Okay, you two have given your name and address for the record so we don't need to do that. I'll turn it over to staff. Who's got this one. Pete, can I chime in one second? I'm going to recuse myself from this hearing as well. This is also this is also Finney crossing of which I have a financial interest in. Thank you for that clarification. I had already made that leap. But I appreciate you saying that for the record that was appropriate. Thank you, Scott. So staff, who's got this one. I've got this one. I'll go ahead and share my screen and take you through this. So this is a request to amend the existing master sign plan for the commercial portion of Finney crossing in the taff corner zoning district. The applicant is proposing an amendment that would allow for additional when the window signs at building J. This would be in the H&R block tenancy adjacent down down the building from healthy living. The proposal in order to keep Finney crossing commercial under the 8% of street facing facade metric in the master sign plan rules would reduce the number of light pole banners in the project by two to create enough allowable sign area and the overall plan to accommodate those proposed window signs. The staff recommendation for the board is to take testimony and close deliberate and approve this amendment to the master sign plan. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing this amendment request. I have recited in the staff report a history of just the creation and amendments to the commercial portion of the master sign plan for Finney. There are some signs at Finney crossing that just say Finney crossing and there's a separate residential master sign plan that covers those. We did send this out for review received no comment at this time from fire and no public comment at the time of our mail out the proposed amendment as I mentioned would continue to meet the 8% of street facing facade maximum required in the bylaw. And the additional window signs would not exceed 25% coverage of the windows they'll occupy and would not require the adoption of any special findings by the DRB. Little bit of confusion between what's discussed in the applicants narrative and the table. The narrative mentions both proposed window signs at 10 square feet. The table says JS 8 is 12 square feet doesn't appear to have a JN 9. There's a draft condition of approval to just ask the applicant to clarify that at final plans. As long as the math works out and we stay under the 8% staff is okay with approving it with that condition. And this site has a master sign plan because the site does include multiple commercial tenants. And otherwise, we're just talking about window signs although we do have some other signs on the site that have required special findings from the DRB in the past. And there's a calculation provided in the staff report here showing that maximum 8%. The decision in motion for this would be for approval with conditions. The conditions include a table that recites our understanding of all of the approved signs on all of the commercial buildings at Finney crossing. And what we've amended here is we've identified the decrease in square footage allocated to light pole banners. So we're going down to 27 of these 15 square foot light pole banners to create a little space there. And we have the two proposed window signs added to the table here at 12 and 10. And we're at a total of 1631 square feet of signage where I believe 1643 is our calculated maximum. And condition 12 was added just to ask for clarification on the sign table for JS8 and showing JN9 in that table making sure the math adds up. There's a lot of numbers flying around there was some head scratching here in the office trying to make it work. We think it's we think it's feasible but just wanted to call that out. And just for reference, I will show you briefly. The site plan identifying where these signs would go. We're talking about this end of the healthy living building. And on the elevation. We are facing the parking lot. Over here with JN8. We're facing Williston Road. I believe we're over here with JS9 and I'm going to stop there and I'll stop sharing my screen for the moment. Okay. Thank you, Matt. That was a very effective. No, it was that was very good. I appreciate that. So the real the real question is in the interest of time for for Chris is have you read the proposed conditions of approval and and did you have a chance. This is maybe for Andy. Did you review the chart for accuracy and do you have any comments on either of those topics. So the staff report, no comments or changes on the proposed conditions. I did have a typo in the narrative but I think our plan, the elevation, the master sign plan itself, the table and the layout plan are okay. We'll coordinate with staff. I think JN9 should be relabeled as JS9 and then the table would be all set but again, we're good with the way it's written and we'll confirm that with staff. I'll just skip on the DRB's action tonight. Just for reference. We had this in the in the cover letter as well but there's still 27 light pole banners remaining and there's a total of 24 street lights along Holland market and the commercial portion of Zephyr so we've still got enough capacity to put one banner on each street light along those streets or put some in parking lots as well and do every other light pole or some configuration such as that but we're not depleting the amount of light pole banners that would be available to the street lights along the streets and within parking lots. So just to give you that number 27 banners available 24 street lights along those three streets within the commercial portion of the project. Great. Thank you. Okay, board members any questions. I'm going to move back on the table. I don't see anything for the signs labeled Z on both the bank and the hotel. And one other question was on the F sign it shows one on the table and two on