 We're good. All right, very good Okay, we're gonna bring the meeting to order at 704 welcome everyone to the town of Williston's Development Review Board for Tuesday December 12th There were three items on the agenda one has been withdrawn DP 18-11 Ethan Allen holdings LLC Located at 53 and 55 Morgan Parkway Two other items. We're gonna start with DP 18-12 Dennis white interior contractors ink. Mr. White. Are you here? Come on up have a seat at the bench So if you would start off with your name and your address, please Dennis white home address is 95 Eagle Mountain Harbor Road and Milton Thank you, Mr. Roe. Indy road limerow and Dickinson Essex. Great. Welcome both Matt This is a request for pre-application review of a proposal to add a warehouse building and parking other Appartenances who exist in residential property at 332 Shun Pike Road in the industrial zoning district West The property is currently developed with single family home as shown on the site plan Property is in the industrial zoning district West where the town no longer allows the development of new residential uses, but does allow a broad variety of Industrial uses including transportation and warehousing uses as listed in the staff report North America industry classification codes 49 the reason this application is in front of the board as a pre-application Even though it's a relatively small project it is a New site development with a new commercial building being placed on a property Where there has not been a commercial building before so any new commercial building over 120 square feet That's a standalone triggers DRV review and in this case It's it's really like a new site development So it does trigger the requirement for a pre-application review before the board would see a discretionary permit application This is the first time the DRV has reviewed this proposal There is are some changes proposed as part of this application to the driveway and access addition of a drive around the side of the house Access a couple of parking spaces and the 3,000 square foot Essentially cold storage steel building to the rear of the property The applicant at this time is proposing to retain the single family home and leave it in a residential use Until such time as there's a desire to further redevelop the property So the single family home the residential use we would see that as an existing non-conforming use What most people would call grandfathered it was there at a time when zoning allowed it to be there Zoning has changed the use has not the use may continue until such times. It's discontinued for more than one calendar year There's no subdivision or boundary line adjustment proposed as this part as part of this project. No boundary lines are moving Any outdoor lighting proposed as part of this project will have to be shown on plans when a discretionary permit application is Submitted Landscaping plan at this point is minimal. It's simply showing the existing landscaping The applicant did ask me a question before the hearing clarifying about the watershed protection buffer to the rear So there is a class to wetland to the rear of the property The applicant has shown a 50-foot setback line to that with existing vegetation to be retained and you'll notice in the discussion of landscaping I've quoted that a Landscape buffer or watershed protection buffer may be supplemented by an 8-foot type 3 or 4 buffer Staff's position on that is that if you do have to supplement a watershed protection buffer with a landscape buffer That the landscape buffer can be inside of that 50-foot watershed protection buffer In other words, it doesn't turn a 50-foot buffer into a 58-foot buffer, but the top eight feet get Pumped up with a little additional landscaping as necessary that might be required On some small portion of this site a landscaping plan this part discretionary permit would have to show that detail There are a few potential future parking spaces shown adjacent to the building might are saying from the applicant as those may not be needed right away There there's no Sort of live use of this building proposed right now It's it's just there for the applicant to have some storage space for their business To to enter onto the premises from time to time to put things away or take things out But not to work out of the building That said a 3,000 square foot warehouse in the industrial zoning district West in an industrial use would generate demand for three parking spaces So the applicant is shown where those can be accommodated on the site. I did mention the wetlands to the rear Another potential requirement related to the wetlands would be that that 50-foot buffer be demarcated with a fence or boulders to prevent any mowing or intrusion into it as the site is maintained over the years As I mentioned, there's a relocated curb cut to shun pike road That's part of the plan for accessing the property and public works has commented that an access permit from them would be necessary In order to do that Pre-application is the stage of the review where DRB can ask the applicant for a traffic study at discretionary permit Staff is not recommending that the DRB asked for a traffic study for this project I've already mentioned the parking There's no shared parking between uses proposed as there's only this one use proposed on the site that is Non-residential staff doesn't generally look at park parking sharing between residential and non-residential uses It's currently no signage proposed Trash and recycling containers for now are still primarily related to the house use and are proposed to be Maintained within the