 All right, let's go again. Hello and welcome to the Willis Bend Development Review Board meeting for August 22nd, 2023. My name is Pete Kelly, I'm Chair of the DRB. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in Town Hall and virtually on Zoom. Andrew, is there anybody participating remotely? Yeah. Okay. So this is, there is a hybrid option, but everybody who is participating at this time is here in the Town Hall. All members of the board and public can communicate in real time, planning staff will provide, will not provide Zoom instructions because nobody has participated remotely as of now. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, I don't think we need to continue to September 12th because nobody is participating remotely. So, let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members participating today. Paul Christensen. Present. Lisa Brayden-Harder. Present. Scott Riley. Yep. Dave Turner. Here. And the chair is present. We have five in attendance. We have two absent, Nate Andrews and John Hemmelgarn. So there is a quorum with five in attendance. So, First Order of Business is the public forum. This is an opportunity for people to weigh in on items that are not on the agenda. So at this time, I'll open it up to the floor for anybody who would like to address the board for items that are not on the agenda. Hearing none, we will now go into agenda item number two, the public hearing. We have three items on the agenda tonight. DP 24-01, which is a pre-app for P&P Septic Service, DP 20-18, which is a pre-app for Ethan Allen Holmes. That's associated with Summer Field, also known as the former catamount or current catamount golf club, and DP 20-18.2, which is also Ethan Allen Holmes, and that's for a discretionary permit for the same parcel. So first up is DP 24-01, the pre-app for P&P Septic is the applicant present. Welcome, Brian. If you would please state your name and address for the record, please. Brian Currier, Larry Burke, Civil Associates, representing P&P Septic Service, 13 corporate drive, Essex Vermont. Great, thank you, Brian. Staff goes next. Okay. So this is a request for pre-application review for a new commercial or industrial building in the Industrial Zoning District West. It's on behalf of P&P Septic, who own four of the lots, which are off Shum Pike Road there. The Development Parcel, which will be subject to the discretionary permit, is currently split across two of those lots, and the applicant intends to do an administrative boundary line adjustment to enlarge one of the lots to create the developer lot. Existing Western access to Shum Pike Road will be closed as part of this development, and all four of P&P Septic's lots would share the remaining existing access to Shum Pike. So we do have a staff is recommending approval with recommendations. The DOB should discuss whether or not specify a landscape buffer to the joining mixtape property and any other issues. We didn't receive any comment letters at the time of mail-out. We've had none since. At this stage, the applicant doesn't have a use identified, but it will be for industrial or commercial, such use being allowed in the district. We do allow a wide range of industrial uses in this district. Commercial uses are more restricted, limited to space extensive retailing. That's generally not appropriate in a shopping area. We're also anticipating compliance with the dimensional standards of the district. At this stage, no outdoor sales or storage are proposed, but if they are proposed to discretionary permit, they would need to be shown on the site plan. Just to clarify the boundary line adjustment, what's happening is the applicant's taking half an acre from the larger lot five, which is the lot that has the existing P&P septic building on and transferring it to the vacant lot that they also own. So the land that's transferring is half an acre and it's shown shaded pink there on the plan and the transfer joined with the white area. To form the developer lot which is ringed and that sort of broken hashed red line. Because this is the IZDW doesn't have a minimum lot size, that boundary line adjustment can be handled administratively. We do just set out the criteria for approving a BLA, which would be applied by the zoning administrator when they receive the application. The lot five parcel is non-conforming in relation to landscape buses to the private trucks property, street trees and parking within the setback. It's a shunt bike road. The DWB can require correction of non-conformities on development lot or any adjoining lots owned by the applicant that are reasonably proportional to the scale of development. In this case, we are recommending correction of the parking in the setback and the provision of what would probably only actually be one street tree on that lot five lot to shunt bike road. WDB 13, moving on to access connectivity and traffic does require developers to provide safe access for bicycles and pedestrians. So we're recommending that the applicant construct the segment of 10 foot shared path along the two lot frontages to shunt bike road. The intention being that eventually links in with the existing shared use paths that the robust subdivision and three seven five engineers, driver already constructed on their properties. And we're also suggesting that in order to get from shunt bike