 like right on the edge tracks on it yeah I think we're ready go very good is is Jill coming here okay we're gonna bring the meeting to order at 701 welcome everybody the town of Williston's Development Review Board for Tuesday April 23rd we have items on the agenda for tonight we do always start with a public hearing and open an open hearing if anybody wishes to address the board in advance schedule hearing anybody here want to bring anything in front of the board that is not previously scheduled okay very good so the first up tonight is DP 19-19 it's a pre-app for JC properties LLC I assume you are representing mr. Matosky you have assumed correctly correctly would you state your name and your address please my name is Amanda Ravin with Trudell Consulting Engineers 478 Boyer Park Road Wilson you did say Amanda right okay so we're gonna let the staff go first hey this one's mine this is a request for pre-application review for proposed development including modifications on a develop law at 478 Blair Park Road there are no changes in use on the lot or in the building proposed and this is the offices of Trudell Consulting Engineering if anybody's familiar with that there are various stages of discretionary permit review in Williston the first stage is pre-application which is where we are now it's intended to be a conversation between the applicant and the board with the board developing any recommendations they feel might be necessary moving into the next stage which is discretionary permit review this is the stage of the review where the board if it's so desired would request a traffic study or wetlands delineation among a few other recommendations staffs not recommending either a traffic study or wetlands delineation in the case of this project so as I said the subject properties at 478 Blair Park Road it's currently developed with the Trudell Consulting Engineers office building a large office building and another parcel which is newly developed with a senior living facility the remainder of the parcel is frontage on Blair Park Road which some of you might recall is a large circular road generates big frontages on the lots there this proposal calls for a 390 square foot addition to the existing building and the construction of some additional parking spaces modifications to access drives walkways and other appurtenances to support the building and addition this is the first time this project has been reviewed by the DRB in July of 2016 the DRB saw a different proposal on this site to construct a separate building that proposal was not followed up on following pre-app this is really an entirely different thing because it's just in addition to the existing building we did receive review of this project by police fire and public works departments no comments were received from the police we did attach comments from fire and public works to the staff notes and they appear to be of the not calling for large changes to the project just notifying of typical requirements and or stating no comment type of comments this project is also in the design review district and subject to review by the historic and architectural advisory committee and their transmittal has also been attached to your staff report and their recommendations related to screening of utilities have been added to the staff report as draft recommendations for consideration by the DRB as I said the proposed use will stay the same as it is today it's professional office business Park zoning district allows for a wide variety of professional office scientific technical and access to the site will be via the existing driveway on Blair Park Road any potential impacts to additional traffic generation would be assessed at the time of the administrative permit being issued for the project staff does not anticipate significant increases in vehicle trips and there are also some existing landscape buffers and street trees and further detail on those elements would be required as part of a discretionary permit application for discretionary permit will need to show site maintenance elements including dumpster and snow storage locations as proposed the applicant will have to submit a complete outdoor lighting plan for any new lighting showing compliance with the town's lighting chapter and any architectural lighting that's proposed as part of the addition should also be included in that as the earth there are some particular standards related to architectural lighting the applicant is proposing a small amount of additional parking for a total of 44 spaces on the site and as mentioned the project is in the town's design review district and screening of mechanical equipment on the site as part of what you would want to see at a discretionary that said the staff has prepared draft recommendations and a motion for the DRB to consider that would allow the project to move forward to discretionary permit will note also we passed out some materials tonight they're just color copies we didn't have enough to go around in the mail color we passed out is the most recent iteration of what Trudell's proposing on the building I'll stop there Amanda like that good job let's see here just to go back for DP 1638 that was one of the last pre-apps that we went to a building proposed and we hadn't followed through with that that's something that Jeremy who's the owner of this property may pursue in the future but I think it wasn't feasible at that time so I just want to not to lose sight of that that's something that we might try to do but but but just so the board knows not really germane to what we're talking about no just a little bit of history for this