garage of the house typical residential Style there if the use of the property became more intense later on there could be an outdoor dumpster and that would require an enclosure Not in our design review district So it's not subject to design review as I mentioned We did receive review by police fire and public works and fire public works comments are attached to this report and Referenced in the recommendations the staffs prepared for the board Which is a positive recommendation to move forward to discretionary permit taking note of those memos And a few highlights of the requirements of the bylaw. I'll stop there. Thank you Matt Just a little bit of background excuse me Dennis white interior contractors is located just down Sunpike Road They plan on keeping their main operation there, but have the need to store equipment Maybe some occasional materials and want to have that done inside a building hence the application It's close by their existing shop gives them the opportunity to store equipment when it's not being used Pretty convenient location The existing single-family home will remain There are no employees there it would be only storage So as Matt said while we are showing space for parking spaces, there wouldn't be a need because there's not gonna be any employees there Okay questions from the board I want curious question. Would you have more green? if you did not remove the The current driveway and then just took out that stupid tea in front of the house We can't keep two driveways. We did we did talk we covered that with public works They want to keep it to one curb? Other questions from the board are you planning on paving that all all the area is shown here as Developed I guess Including where the parking spots the future parking spots would be given the location of the the overhead doors on the West side of the building that'll either that'll have some kind of a hard surface Either paved or gravel Okay Go all the way back to where including most likely future parking spots It might be a little bit less than that depending on where the the overhead doors fall I see I mean I would just say that you know I would view this application when it came in if that was all paved that you were essentially were putting in those parking spots And we should just prove those Anyway, that's you know, this is pre-app. So that's just a comment, right? I think that if it's paved I mean just because it's missing stripes doesn't mean that there's not parking spots there We should approve those I think we were just trying to show that there's there's the space for them If they were needed but since it's not going to be any employees there would be really really be driven by the location of the overhead doors And getting access in and out of the building The question is report What do you envision the building materials being? Still a good question. It might be a steel building. It might be I Mean I'm in the metal stud business. We probably put up a metal stud building with Metal stud trust roof as far as the siding you might put metal siding on it I'm not sure if we'll go with plastic or not as far as siding but We haven't worked that out yet We have some different options. I got some quotes coming in But right now, I'm not sure exactly what the materials will be Any questions from the audience no question to the audience one more time on the board any questions One more time for anybody who might be here Ethan Allen holdings Morgan Parkway Development has been withdrawn anybody here for that okay next up is Next up is DP 18-09 Randy Brunel and Joe LaMarche And this has been this has been continued. This is a hearing that's been continued from November 28 This is DP 18-09 will open up the hearing at 715 you would state your names and your addresses, please Amanda Rabb with Trudell consulting engineers 478 Blair Park Road Wilson Andrea Dottolo also with Trudell consulting engineers And can you say your first name one more time mine is Amanda Amanda? Thank you. Okay? I'm Linda This is a request for pre-application review for proposed seven lot residential subdivision of a fifty one point three acre parcel Parcels located at 225 Rosewood Drive and 430-54 South Brunel Road and the ARZD Properties currently developed with one single-family home the applicants proposing to subdivide a single lot into seven single-family home lots Size between one and two point five acres and the applicants proposing to set aside thirty eight point four four acres of That's protected open space The applicant first presented this proposal to the DRB on November 28 2017 The public hearing for this application was continued to tonight 12th so as to allow the applicant the opportunity to address the following to correct the density calculation To reconfigure lot lines so that all slopes in excess of thirty percent were contained in the open space So first of all As far as residential density is concerned The applicants proposing a subdivision which will result in seven dwelling units on fifty three fifty one point three acres of land Where the maximum allowed residential density in the zone is one dwelling unit per 1.84 acres and The Wilson development by-law chapter 19 requires that lands with wetlands wetland buffer buffers and slopes in excess of 30% taken out of the density calculation and That lands with slopes between 15 and 29.9 percent be calculated at a reduced density of one dwelling unit per 10 acres The applicants previous density calculations were incorrect because the acreage of wetlands was not subtracted the applicants submitted a revised constraints analysis And staff is satisfied