road to pay building entrance, the app can do does provide some sort of safe path which will probably depend on the floor plan that they select that stage. But I know that on similar applications, we've maybe specified a sort of striped path on the access drive or another measure. We've got a series of standard recommendations on parking, underground utilities, snow storage and solid waste. At this stage, we don't know what the potential use is, but if it's an industrial use that might present hazards that should be described and the impacts as they relate to the standards of WB 18 set under the discretionary permit. Landscaping, the property adjoins 599 shunt bike road to the West, which is a mixed use property incorporating a residential duplex and warehousing space. Showing a type four buffer, we just need to be increased from the size shown on the plan to be compliant. But I do know that WB DB 23 says that there are only generally appropriate between uses of similar intensity. So that might be one where the DRB wants to specify a type of buffer or at least provide the optimism guidance, maybe a type two or a type three. I know we've paid careful attention to residential uses in industrial districts in the vicinity. And then lastly, some street trees along the frontage to shunt bike road across both lots. So just whistle stopped or through the staff report, what follows is a recommendation to approve with the recommendations shown. Great, thanks, Simon. All right, Brian, so two parts, I'm gonna yield the stage to you. And I would like you to address two things. One is any comments that you have to staff report. And the second being, if you have any concerns with the staff recommendations that have been made. So we've reviewed the staff report. I don't have much to add. The only thing I'd say is the existing lot was previously a site of a single family home that had a curb cut very close to the shunt bike road intersection. You can still see the gap in the hedge and where the driveway used to be. So we're moving that curb cut about 180 feet away from kind of that awkward looking intersection. But we're definitely improving that intersection through this proposal. The recommendations, the only thing I would say is in regards to the landscaping buffer on our west side. There is a residential component there. Of course, we are an industrial zoning district. My understanding is that it may be an existing non-conformity, but a non-conformity nonetheless. So to require more buffering from a non-conforming parcel just doesn't really hold much weight to me. There is a mixed use category in the landscaping buffering requirements that does take into account this sort of situation. So there is a pretty clear avenue to provide the adequate landscaping buffer on that side. So we were just asked to do it be. It is residential, correct? It's mixed use, I believe. Mixed use on the west side? On the west side. So mixed use does include a residential or is it not? I don't believe any residential is allowed in the industrial zoning. I know it's not allowed now, but is it in existing? It's in existence, yeah, today. It's an existing non-conformity. Yeah, I understand it's an existing non-conformity, but is it residential? Yeah. No, it is, okay, that's what I was trying to get to. I understand that it's existing. I understand that it's non-conforming. I wasn't sure whether it was a residential. So we do still wanna take care of the people who are still living there. Understood, yeah, and there's a category for mixed use that we would be held to. I think what staff is saying is should additional buffering or maybe have the DRB choose one of the more spacious buffering requirements in that table. My understanding in Wilson is if you landscape more, you can get your buildings a little closer together to the proper line. So we just like to keep that ability open. And the closest dimension is 23 feet with dense plantings. This is close as we could get using those standards. Okay, understand your position. That'll, I'm sure, be a topic of discussion and deliberations. Okay. Is the building, the building gonna be used for the similar purposes as the other one? We don't have a use yet. It may not be occupied by PMPC. Okay, so it's a possibility to spec billing? Yes, okay. Yep, and the 23 feet I'm referring to assumes the building is a heavy commercial slash industrial use. So the buffers are meant on, you know, they're based on what you're proposing and what's next. Okay, DRB members, questions. So that explains why they're talking about trees on the back side since this may not be a PMP building, fronting a PMP building, right? I don't believe common ownership would alleviate us from meeting setbacks anyway. No, no, not setbacks. I'm talking about the, showing the little trees between the two buildings. Oh yes, on the PMP. Yeah, so I was gonna say, both of these were PMP buildings. I'm not sure why you'd need trees to separate the two buildings, but you're saying that this may not be, this may be someone else then. Okay. I'd say it's more likely it's a spec building than a PMP building. Okay, and that's on, you know. Other questions? I'm gonna, got anything further? Any questions from the audience? Anything else, Brian? Okay. All right, we're gonna close DP 24-01 as 715. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next up is DP 20-18, Ethan on Homes. Are you also, this one, Brian? Yes. Okay. You just stay seated the entire night? I hope so. Okay. Chris, are you gonna come up as well and, okay. Okay, Brian, we've already got your name and address read into the record, so you don't need to do that. Chris, if you would name and address for the record please. Christopher Sonisac, Ethan Allen Homes, 86 Ethan Allen Drive, South Burlington, Vermont, 05403. Okay, thank you. Staff is up. Yep, this is DP 20-18. It is a request for a pre-application review in order to participate in growth management of March 2024. So that's the sole purpose of tonight. No changes are being proposed to the project which has approved final plans. I do note that there is a pending bylaw amendment that's gonna go to the select board. They have an informational session on September 5th. We as part of DRB review like to inform applicants of upcoming bylaw amendments that could impact their project. Now Summerfield is vested in the bylaws because they have that complete discretionary permit approval. Part of this bylaw package would make it so that this application hearing a pre-app just to go to growth management is no longer required for projects that are already in the queue with partial allocation. There are some proposed amendments like adopting inclusionary zoning that are possible to go forward as well as amendments for minor project exemptions from growth management that if the applicant has more questions about they should reach out to planning staff to discuss them. But as of now, we're not anticipating any impacts because they have that vesting. Great, thank you, Emily. Okay, any comments from the applicant? DRB, any questions? Do I have a volunteer to read the motion? We're gonna vote on it right now. Thank you, Scott. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I start rightly moved that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board required comment on the application by the Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered testimony presented at the public hearing of August 22nd, 2023, authorized DP 20-18 to proceed to residential growth management allocation. I think that seems like we're missing a word in there. Proceed to residential growth management allocation at 2023. I think I should say 2024, it's a typo. Typo 2024. Yep. Yep. Okay, is there a second? Second. Okay, Paul, second set. Any discussion? Yay or nay, Paul? Yay. Lisa? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. Chair Zia, five favor, none opposed, motion carries. Okay, so DP 20-18 is approved. Thank you. Now we're gonna go to DP 20-18.2. Same applicants. Staff goes next. Yep, this is a request for discretionary permit, solely because of growth management. They are designating the allocation they got in March 2023 on their phasing schedule. So in March 2023, they got 15 DUE, 15 dwelling unit equivalents, and they are highlighting them on their phasing plan. But no overall changes are being proposed. Okay, anything to add? Nope. Okay, any questions? Members of the audience, any questions? Scott, will you read this one again, please? Sure. As authorized by WVB 6.6.3, I've Scott Riley. Move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendation to the town staff and the advisory board required a comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at public hearing of August 22nd, 2023, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP-20-18.2 and approved this discretionary permit subject to conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance of the plans on this approval phase. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? I'll second that. Dave Turner seconds. Any discussion? Okay, yay or nay? Paul. Yay. Lisa. Yay. Scott. Yay. Dave. Yay. Here's the yay, five in favor, and none opposed. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. The DRB will now go into a deliberative session. Okay, thank you, Scott. Welcome back to the Williston Development Review Board. Today is August 22nd, 2023. The DRB is out of deliberative session. The current time is 7.32. We've already approved DP-20-18 and DP-20-18.2. So next up is DP-24-01. Is there a motion? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board's required comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of August 22nd, 2023, accept the recommendations for DP-24-01 and authorize this application to move forward to discretionary permit review. And we're gonna change condition 2G so that it reads a landscape plan for WDB-23. The DRB recommends a type two buffer to the west of property line. Okay, thank you, Dave. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, Lisa seconds. Any further discussion? Yay or nay? Paul. Yay. Lisa. Yay. Scott. Yay. Dave. Yay. Chairs to yay, five in favor and none opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of July 25, 2023 as written? Okay, thank you, Lisa. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave seconds it. Any further discussion? Nope. Yay or nay on approving the minutes? Paul. Yay. Lisa. Yay. Scott. Yay. Dave. Yay. Chairs to yay, five in favor and none opposed? Motion carries. Minutes are approved. Is there anything else for tonight's meeting? Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. I'll second it. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Thank you all.