project we did meet with the HAA see what I've provided you on the small photos where the comments that they've asked us to take care of which will put into discretionary permitting as well but just to give you an idea of what we're looking to do to screen our HVAC the photos of the HVAC and type of fence that we may consider using something four feet tall cedar the color of the fence that you see in the textures of the fence will try to match the wood that we're proposing on the building so it's just to give you a general idea of what we're looking to do and we'll probably take that corner and wrap it so that way from the front entrance and also the side entrance because we have so much that will screen all of the HVAC so it takes care of that for traffic we can provide the trip generation based on the current IT information but again we're not proposing to do an increase right now we're sharing office space and the reason that we're doing this building addition is because our front facade is having structural problems where it's actually dipped down we can't open our sliding windows anymore because it's just structurally unsound so as part of fixing this wall it's beneficial for us to just do a small building expansion there in the area address the structural problems and gain some space create a little bit more office space lounge area some other things that you'll see on the floor plans that are now included with that packet and the mail out and the extra copies here so just taking advantage of fixing a problem and getting something out of it as well see site maintenance we can put dumpster locations and snow storage locations on our plan for our next submission lighting plan we're not proposing any changes in lighting we can model our site lighting that we have now hopefully there's nothing more than we have to do to accommodate that as part of this but if we do need to have full compliance with rules because we're doing a building addition I'd like to just get clarity on that from you guys so that way I know going into it if we will for the parking it says 44 spaces I think it's 34 though okay I was looking for that earlier I remember reading it and I couldn't find it and I knew it was 34 but yes that's a typo that should be 34 along with that parking because we have company vehicles and it's sort of like company storage vehicles it's not a traditional office type use where everybody comes I drive the vehicle and then they go home we have multi disciplines that have vehicles each one of my vehicles that's a little bit different from when TCE first started with this site layout so because of that even though we're not proposing an expansion we have expanded some of our uses and disciplines inside of our firm so we're proposing six parking spaces to kind of accommodate those peak hours so our visitors will also have a place to park on the recommendation side I think that a lighting plan is requested in here and that should be a recommendation that we can provide and then for landscaping one of our last it was either an AP I think or a pre-app took care of some landscaping we voluntarily removed some pine trees and added a more aesthetic landscaping plan that's something that's in place so I didn't put that on here I show what our landscaping is but I don't go into detail on this plan because we've already got that on file so I was hoping as part of this that landscaping plan that we did voluntarily in our last application would suffice this application in our DP as far as anything additional above and beyond that relatively simple project did you have any questions how many additional offices are going to be in the building so right now Jeremy is in the back-and-forth design phase with the architect so this plan changes quite frequently he probably knows right off the top of his head because he's involved with the changes on that not so much me let me see for on the first floor basement also for and then second for looks like for additional I'd have to make sure that there aren't any mergers for takeaways but I suppose 12 that additional or is that in total so the bump out we were proposing the bump out is on the south facade right now that's a hallway and with the bump out he'll be able to add it looks like for office spaces or floor each one of them bump out in all these offices are produced by the tent or by the owner by TCE yes so we also have remote underground locators who occupies in our building they don't have an office space but they do have vehicle storage so it's just a one-man show he keeps his vehicle there he doesn't need an office space he doesn't have one commercial vehicles how big are they just a standard size vehicle the biggest they're not they're not going to be like a five-ton truck or anything like that no no we already have them there so mostly we have the survey crew has trucks nothing bigger than an f-150 really yeah and then cars actually now the vehicles are there now some the site photos that I provided you and the original packet I was trying to capture the burdened parking lot no no additional no no no this is what we have right now yes we could use some additional parking spaces because I think survey has three vehicles environmental has one I think the engineers have either one or two available to them and then from underground locators that's the biggest vehicle that you'll see in this picture here fits in a regular parking spot it's a box truck but so it's pretty safe to say I just counted offices you have 25 it appears you have 25 offices in the building and on three floors and most of your parking is most of your parking is in the evening because