with that analysis So the revised analysis indicates that the parcel can support 15 dwelling units and the applicant is proposing seven units So As a subdivision of parcel of land ten and a half acres or greater This project is required to set aside a minimum of seventy five percent of the area of the parent parcels permanently protected open space The open space must include steep slopes wetland areas and setbacks And any other resources required to be protected under Williston development by-law chapter 27 The applicants proposed thirty eight point four four acres of open space meets the seventy five percent requirement The applicants previous previously submitted site plan Showed that some of the steep slopes this the steep slopes being in excess of 30% we're not all contained in the open space The applicants revised site plans now indicate that all slopes in excess of 30% are within the open space The Wilson by-law chapter 31 does strongly discourage Developments on slopes in excess of 15% Lot four is mostly comprised of slopes exceeding 15% and in fact there appears to be no Alternative on this lot, but to build on the steep slope. So for that reason Staff has concerns about the creation of lot four as it basically forces development on undesirable terrain There were some concerns raised about the proposed access on at the last public hearing and Following up with a letter There Abutting property owner Craig Sampson raised concerns about the proposed access The Rosewood Drive and whether the applicant has the legal means of access through abutting properties Staff is recommending that the DRB require the applicant produce documentation Proving that they have legal means of access to the subject parcel the arrows would drive and recommending that The applicant produced this documentation for review by the town attorney At the time of discretionary permit application Um Melinda hold on one second Why don't you go ahead and make the analogy esters cars blocked in by two white cars in the parking lot Esther, which is your car? What is your car? Matrix the front cars a white Subaru with CYS 212 license plate Anybody here anybody one of those cars? I think I am behind you behind it is a white Honda Take a short recess Thank you You owe me Esther On camera no less no question It was void of any highlight that's the first for me You're still searching for the first highlight Oh I actually was That's uh, that's making it happen Ken and Matt, do you know that your signs are not right? Are you trying to get the other one in trouble This side of the table That was to see if you were paying attention I'm going to come out of our short little recess. You're back up and running. You're back up and running fantastic Um, Melinda if you would kindly pick up where you left off. Let's start up again. Sure. Um Um So anyway, um to start with a lot six and seven on the class three wetlands Uh, how were you work? Yeah, okay The proposed access drive for lots six and seven also crosses over the town line and into Shelburne Any changes to this access road or any other proposed Development in Shelburne may require a permit from that jurisdiction Staff's recommending the drb Require the applicant to provide documentation proposed development is in conformance with Shelburne regulations at the time discretionary permit application This is uh, pre application is the stage of review where the drb may ask for a traffic traffic impact study if they so desire staff Notes that in wilson seven additional Single family units would produce 7.07 new pm peak hour trip ends Staff is not recommending the drb request a traffic study for this project um The applicants revised site plans show a landscape buffer along the east side of lots one through four and south of the driveway on lot one Staff's recommending that a 50 foot buffer of existing Forced vegetation be retained around the perimeter of the develop development where possible And that in areas where forested vegetation is currently lacking that the applicant provide a minimum nine-foot type three landscape buffer in other words informal plantings To screen the development from adjoining properties Okay wilson development by-law chapter 18 Gives the town the authority Under vermont statue to regulate existing or continued continuing nuisances that may not be development In other words to regulate or prohibit the storage or dumping of solid waste To compel the cleaning or repair of any premises which in the judgment of legislative body is dangerous to the health or safety of the public And to define what constitutes a public nuisance and to provide Procedures and take action for its abatement or removal as the as the public health Safety or welfare may require the reason I mentioned that is that um On december 4th planning staff received a letter from an abutting landowner james beacher Uh communicating his observations of Potential past dumping of solid waste on on the subject property Planning staff Followed up by contacting the state waste management division and Requesting their investigation of the subject's properties history and any potential records of any Past or current investigations or violations Uh the waste management division staff responded saying that they found Three past occurrences on neighboring properties But that all matters have been resolved The drb may wish to consider requiring the applicant to conduct further investigation prior to obtaining discretionary permit Typically this is done via a phase one and phase two environmental site assessment Um so If so authorized the applicant will proceed with the