the hotel. And I just wondering if that was a miss or if I miss something. I believe those are directory signs, which as long as they comply with the requirements of the bylaw are exempt from the inclusion as far as the area in terms of the master sign plan but again still need to comply with the maximum signage for direction signs as well as some local requirements as well. We've made a point to call those out but have not included them in terms of the area and the master sign plan totals. Yeah, that's that's correct. I'm seeing, you know, like Z on the home to is the building number sign required by the fire department. We would understand as a directory sign not part of master sign plan total. Okay. And what about the F on two locations on the hotel. One on the chart. F on two locations on the hotel. Hang on. I'm looking for them on the building elevations. One's on the What's on the The end facing out the living. And the other one is kind of just up a little ways from it. Okay. I'm going to go to the parking lot side. Towards the stormwater basin. Okay, you're on the, you're on the site plan Dave. Yes. I see. I believe. Those are either utility markers or, or other signs Andy. I'm not sure if you've looked at this. I don't think there were any signs. I think they're probably just hitting a lot in storm basin. I think there are window signs. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I think Dave's right that they're window signs. And I think that the one in the middle should maybe are the one closer to the middle of the hotel should maybe just be deleted. There's a door at the south end of the building. there. Okay. Yeah, so I'm seeing the one F window sign at four and a half square feet. I see what you mean, Dave. Thank you, Dave, for that thorough review. Any other questions? But Pete, my only comment is, Andy, you took all the wind out of my sails at the banner comment. No, I appreciate you. I appreciate you. I think remembering that from the last time we talked about this and my concern that the banner sign area becomes just nothing but an allowance to allow us to put more signs in somewhere else. So I am fine with this. It's only two banner signs. And as you appropriately pointed out, we still have more light poles and we have banner signs. So I just appreciate you remembering my comments and addressing those as we defined addressing earlier. So thank you. DRB, any other comments? Members of the public, any comments? I'm seeing no raised hands and no chats. Okay. Chris and team, any other any final thoughts? I just thank Andy for paying attention to these details. This is way more detailed than I would have ever, ever imagined for anything. So thank you, Andy. I'm going to close DP 09-01.21 at 9.54. Do all for coming. Next up is APP 21-01. Kevin Brochu appeals the issuance of the certificate of compliance 21-24 for the project located at 7999 Williston Road. This pertains to permit AP 20-0025 and DP 15-06 in the Village Zoning District. Mr. Brochu, you, I see that you are present. And is there anyone else with you? I know, it's just me right now. Okay. For the record, could you please give us your address, please? 76 Slade Barn Drive, Williston, Vermont. Thank you. Okay, staff goes first. Okay, let's go to this one. Melinda. Yeah. Melinda's got this. Can I just make a statement before before you get started? Sorry to jump in. I'm, if we were in a physical room, I'd be getting up from the staff table right now and going to sit in the audience. This is an appeal of a decision I made in my role as zoning administrator for the town. So I have not participated in the staffing of this appeal or the analysis of my own decision. And if there's any deliberations that take place in private on this item, I will not be in the room, in the virtual room, or participating in those in any way. I'm available to answer questions as zoning administrator from the audience. Thank you. Thank you, Matt. Go ahead, Melinda. Okay, I will share my screen. Okay. So this is an appeal of the zoning administrator's issuance of a Certificate of Compliance CC number 2124 for a three bedroom duplex unit located at 799 99 Wilson Road, owned by Alex and Kathy Pinter, and the duplex is permitted under AP 20-0025. So per WDB 5.4, and is provided by 24 VSA 4465, any decision of the administrator may be appealed to the DRB. The DRB must hold a public hearing. Following the hearing, the DRB must may uphold, modify or overturn the decision of the administrator. In every case, the DRB shall adopt written findings and conclusions supporting its action. The DRB's decision on an appeal can be appealed to the Vermont Supreme, the Vermont Environmental Court as provided by 24 VSA 4471. So the 1.23 acre parcel lot two was created under DP 1506. And the duplex on lot two 799 99 and 8001 Wilson Road is located behind and shares a driveway with 79 97 Wilson Road in the Village Zoning District. I will not go through the entire history of the project except to say that this project began in November 2014 with pre application review went through growth management, discretionary permit phase, and a number of appeals. And then finally, AP 20-0025 was issued and appealed. And finally, the administrator issued Certificate of Compliance 2124 for 799 Wilson Road and a temporary certificate of compliance 2125 for 8001 Wilson Road. And that was appealed by Kevin Roshu. The issuance of CC 2124 was appealed. So on the approval for AP 20-0025, the administrator commented that it's approved for construction of a six six bedroom duplex pursuant to approve final plans of DP 1506. And that all required improvements as referenced in the development agreement for 46 must be installed prior to final certificate of compliance. So the administrator issued CC 2124 for 7999 Wilson Road, one half of the duplex and a temporary certificate 2125 for 8001 that covered the that unit as well as the site. And then certificates of