you're I'm assuming you're going off to job sites so people climb in their vehicles and off they go correct and maybe they come back and go and come back and leave and what have you but I am assuming that it's you're out here a lot of your vehicles are coming and going all day long correct they do come and go all day long so where we run into the issue is when they're not going so if there's a day where let's say it's raining and they're not going out but somebody's coming into the office that's where we're running into that issue so it's really at our peak time there is a good amount of flux parking and for the most part we don't run into that but we really want to accommodate our peak was there I seem to recall that with the senior housing next door that there were some can intention to connect across am I not remembering that correctly the other office building this building's adjacent to people knows the Kidder building the really big one in the middle that building is connected to the surface parking for the senior housing that building was using surface parking on the senior housing lot prior to the construction of the senior I don't think a connection between this building and that lot have ever been contemplated is the intent also to it looks like the model renderings have different colors is the idea to go with the red and the metal metallic yes so those are kind of our logo colors I think they have a meaning Jeremy knows more about that but I think it was environmental type meaning and those are the colors that we're trying to stick with the HAC really liked our proposal they saw what I've forgiven to you as your extras yeah they they liked it they thought it brought just kind of like a fresh look to Blair Park and they were hoping people would follow suit with this kind of new style also we're working on the hotel that's going in near the post office so we're privy to kind of the design of that and we're trying to have like a similar cohesive type design different colors but just a general cohesiveness between the buildings it was good any consideration for solar or anything on the building now while you're doing all this modification this building was designed as a passive solar building so it takes in a lot of heat from the Sun and I think the way it was designed was it would retain that in something and like a column in the middle a sand-filled column and then radiate it out what needed Jeremy says that it hasn't functioned properly since the year that it was constructed and our building is just super hot I don't think we have any plans for a solar at this time I think because of the way our building is shaped with the face of it towards the Sun rather than the roof sloped that way it would be difficult to take advantage of that so not at this time but Jeremy has been working with for the efficiency Vermont folks we just did a whole HVAC revamp part of the reconstruction of the south facade is to reduce that solar that's coming in and capture it and reuse it properly we also have as part of our HVAC a pulls in fresh air from the outside recycles that in and Jeremy knows a lot more about how the cell functions but it's an efficient type HVAC unit and it's been designed to work with the design that we're proposing to you guys today I would echo that thank you thank you for coming well I suppose I do have one final question I was wondering for our next step would it be possible to do DP and final together do you think or do you think it'll be two more meetings for us that is up to you you can you can try for that the only risk the only risk there is if you go for final go for final in your next meeting and the board turns it down you start over start from the very beginning that's a harsh one just just sort of procedurally what what the DRB typically does is approve a discretionary permit with conditions of approval and then final plans need to come in in in compliance with any conditions that are established so you can be 99% sure that what's going to happen in front the DRB is going to be approvable and and they can approve it but their approval is not valid until two weeks later when they approve the minutes that's their written decision and they're not in a position under the bylaw to sign a final plan until the time when that notice of decision has been signed so there's almost always two weeks after what you can do is you can come in and say this is my discretionary permit this is what we really want to do we're hoping to be in and out of here in one hearing which you know happens fairly frequently with simple projects with the board and it's quite the board can always decide to delegate final plan signature to me I still have to wait for them to approve the minutes from that meeting but it taxed two weeks on to the end of the schedule and that's it delegate most of the time to staff I love that I'm not asking to rush you I was just trying to get an idea of our schedule because of our building is falling off of itself it would be nice to get this work done this year so I'm trying to figure out how we can line this all up so we'll do it as we can like Barley can just break ground and they didn't have big surprisingly something real I think that's a bad idea thank you for coming the DP 19-21 Adams real properties LLC okay so as stated this is DP 19-21 project name is the FedEx Fence at 921 Marshall had Jason if you'd state your name in your address please yep Jason Adams Adams real properties 207 Boyer circle Emily does you all right this is the first time this proposal is to be reviewed by the DRB previous development is as follows the original subdivision occurred in 2004 