residential growth management allocation request for six additional dwelling units Staff is recommending the drb authorize the applicant to proceed to growth management review in march 2018 with some recommendations for you to consider Thank you melinda, okay your turn So melinda Uh, she said it all Also, I forgot my notes on the printer. So going from my memory But in general we wanted to resubmit to you what we had proposed which addressed the first three comments That were related to steep slopes and revising our parcel boundaries Those were proposed to you last time we met and we've made no changes to the plans for that we've also looked into The landscaping buffer and putting that on there and corrected our density calculation. So all of those things have been addressed Additionally in our submission to you We tried to take care of Two concerns from the neighbors that we heard from that meeting and that was related to the parcel boundaries So we submitted to you the plat that's um on file and the the local land records And the other concern was a neighboring well and the potential for contamination for the wastewater systems We've submitted a sketch design that shows conformance with the state's right rules and regulations That were outside of the well cone for the neighboring parcel and our own well cone For the remaining items I would like to hear from the drb and any other questions that you guys may have Relating to our submission our resubmission okay Question to the board So the staff have a position on lot number four the steep the 15 percent or so lot I think our position is that it shouldn't be created um I guess given given the bylaws strong discouragement of developing on the steep slopes and That there really isn't any other choice on that lot But the current recommendations that are in staff's report are silent on that topic Um correct If I would read the bylaw but the bylaw is really trying to say is If an applicant had a property and there was nothing but steep slopes then You would consider approving a lot With an access up there because there is no other there would be no other way for an applicant to realize any Development right side of the property Um in this particular case That's not really the same thing Because it's not like if this one lot it may simply be the applicant doesn't get the lot yield that they were hoping for Won't be the first time an applicant hasn't gotten the lot yield that they hoped for But that's what our bylaw is basically wants us to do is to do a constraints analysis and Keep development out of the areas that are that are constrained and including have steep slopes so um In this particular case where there is a lot yield that can be realized with the absence of that lot I think we would we would encourage the board to also Because we have some topographic information in this area So when we revised our maps and submitted them to you will I revise slope analysis Part of it was based on lidar, which is state contours part of it's based on Actually surveying those areas Lot four, I think we just have like a little small portion of it surveyed and not all of it so I think eliminating lot four now at this stage in the game would be Maybe preemptive without knowing for sure what the slopes are and or If there are steep slopes 15 percent, although they are buildable, but maybe not preferred There is potential to put lot four somewhere else You have a have you got an area identified of where that might be? I couldn't possibly put lot four Still I would feel more comfortable with Something that we'd want to do when we go to discretionary permit Um, really Lay that down we could probably even get that information on our way to growth management So lot four is currently between 15 and 30 percent slopes There in that window which allows a reduced density of development Yeah, well when you're calculating the density you take your entire parcel And you subtract out everything that you can't build on wetlands and steep slopes, which are the 30 percent You use a revised density calculation number for 15 to 29 and then You come up with a number and from that number you can put the lots Really wherever you'd like outside of the 30 percent and outside of the wetlands and their buffers I do understand what the staff is saying that it's not preferred and that the bylaws are written To avoid slopes in the 15 to 29 percent area, although they're not prohibited So that's why I would like to Not just put the kibosh on them right now But let's take a look and see what the slopes actually are If they are something that are undesirable See if there's another location if not then Maybe that's eliminated And one of those lots doesn't get constructed down there But I think it's really early to to eliminate it at this time. That's just what I'd like you guys to consider Okay, other questions from the board on lot four On lot four No, okay I just think we would toss that first before we go if we go further Out of curiosity if lot four had to move Do you have do you have Some place on this map that you would be putting it like say you put it in front of lot five Yeah So basically basically what it would be is lot four the new lot four be facing lot one and facing lot five correct Sort of in that that Supposing you okay Okay Board received a letter board received a letter from a mr. James Beecher. Did you get a chance to see that? Yeah, that's the cursive one. That's the cursive one Yeah Do anything about it? I did I did read it. Yes. Okay. I expected you did you read it I'm just curious if you knew know anything about it No reading that I was