compliance have an expiration date and this one expires on June 30th, 2021, at which time all improvements that are required by the permits listed must be completed and accepted as complete. And so the the CC that's being appealed 2124 was issued for one side of the duplex to allow the owner to occupy that unit. And the temporary certificate was issued for the other unit and the entire site with the understanding that there are were some remaining required improvements that could not be completed until spring. So a notice of appeal and a statement from the appellants was submitted on March 4 2021 and this is included in your your packet. And essentially the issuance of certificate of compliance 2124 is being appealed on the grounds that the development is not in compliance with the bylaw in several respects. And I'm not going to reiterate them in interests of time. So in chapter seven, authorizes that certificate of compliance is required for the completion, inspection and acceptance of required improvements, or when the structure is connected to town utilities. And CCs are not required for some developments. And and chapter seven allows the issuance of temporary certificates of compliance under certain circumstances, such as winter's coming, I can't put my landscaping in. And so, you know, we'll issue a temporary until spring and then in the spring, the rest of the work is completed. No comment letters or emails, no public comment letters or emails were received at the time of the packet mail out. A legal opinion has not been obtained as part of this review. And my comment here is that the appellants have challenged the issuance of CC 2124 for the one half of the duplex to be clear, the interior of the duplex on the basis that the development is not compliant with the bylaw, but the appellants have raised issues that pertain to the site as a whole and are covered by the temporary CC 2125. And so the temporary certificate 2125 will expire on June 30, 2021. And at that time, all required improvements must be completed, including driveway widening, egress window, railing, exterior staining, staining, painting and landscaping. So I have included some conclusions of law and proposed motions with each alternate decision that you may make for your for you to consider. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Melinda. Kevin, walk us through your claim please. Yeah, so thanks for your time. You know, I know you're all thinking now another appeal, right? But if you look at the way that your process goes, the only way for us to actually get a voice is to file an appeal. You know, changes are made without any input in a project that's in your backyard that directly affects you. And the only way to get input is to file a appeal. So if you're not happy about me appealing so much, maybe you should consider redoing the process. And I did make a suggestion that in our, you know, in our lap in in our pertaining to the previous letter that I sent to you, you know, I feel like we don't get an answer to some of the questions that we ask, and, and appeals that we put forward, there's the, you know, the general statement. So yeah, we're not going to listen to anything that the hack has to say because it's they're just recommendations. Well, that's not really a good reason, you know, just to say just because we can't, you know, I mean, certainly it's it's legal, but it doesn't really benefit the process. So that has happened, you know, quite a bit along the way, where it's just, it feels like there's no explanation behind the decisions that are made by the DRB other than the fact that you can do it. So the reason that I filed this appeal is because as we were living, you know, we've been living here and as the project was progressing, we noticed that there was quite a bit of headlight flash into our into our kitchen window, where we do dishes and, and, and then as summer progressed into our back porch. And so there's not really a significant amount of headlight protection as and we wanted to try and do something about that. So I had emailed Alex about it. And he told me basically that he's just going to do, you know, whatever he wants. If he wants to put a fence up, he'll put a fence up. And that really wasn't a really good enough answer to me. And honestly, I was quite surprised when I was told that there was a CC issued when the project is not nearly complete. There's a egress that's quite deep and large and dangerous. And I think it's remiss to allow people to live there or to do the impression that it's okay to live there. I wonder if it puts it down in some type of a legal issue. But that's, you know, that's to the side. So the point, and so, so I'm appealing this, because I would like to have more, more buffering, like a fence. And I believe Alex is probably going to do that. But I also want to make sure that it's, it's a binding thing. So I'm asking that the DRV makes it a part of the conditions. And maybe Alex would be supportive of this. Because I know that things happen. And, you know, just because he's applied for fence, that doesn't necessarily mean that the fence is going to happen. He's not bound to do it. You know, there's all kinds of things that happen. And so I guess on, and that's, that's my ultimate goal. I think also the neighbors agree with this, and I'll let them speak on their own accord. And I think it should be noted too. And I, we talked about this at the previous meeting about the necessity for changes. You know, there's been three administrative permits issued for this, plus like some just to go ahead and dig a 10 foot hole and throw a hundred gallon propane tank in it without any knowledge of rip, you know, three foot, three inch root off of a standalone tree, jeopardizing its viability. So there's, you know, I don't, I don't really think your process is is really consistent with what the bylaws say. And I'll leave it, I'll leave it at that. If you have any, actually, I do have one question for staff. I'd like to know, as far as a CC goes, is that something that you would need to actually occupy a new building? So for projects that require a CC, yeah, you at least need a temporary CC to occupy a building. So if, if a CC is being appealed, it okay to occupy that building? Yes. Why? Because until the DRB makes a decision, it still stands. The CC still stands unless the DRB overturns the decision. Oh, is that, that's, that's something that I really wasn't aware of. It certainly doesn't seem like that is worked the way I understand it. I understand that with an appeal and process that usually move forward on project work, whatever, you know, issuance you have isn't considered granted. I don't believe that's true. I think it's just whoever the appellee is, you know, of course, they're at risk that if that appeal were to prevail, then they would not be able to have whatever was being appealed. So if I'm not mistaken, the bylaws do state that it is something that you can be if there's an appeal and something is not being complied with that there are courses of action that can be taken. So yeah, well, let's just hope that it doesn't come to that. So just to clarify, probably, you to clarify, probably my largest complaint is that there has been additional parking along the side of the building, and also towards the cherry tree. There's three additional spots that are being used for parking. And there is garbage containers outside of the building, building that's right right in my view, I get to look at it every day. So these are the issues that may not seem like a big deal to you all. But to me, it is. And like I said, protected by a privacy fence that is solid. And I'd like to have it become part of the temporary certificate of compliance. Mr. Brochure, are you going to build the fence or do you want Mr. Pintire to build the fence? I think that it's his responsibility. Okay. The fence part of the approved. And I'm sorry. Was was the fence included as part of the final approved plans? He has an approved permit from town to build a fence. That wasn't my question. Well, no one was answering it. So I gave you the best answer I could give you. Staff was the fence included as part of the final approved plans. No, it was not. Thank you. Can can staff provide any insight into this alleged additional parking? Um, I have not personally visited the site. However, if there is additional parking, that was not designated on the final plans, we would require that to be removed and restored prior to issuing a final certificate. Okay. What's the process for, you know, for putting a buried, I assume it's an LP tank? Is is an LP tank? What's the process of of doing that? If it's not shown on the plans? So Alex did contact Matt and ask if he needed, you know, if he needed additional permitting for for that. Matt determined that that he didn't because it was under the threshold of 120 square feet, which is, you know, when we require administrative permits, and also determined it was a minor change to the DP. Okay, other DRP members, what questions do you have? I'm sorry. It's late here. Um, I'm trying to I'm trying to find out I'm trying to figure out exactly what is being appealed. The appeal is for the issuance of the certificate of compliance for unit 79 99. Is that correct? Well, you know, it's interesting that you you bring that up because I hadn't brought that up. As far as I'm concerned, this isn't a staged project. This is this is all one project. There's not like one was going to be completed than the other was going to be completed. So why there was a temporary and a CC issued? I have no idea for for the two of them. I don't that that's that makes no sense to me. I don't know why that happened. My appeal is because there's driveways. There's additional parking in the driveway. The buffering is insufficient to protect the headlights that are going into my house. And and and and that's those are the two biggest ones. Oh, and and I'd just like to say that the the prospect of actually removing that gravel, we've seen we've seen the developer do do something similar in the past where the driveway for the house out front was switched from one side to the other. And there was about an inch of topsoil put over the pavement. And now that is still being used as a driveway. So I can appreciate staff saying that they're just going to, you know, have him remove it. But anyway, my appeal is is is that there's additional drive, there's additional parking. There's inadequate buffering. And but I guess I'm sorry to interrupt. I'm trying to just make sure I understand exactly what you're asking us to to rule on the there are there's a certificate of compliance that's been issued for the interior work on one half. And I think you have a legitimate question that we probably should try to define as to why there's two certificates here. My understanding though, is that there's a temporary certificate for the exterior work on this building, which appears to be all of the issues that you are bringing up that I believe you're appealing it because you're saying that those items are not done according to the approved plans. And as my understanding is, is that that certificate, the temporary certificate of compliance lists the that in some specific items plus anything else that doesn't meet the originally approved plans needs to be done by was it June 30th, Moinda June. Yeah, I believe so. If all of those things are finished by June 30th, then that temporary certificate of compliance will be replaced by a final one. Is that correct? At which point? Mr. Brochure would have no complaint because the project would have been completed per the submitted and approved plans. Am I am I am I getting this right? And whatever our this is. So I'm trying to understand what it is about the certificate of compliance that was issued for the interior work on one of