shocked. Um, I don't have what's that? I'm not sure why you would but Maybe you know the history of the no, I don't know the history of the land I've started working on this project in the year 2016 I've walked on the lands. Andrew has walked on the lands I didn't see anything to that effect, but then again if it's subsurface so um I will get to you I'll get to you right now. Go ahead if you stand up and state your name and uh Mr. Beecher, welcome. I've lived here my whole life and the previous name of the owner was a partner plus a co-owner And as kids we were always invited up to his sugar house and that was a junkyard a ravine and When I walk up with my sisters, I mean playing with junk cars and then all of a sudden you look over and oh that one's gone It's a landfill There was an area where it's been filled in to fill in the contours And who knows I mean building materials Back then would they consist of lead paint asbestos? and everything else under the sun Where's that going to end up? there was A lot of building debris there And that's something that should be looked into. Where does it leach out to? What's the potential you start drilling wells? You break through a vein A budding landowner's wells can be contaminated okay You could you could identify the ravines that were filled in absolutely All right. Well, we are we are here to take testimony that that's uh I mean in back in 84 there was a print that they should have a true doubt True doubt labeled it as a farm dump. I've been owner of a large farm And even a large farm does not Generate that much waste to fill in a hole like that okay And in that letter too There was a fire at one time that should be in records And I stated, you know, just over here in conversation That's how will listen. They didn't know where the town lights were Okay Anything else Thank you Questions from the board regarding mr. Beecher and his testimony Yeah, I think that That should be I think there should be an investigation done At least if he can go out and point out say this ravine isn't here anymore Then someone might want to do uh some form of examination as to what is in that Former ravine At the surface go at the base. Yeah, you'd have to dig you'd have to get down In order to actually find out what's there Okay, any other How do we do with farm dumps and stuff like that? No, no, this is more than a fire. No, I'm just I just was asking staff of something in the past like that was not identified or identified as a farm Was already Was already stated so I got a call from this feature a week or so ago Then Later that day I reached out to jeff fares on a select board You may know he works for solid waste division with the state And he gave me the name of somebody to contact that contacted them And they signed staff first and he got an email within a day Uh, which I think is in your packet indicating what they're representing. So, you know, that's what we did to look into it If the board wants additional investigation, you know, we're not trained specialists in this area So it's not like, you know, ken and melinda gotta go out there and walk around and say, okay Or the inside of that so typically the way you would you would do that is uh, the board would have to decide That you need that you want a phase two environmental assessment, which would include, you know, taking course samples So you would have to get a report from somebody who's qualified to do that in order to get additional information So but but that's what we've done so far. Yeah, we tapped into the the folks at the state who have jurisdiction and got information from then from then and The question is being raised here tonight. It's up to you guys to decide whether or not We want to require the applicant to provide additional technical information to do we have the purview to Ask for that on the entire site on a portion of the site or just on the site that's being developed It's not automatically the entire site Other questions or comments from the board well if we The way I look at it is if they do a A test there and there's a problem then I think you're talking about potential expansion of so it's one of those things that If there is a problem that we find here Then the rest of the site should be potentially looked at But I think it should be focused On where it was documented that there is construction waste supposedly buried Yes, Amanda Um because I'm not privy to how large or how many areas that uh, mr. Beecher Could identify on the plan for the potential of waste and it sounds like His concern is that when we go to drill wells Our wells will disturb something on our site that will potentially contaminate other people's wells Which is not something we're interested in doing so Uh as we're discussing how we're going to figure out our initial investigation area It might be Wise because I also don't know the best way to do it either to discuss with somebody who has experience With this to maybe first look at where James Beecher is identifying These potential waste second. What type of development are we proposing in these areas? Third, what types of developments could potentially cause disturbance to these areas? Should there be things there and get an expert's opinion on how to proceed forward So we'll discuss that in deliberation and okay questions report The wetlands You've not had a donation done. So you've identified some class Class three wetlands It seems that those were to be identified as class two wetlands Your ability to develop a portion of site As far as where our lots would be laid out it could so Andrea did a delineation It just has not been