these units that requires the exterior work to be finished. Somebody help me out here. And I can chime in on this. So usually when units are closing out, there's their building, if they're going to be sold separately, where they have individual parcel ID numbers, and they'll have separate owners, we usually do a separate six certificate of compliance. So in this case, there is one certificate issued for that interior unit, and then the temporary issued for the other unit and all of the exterior things that are still pending completion, such as the driveway tree removal, the egress window railing, exterior staining paint and painting and landscaping. And I'll add to that, that it's typical practice that the town uses when issuing certificates of compliance. This is no different from like Creek's Edge or any other development. We would not wait until every last house was built and the site were completed to issue all the certificates of compliance. We would issue them as the individual units were completed. And then at the very end for the site. So the typically the site work and exterior items are included with the final unit that's that's finished. Yes. So what a question. Go ahead, Paul. So in other words, you're telling me, I think I'm leaning the way you are, John. I'm not leaning anyway. Let's be clear about the question is, should the appeal actually have been done against CC 21-25 rather than the interior CC 21-24? Thank you for phrasing my question for me, Paul. That's what that's what you're asking, right? I think I think that's where I was headed, Jess. OK, that's I just want to make sure. So we're on the same page. I think the appeals against the wrong wrong. CC, but that but that aside, there's there's really two primary issues here. One is the the additional the the additional parking area, which is going to be reviewed and there'll be a requirement to to repair to repair the area to to a to a natural state or a land state. If, in fact, that parking area is beyond the limits shown on the final plan, that's that's that's a and then B is Kevin, you brought up this fence, but that's not part of the original approved plan. And so you're you're trying to, at least from my lens, maybe I'm missing something, you're you're trying to settle a dispute with your neighbor on something that is outside of the scope of the approved plans. Hey, you know, it's it's it's a it's a process, right? And if you want to, yeah, however you want to cut it, I guess you can cut it. But the fact of the matter is that the buffering that that is in place is insufficient. So I believe that that buffering is part of the plan, that it needs to be addressed. You know, OK, DRB members, are there any other questions for Kevin? Yeah, one question. These vehicles that are parked there, are they there for doing the work on the house or are they resident? Are they vehicles that are part of the residents? They're all it's all residential now. There's they all there's like six cars there. So all the cars are there 24 seven. I mean, you know, I'm trying to say, yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. That's what they need to know. So OK, that's what that that answers. Yeah, yeah, I mean, I was perfectly fine with a hedge going to be there. But there's no hedge. There's I can show you pictures or you can go visit whatever. There's there's two pine trees and there's about 15 feet between each one of them. And the headlights go right into right into wherever I am outside. So I just wanted to differentiate whether these were vehicles that were part of the people working on construction or whether they were resident vehicles. Yeah, no, I understand. I was just reiterating my case. That's all. OK, so it's it's understood. And I would state that it is important to me as a DRB member that the plans that are approved be followed and that the project when it is completed needs to follow those approved plans. So if there are components, as we have been mentioned tonight, that are truly not in compliance, they need to be fixed prior to. Prior to that being declared finished, right, we're modified. I would I would suggest that staff take a stroll over and take a look. Well, I agree. I think that's a great idea. Also, the hedges that have been put in place are they're yellow, they're dying, they're not going to survive. So we issued the temporary certificate with the expiration on June 30th to give time for the applicant to make sure all their landscaping is installed, put the fence around the egress window at the site inspection. Tim, Gary from the fire department came out with us and marched the trees along the driveway that would need to be removed for the fire trucks and emergency access to have clearance. So we'll be looking into all of that when the final certificate is issued I do want to make a point of clarification on the parking. There is some state base between the parking area shown on the final plan and the side buffer. So if there is additional parking area that we see at the final certificate, the applicant could probably get an administrative permit for that because parking outside of setbacks is allowed. Expanding the parking would require an administrative permit. So it wouldn't necessarily have to be removed. It would just need to comply with these setbacks approved in the final plans. Yeah, I'm good with that. And I'll ask for a fence when that administrative permit gets applied for. But that's not the process that was brought about. I do want to note that Don Lubee has commented in the chat, both Don and Andrea, master in attendance tonight, and they co-signed on the appeal application. He does have a couple of questions in the chat. I don't know if you want me to read them or Don? Yeah, why don't you read them, please? One, how many additional parking space are allowed off of the original town of Lubee? Plans, the additional parking space added to the side of the garage adjacent to the compressor, which was not on the approved plans. Car headlight shine directly into the groceries property. So parking is allowed outside of the setbacks, as long as it complies with the nine foot buffer. I think the compressors that are mentioned here are the the heat pumps. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources prohibitions on public transient noncommunity water source. So that's a different standard that's not administered by the town planning and zoning office. I understand the property lines have changed from five feet to 10 feet for the property line for the underground tank. However, the original plans do not state a propane gas tank underground next to a property line. Maybe Matt can provide some clarification on his determination about the propane tank not needing a permit. And then number three is about to allow or authorize for commercial use or business, not at this time, but commercial uses are allowed in the zoning district. So so before Matt weighs in on the LP tank, can staff provide some insight into a final plan that doesn't show a compressor and the ability of of placement of a compressor when not shown on the plants? Yeah, so I think it would be allowed. It's not as long as it's screened by the landscaping. I mean, the lot is shown as being having landscaping screening around it, utilities need to be screened. Again, it's I think it was considered a change that was minor from the final plan. OK, thank you, Matt. Were you going to comment on the LP tank installation? I can hang on a second. So a couple of things I want to note. One is the request by Mr. Pinter about the tank and my response were both done in writing via email. And I'd rather just defer to the to the written record of what was said. But I but I did tell Mr. Pinter that I did not believe he needed a permit for that due to the permit thresholds stated in the bylaw as Melinda quoted earlier. So under 120 square feet, not having a height of anything because it's below grade, etc. In and what I'd like to say is more generally each time each time a you know, a change has been requested for this project or or or some piece of development has been proposed on this site. I've analyzed it for does it require a permit? Is that permit administrative or discretionary? Does it require an amendment to the final plans for the project that was approved under the discretionary permit? So there's a point where accessory elements to a site may not in my opinion and this is an opinion and this is why my determinations are available. There is a point where not everything somebody does is an amendment to the approved site plan anymore. It's just a thing that's either allowed or not under zoning. I don't I don't worry about whether a proposed backyard shed in Southridge is an amendment to the approved final plans of the Southridge development or not. I simply review it for compliance with the bylaw and ask whether it meets or does not meet the threshold required for the issuance of a permit. So in in each case of each change that has occurred on this project or each piece of development that's been a request on this project, that's in general the analysis I have attempted to navigate. I've attempted to do all of that in writing and with with clear disclosure to all the parties involved of what I'm doing and and emphasis that those decisions are appealable. The one element of this project where I found that I did not believe a permit was required was the installation of the below ground propane tank. Thank you, Matt. Any members of the DRB with additional questions? Any members of the audience with additional questions? Alex. Hi, everybody. Thanks for being here this late. So, you know, I have a lot of things I could say. I'm just going to keep it short because it's pretty late at night. You know, we've been at a simple two lot substance vision for seven years. That's a that's a long time. And throughout the whole process, we've followed the rules. We follow the bylaws. We've done everything by the books. That hasn't stopped the appeals. That hasn't stopped two trips to the court. Every decision the DRB is made. Every decision the administrator has made has been upheld. You know, we're doing things correctly. Specifically, I will, you know, everyone's talking about the parking area to the side of the garages. That's gravel that was put in because the contractors trucks were getting stuck in the mud. We haven't finished the site work yet. The excavators will be here this week. They'll pull that out. They have all the driveways been measured to scale. It'll be put exactly the way it was supposed to be put. The fire chief came out. He marked all the trees that he wanted us to cut down. Within a week, they were cut down. So that's been taken care of. We've really been completely compliant with everything. You know, we got a fence permit. We have a contract with a fence company. We're spending almost $25,000 putting in a solid six foot cedar fence that's gonna be put in in May. We're doing everything that we're supposed to be doing. I really don't know what else needs to be said. But I'm happy to answer any specific questions that you guys may have. Alex, thank you. So where is this fence going? And is it located in a place where the headlights are gonna be screened? Yeah, it's going right along the property line all along the west side, along the south, or you know, Slate Barn, six foot high the entire way. Then it'll switch to a four foot picket fence along the northern side. So you can see, you can actually see, so the red line on the east side, that's all six foot solid privacy fence where it switches to purple is four foot picket fence. So there's no reason to screen. That's just meadow and woods. No reason to screen that. Then when it gets over to the months house it switches back to a six foot privacy fence. The area, and then you can see there's two little purple