confirmed by the state yet So she can give you information on wetlands if you want to discuss how that whole process works. Yeah, so I Performed a wetland assessment. Which is something that we commonly do outside the growing season To get a sense of where the wetland boundaries are I went out there identified plants looked at the soils to consideration of the hydrology of the site And I am fairly positive that they will be Class three wetlands due to both their size And the fact that they don't have any connectivity to streams or other water features What I was seeing is to why they would be formed and the locations that they're shown The site's very legy and where these class three wetlands are forming are right at the base of a cliff So water is running off that cliff and there's a small depression at the bottom of it where water is pooling um And I did also notice there are some Disturbed areas on the site. There was an area that had Some stockpiling of rocks, which then had some wetlands next to it, which you often see From disturbance when you're digging in the ground and then leave a depression there So as far as the The concerns with class two These will be confirmed by the state as they always have to be whenever we find that we do an assessment And there's some form of wetland on the property That will be done in the springtime when the state opens back up their confirmation season and So as at the discretionary permit level will definitely have our answer We definitely won't buy growth management because it will still be winter time Um, but Karina Daily at our office is our environmental scientist Andrea works with her closely and does this type of work all the time. So I think we're both very confident that we'll end up with class three's here So the uh, the board is As melinda stated in her in her Um, opening statement The board will want to see Proof that the uh the access That the right that the applicant has the right to access the property legally There was a there was a letter there was a letter sent to the board on december 4th as well from Mr. Craig samson Which has a number of Requests In it one of which one of which has to do with the the legality of the access So you're you're you're going to want to prove you approve out that Yes, so that's um the plat that we've submitted that's on file here at the town office Has our ownership of rosewood drive Up to the property line. I believe I'm not looking at it. So I can't recall. I think you may have a copy up there with you and And I believe we have easement through the quinland Quinnean lot as well. We can submit that information and so the staff the staff and the board will want to see that Is that something that we're Requested for as soon as possible. It's something we can provide to you as soon as possible and not have to wait For the next step I'm sorry. Could you say that again? I was wondering when you're requesting that information Um, if you're requesting it now like we could provide that information to you as soon as possible Rather than some like some of these items that you I think that I think that the sooner you the sooner you submit that The sooner you submit that probably the better as opposed to waiting until the Um, assuming this passes tonight Assuming um, if you submit it with your dp application, it may very well hold that up Okay, so we can submit that my suggestion is my suggestion is you said you send that in earlier You know sooner than sooner than the later we can do that Sure, okay, mr. Sampson who's not here tonight, correct Question he brings up a question about the private road appearing to be greater than a 10 grade Again, ma'am. Could you if you could stand up and state your name and your address, please? Yeah, you can Okay any comment on that I did not survey the new driveway as it's been installed So I don't know the grade of that driveway But from my recollection Um, oh, it's well, okay. That's fine. We don't need to we don't need to recollect We can either kind of is or it isn't we can we'll just yeah, I know up to the point of lot one for sure It's flat Okay, and beyond that. I don't know I haven't walked up to the cabin Other questions from the board If we kind of work through this paul you have a question. Yeah, one question The lot six with the wetland sort of in the center of it What is the Distances that uh septic field has to be from a wetland So permits for For wastewater are handled by the state of vermont. The town doesn't have any permitting authority relative to Well, the septic systems That's required the applicant to get a permit from the state of vermont so that they show us So that's that's a state issue That's all you know For information off you wanted to know there is no limit So sometimes you impact you impact wetlands with your wastewater design you propose to the state They approve it or they deny it and the wetlands department also has to approve or deny your impacts to those wetlands Uh, that's just general information We are putting all of our septics together in one area because it's pretty much the only suitable place on the site So it will not be near any wetlands the wastewater so now we're you're going to be running pipe And digging trenches and stuff from lot six and seven down to that string of It's already there because we had the mobile home was up there on rosewood drive And that was the fire that happened some time ago. Yeah, so they have their Pipe going from up near where that wetland is on lot six And it goes down through To the first on the northernmost system So the northernmost system is being used by the new cabin That is the system that the trailer used to use and that trailer was up there. So what we planned what what they did the cabin Um came across to uh, let's just say to that wetland to the north on their lot That's really tied into that existing force main and they're using the existing force main to get to that system What will happen is the other lot will tie the lots. Um, let me see six and seven We'll attach to the force main up there And since they're stubbed off now because the cabin took over they'll just want to trench down from there To the other system Other questions paul Do we have any questions from the audience? Yes, ma'am So my concern was our water and where the septic is going where everything's going to leach because it all has to leach to this one here But according to what you just said, it's a state name. You guys can't make any calls on that. Is that correct? Correct So how what do I have to do it right a letter to the state to make sure they know because engineers don't always know what's going on We actually tied in this new cabin to the existing For the excavating business we did the tie in for his new cabin onto the old existing We don't see where seven septics can go all down there where anything can leach This it's the only area on the property anything can leach to And it is so close to our water. We don't see where they're getting seven of them aren't convenient or water He has septic in his backyard. They're gonna have to drill a well for those houses How close everything it's got to go in this one area Because it's the only place on the property. So I need to get Can you give me who I need to write a letter to the state to to make sure the engineers are getting it right? Engineers, they're not perfect Brandy said to me so what are you doing here? And I said we're concerned about our water He goes well the engineers know what they're doing. Well, we work with a lot of engineers and they don't always know You know they're reading papers. They don't know the land that well So I just want to make sure our water stays clean And I I need to know the step to take it. It's not you guys Who do I make sure it is done correctly with with the engineers? So so you may want to contact the water wastewater division of the department of environmental conservation with the state of vermont Their office is up in s6 junction They're the ones that are going to be handling the permitting You can tell them where you live tell them you're an abiding property owner to this property and State your concerns other questions or comments from the audience Just wondering it as we proceed forward, how does this process work? You know, I'm not truly familiar with it I know this is a pre-application I'm just wondering as we proceed forward is does it still Allow the public or does it It's only within the town or within the department Not really sure. Okay. Uh, well, this is this is the pre-application and this is a kind of a conversation Amongst the applicant the board and the public and the staff And uh, they're not being authorized to build anything However, they are being they may be authorized to Go out and spend a bunch of money and do a bunch of work to see if this is Approvable in the future Um And that would be the discretionary permit process At which time at which time it's open to the public Hearing the hearings will be warned and as a butters you will be notified And we'll go through this process again Much more in depth Okay, so really this is We call it pre-app also can be called sketch plan. Um, it's it's a It's the wish list. It's this is what we want to do. We're not sure if we can do it We think we can do it now. We got to go out and get you know get the experts Which which I know Mrs. Du Bois Is concerned that making that that they the applicant make sure that Everything is accurate And then we meet back we meet can we come back depending on the length of time it takes for the applicant to get All of the data pulled together and there is a lot of it And uh, it gets submitted to staff staff staff goes through it Carefully and uh, and then it gets a hearing gets set and the board starts looking at it again So Nothing is being approved, but it sometimes feels like it It seems like it sometimes feels like it people get, you know, who don't understand the process sometimes can, you know, worry that It's all being done right now. It's not this is this is It's a discussion Other questions, ma'am Yes, ma'am. Yes, you may clarify regarding This area right here For some reason crayfish is our property. But anyway, if this is their property though, this is 60 Feet, by the way, right our well is right in it And I wonder how does that mean to our well So things go for go move forward kind of concerns me so based on what Ken said earlier, um, that's the that that would fall under the purview of department of environmental conservation I'm going to Guess maybe That they have well logs and well placement and they're going to understand where the right of way the wells fall within the right of way That does come but that will Yeah, you don't need to raise your hand Same fact Well, that may be In work, you know, the board the board and the Staff and the town Would hope that that information all comes out as we work toward discretionary permit assuming it does head in that direction Other comments or questions? Do you have any more comments or questions? For the board Okay Audience anything else Questions from the um board The one question, uh For mr. Brnoi Uh Now one of the things that is supposedly supposed to be resolved between what's behind your property is