lines going straight over from, you know, the fence there. That's gonna be picket fence just so that, you know, the dogs can go out and run around and we have to worry about them getting out. The area just to the left of those purple lines is where there's gravel right now. Yeah, right in there. There's gravel right now where the trucks, the contractors were using as extra parking space. I mean, anybody who's built before knows that there's often, you know, 10 different trucks of subcontractors at the same time. There's not a lot of parking here. So we put that in to make that easier. That'll be pulled back. The driveway is gonna be exactly like it's shown. They've measured it to scale. It's all marked out. They'll be taking care of that. Anybody's welcome to stop by at any point and take a look. You know, like I said, we've already cut down the trees. What other questions do you have? As a point of clarification, I'm sorry this is probably a redundant question, but the fence that you just showed us, that was not on the original plan, correct? It was not. No, there's been a fence there for about 50 years that the old owners used to have horses back there in the 70s and 80s. So parts of that fence are still there. We'll be taking that down and replacing that exact same spot for this new fence. You know, that wasn't a requirement. That's something we're adding on. Okay. Okay. Any questions from the audience? It looks like there's 11 chat inputs. Is there anything in there? Yeah. Andrea Mast sent a photo of the parking and what's the compressors or the heat pump units on the side of the house here? So can you guys hear me? Yep. Yeah. So Andrew, can you? I know Alex says that this was, this is the parking leftover from construction, but I'm definitely calling shenanigans on that. There's gravel laid there. That's his car park there. This is taken from the Munn's fence. Yeah, we're using it where it'll be gone. Yeah, you're parking in it and it's a parking lot. Well, it is now and then it'll be gone. The whole area is a parking lot. You can drive everywhere. It's all just there. Yeah, there's about six cars parked in gravel defined parking spots. And that will be addressed when the site works finished. So I think the thing that we're finding frustrating is, so we're hearing, oh, Alex can park wherever he wants. Alex can add parking. He just needs to go and file a motion to have parking added. Yet we're supposed to be holding him to a buffer and there's no buffer. That's the view from the Munn's fence. So what we're struggling with is what is approved doesn't actually get put in place, but then Alex can kind of do all these other things to kind of, you know, still get his parking or still do whatever it is he wants to do. Yeah, we planted all of the exact plants in the exact spots, 138 I think around the property. But as you know, landscaping when it first goes in, it's smaller. Would you call that a buffer? Would you, you would walk through? I did exactly what the town required me to do. But I'm asking you, do you consider that a reasonable buffer for the two houses that are right next to your house? We actually have some. So guys, hold on a minute, okay? So Andrea, you should address your questions to the board, to me specifically. And if it's appropriate to have Alex respond, then I will, I will authorize him to do it. Okay, sure. So I guess my question then is the same to you. Do you think that that picture conveys an adequate buffer that the town would have expected given that there's two properties? It's pretty much sandwiched between two backyards. Pete, we need an address. My question to the DRB is, do you find that picture, which was just a few weeks ago an adequate buffer of what you intended? So I'm going to ask staff to, to talk about, to talk about the creation of the concept of a buffer and, you know, buffer definition being at maturity of plants or is it immediate? And so if you could add some plan or principle context here that would be helpful. Because I don't think it's the intent day one for a buffer to fully screen at maturity, but I would really like staff to answer that. Yeah, sure. No, it's the expectation that when a buffer first goes in it's not going to fully screen that it's going to take, you know, years to fully mature and screen the development. It's not, it's definitely not something that you can expect right away. And there are requirements for the caliper of plants that get planted and those were specified in the final plans as well. And they're not, you know we don't require mature trees to be planted. Right? The other thing that I would like to note here is that this agenda item is to talk about the appeal and in the appeal has some limits of scope. And we're starting to get not even into a gray area we're getting into an area that is, is drawing outside of the lines. And so I'm not trying to dismiss your, you know, your concern Andrea. I just, I'm trying to be fair to the process here that the agenda item on tonight's agenda is to talk about the appeal. And in the appeal is really about two topics. Okay, one is an expanded parking area which I personally have, I feel comfortable with the response of the applicant and in the process in which there'll be verification before a final certificate of compliance is issued. And then the other component to this is about a screening of a fence and which wasn't even shown on the original plans and yet the applicant is outside of the scope of the plans installing. And so I'm a little bit befuddled as to why, why are we continuing to talk about this right now? I mean, those are the two topics and they're both gonna be satisfactory dealt with. Well, I can answer that because they weren't part of the temporary CC or part of the CC at all that were issued. There was no mention of the parking lot, okay? So that's the answer to your first question. And the answer to your second question, I believe is something along the lines of that it's great and I really, I appreciate that Alex has come forth and agreed to put a fence up and but he has not really communicated to clearly as to what the fence is gonna be I mean, we've got nuances of it through some emails but I feel that to ask that there's a modification of the buffer that added to this CC or the other CC that the buffer be modified so that includes a six foot privacy fence is not unreasonable. I don't think there's anybody would think that that's unreasonable considering the changes that have occurred. There's a large compressor with a roof on it that's clearly visible. It puts out noise, it's not extremely loud but you can hear it. So I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for that. I was initially going along with the fact that the buffer is probably gonna be fine but it's not. So I'm just asking for a modification. It peels the only way I can do it. Okay, and so I want some, I want to be binding. That's what I'm asking, a modification to the buffer. Okay, and those are the answers here. Okay, anyone have anything else? Two points. One, I believe you had asked Andrea to state her address earlier and I don't think she did. One, six, Slate Barn. Thank you. And it's late enough. I can't remember the second. Hi Pete and Kelly. Hi, can you hear me Pete Kelly? My name is Karen Fragnoli-Munn and I live at 67 Lambert Lane and I am the abutter on the other side of the Pinter property. And so I've been listening and of course I'm trying to be in support of all the facts. And I do want to state that the parking has been an issue and I hope that that can be rectified. I also want to state that I think the intent of the buffering was great on paper and sounded good. Unfortunately, I don't think it's going to grow and be a strong enough buffer in the short term to protect the headlights that do shine onto our property on both sides of the properties. And I have also been, and I know this is not part of the appeal. So I just want to also state that I have also been trying to coordinate with Alex on a privacy fence because it's hard when you build a property in the backyard of three homes and everybody's quality of life changes when that happens and the nature that you once saw is now not there anymore. And we all want to protect our privacy. And I would like if that's the way to go that a privacy fence be put up along both borders, the east and west side of the property so that all of the neighbors have their property protected because good fences, we know, make great neighbors. And so it is late, but I've been listening and so I just felt that I wanted to put in my two cents. Thank you. Thank you, Karen, that was well stated. I appreciate that. Anyone else out there in the audience? I'm seeing no chats and no raised hands. Okay, DRB members, last chance. Alex, do you have some final comments? Looks like you might. Yeah, I just, we've owned this property for nine years and for seven years, we've been working on this property. It's not that we built something in anyone's backyard. We built something in our yard. And when you live in a neighborhood, there's going to be adjustments. Getting used to a new building. The buffering between the different houses on slate barn is far less than the buffering we put up around our property because they had different development requirements at the time. I am putting in the fence, paying for the fence that was not part of the process, but I do recognize the fact that headlights do spill over. The buffer, the trees and the plants aren't going to be grown enough for years to do that. So this is something we're willing to do. Yeah, I, it's late. That's it. Thank you. Kevin, any final words anymore? He looks like he dropped off. Yeah. We're going to close APP 21-01 at 1050. Thank you for all that participated in that. Okay. So that concludes tonight's agenda. We are now going to go into deliberative session at 1050. If staff would please put everybody in the waiting room, please, and just have DRB members go into deliberations, I would be appreciated. I'm still wondering whether we should approve the minutes because that's going to be the approval of the previous growth management. So. Well, nobody's waiting breathlessly to find out if their giant subdivision gets to move forward or not, right? Exactly. I finally figured that one out. Tom meeting TVs back in. So if you want to move on the minutes, we can do that. Okay. Welcome, everybody. We're back. Wilson, DRP, April 13, 2021. We're going to approve the minutes. So we're going to do, we're going to approve the minutes from March 23, 2021. And we are going to continue our deliberation of the four hearings that were held tonight at a later date. We are going to meet tomorrow night and continue the deliberative session. So this part of the public meeting will be approval of the minutes of the date that I just referenced and conclude tonight's business. So with that being said, is there a motion to approve the minutes as written dated March 23, 2021? I so move. Steve, motion from Steve. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it. Is there any further discussion? Indicate by saying yay or nay, please, Paul. Yay. John. Yay. Steve. Yay. Scott. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. And the chair is a yay. That's six in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. The minutes are approved of March 23, 2021. Is there a motion to adjourn? Just one second. Just to confirm, Emily, you're going to send out a meeting invite for tomorrow at 7.30. Yep. Calendar invites going out right now. Great. Thank you very much. Sorry, Pete. No problem. Motion to adjourn, please. I just move. OK, Steve. Second? Second. That's fine. We'll go with John Hamilton on that discussion. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Thank you, everybody. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good night.