there supposed to be some kind of Barriers so that may be What you may be most interested in is How that is going to be You're going to be separated from that buffer. Yeah, however that buffer is defined So that might be your most interesting thing that for you to be tracking I understand that You know, and I know it's pretty, you know But um, yeah, I mean I know they mentioned nine foot I feel nine foot is not going to give much of a buffer there Since the back of my property and the existing property is just a field So there's nothing between the two properties right there at all at this point I know there's nothing there, but I'm trying to say is that they're they're implying they're going to put up some kind of uh hedgerow or Yeah, and so you trees or whatever it is to create a more Right in conformance with the bylaw and a lot of times what we'll do and probably do with this is These houses in this location will probably be the last ones to be built But the buffer can be the first thing to be built So you start by planting your trees as soon as we're approved plant some trees let them grow And then when it comes time to actually do the building Um, you have a established buffer you're not starting off with a tree that's tall as a table They said a type three landscaping Can you give me a definition of that? Um, I don't know if it's 23 was it? The definition is is it's informal planting. So basically you know trees planted and uh, not like a Just I don't know More how do I describe like a varying species and varying heights type of buffer But that's stuff that we would be able to discuss with you, you know, as because we want to be good neighbors Okay, anything more from the board anything more from the audience Any questions any comments anything else you'd like to add? Okay I don't have a handy Put it into your favorite internet browser it will come up in seconds Ken you want to see if you can find that I've got to try I think bill Zebelowski who's in this area I think he's 5575773 I think 5773 Bill Zebelowski If I'm wrong on his number, I'm right on his name Z-A-B-I-L-O-S-K-I Sounds like Zebelowski, but Zebelowski the other name is Jesse Ann Wyman. I don't know her number She approved the uh, the most recent permit for this project No, I don't know her number. I think there's a state of Vermont employee directory And you can just punch in their last name and the phone number should come up The state's website is slightly difficult to navigate, but those are the two people that are relevant to our area Any other questions from the audience? Nope. Okay. One more time board. You're good All set, okay We're going to close dp18-09 brown out of the marsh seven lot subdivision at 805 Thank you. Thank you everybody The board is going to go into a deliberation We'll get a chance to revisit that I think again More than once As you say I'll get another bite at the apple Yeah, we'll get a chance to look at this a lot more a lot more closely. Okay. Are you up and on? Very good. Okay The wilson development review board for tuesday december 12th is out of deliberation at eight 38 Two items to vote on do I have a motion? To approve dp18-12 denis white interior contractors I will take that As authorized by wdb 6.6.3 I court majority moved that the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials Including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards Required to comment on this application by the wilson development bylaw And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of december 12th 2017 And the recommendations proposed by staff with a review of dp18-12 And authorizes application to move forward to discretionary permit review Great, thank you. Do I have a second? Yeah, I'll second that all seconds at any further discussion No further discussion all in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye. Six ayes. No nays motion carries I have a motion to approve dp18- I'm sorry. I gotta check one thing Please that I call out Yes, I did. I called out the denis dp18-12 denis white interiors. Okay, very good Do I have a motion to approve dp18-09 randy brownell and joe lemarch Pre-application for a seven lot subdivision Yes As authorized by wdb 6.6.3 I john hemmelgarn moved at the wilson development review board Having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town's staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson Development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearings of november 28th 2017 and december 12th 2017 except the recommendations proposed by staff the review of dp18-09 and authorize the applicant to proceed to residential growth management allocation We're going to add a couple of additional recommendations Recommendation number six The board has been advised of a potential landfill on the subject parcel And we'll be seeking a legal opinion and may require additional information from the applicant at discretionary permit phase and number seven The applicant shall relocate lot 4 to a new location Not involving slopes deeper than 15 percent Do I have a second I'm gonna have to All seconds at any further discussion No further discussion all in favor Aye Six ayes no nays motion carries Let's see Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? november 28th 2017 I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of november 28th 2017 as written Do I have a second I'll second that one too All is mr. Second Any further discussion All in favor Aye Aye Six ayes no nays Would someone prepare to make a motion to adjourn the meeting at 843 Thank you everybody that was interesting I second the motion