the original site plan for lots 4 and 5 was approved in 1989 to construct the building for FedEx in 1986 I totally read this backwards because I've read it so many times I wasn't really even reading this part but anyways the 2004 was the site plan for trailer storage on the southeast corner 89 was the original site plan in 86 was the original original subdivision findings effect you'll notice that there are a couple different formatting components to this section of the staff report you'll see there whether the DRB will have to make some specific findings feel free to pause me if you have questions when we get to those points proposed use the applicant proposes to maintain the existing use of general freight trucking this is allowed in the zoning district proposed structure the applicant proposes a 9-foot tall fence 8 feet tall chain link with privacy screening topped with 12 inches of barbed wire along the north west and south parcel boundaries along the eastern side the fence will terminate at the building corners so the eastern parking lot and main entrance will remain open for the public and customer access the fence will include three overhead tracks sliding gates for vehicular access the height of the gates has not been specified in the provided spec sheet but is subject to the 36 foot height limitation the page that Jason Adams just passed around shows an elevation of what this sliding gate will look like access the development has two existing curb cuts one on Marshall Ave one on Boyer Circle no changes to access are proposed setback the property is two front yards along Boyer Circle and Marshall Ave chapter 36 requires a 35 foot front yard setback from the property line along public ways setbacks for side and rear property lines are controlled by the landscape buffer and discussed in the lamp escaping section below for Boyer Circle along the west side of the property the proposed fence is 60 feet from the property line and outside the setback for Marshall Ave along the north boundary the proposed fence is 15 feet from the property line and within the setback the board must decide if locating the fence within the 35 foot setback does or does not increase the nonconformity of the property based on the allowed uses of setbacks per the chapter excerpted above the next section will probably make sense if you're looking at it in relationship to the site plan the existing paved area along Marshall Ave has segments that are 40 feet 30 feet and 10 feet from the property line the 40 foot and 30 foot segments are shown on previously approved site plans and legal nonconforming the paved area located 10 feet from the property line is not identified on the site plans for SB 8914 or SP 0507 nor with a more recent building permit therefore it is illegal nonconforming however staff reach research of satellite imagery shows that this area has been paved for more than 15 years which is the limitation on pursuing violations therefore the board must make findings about the fence and the paved area and the board may decide an additional an additional condition of approval is necessary for compliance the DRB findings are a fence in the front yard setback is or is not in compliance with chapter 36 the 20 by 20 paved area is or is not in compliance with chapter 36 landscaping the existing and proposed landscaping is shown on the site plan the subject parcel is adjacent to two public ways and two heavy commercial slash industrial parcels chapter 23 requires the parcel be buffered in the following ways as shown in the table the applicant is proposing buffers as follows for the north property line along Marshall Ave no street trees are shown in compliance with chapter 26 because the fence structure is proposed on the exterior street facing side of the existing trees for the east side a type three nine foot buffer is existing that side of the property is not changing so that landscaping is in compliance the south property boundary abutting another heavy commercial industrial property a zero foot buffer is proposed because the fence is directly located along the property boundary the pavement extends to the parcel boundary and is existing nonconforming and lastly the west property boundary is described in the street tree section below what follows are definitions of the types of landscape buffers and then chapter 23 also provides some standards for fences screening fences and opaque fence may be required to increase the effectiveness of a landscape buffer for outdoor storage and or work areas including areas where trucks or heavy machinery will be parked the landscaping plan shall show the location of the screening fence provide one or more elevations detailing its construction the buffers with may be reduced by the height of the fence but not more than 25 percent the height design of a screening fence is subject to design review and approval by the DRB fence materials patterns and colors should match or complement the materials architectural details and colors used on the building on site street trees per chapter of 26 street trees are required on board a circle and Marshall Ave the chapter requires street trees every 40 feet along the road along Marshall Ave no street trees are shown in compliance because the fence structure is proposed on the exterior street facing side of the existing trees a condition has been drafted to require the fence on the interior of the trees or a new section of street trees to be planted for compliance if they put the fence where it's proposed the problem with that would be us first of all the trees would be in the way of the fence and then also snow storage would become a big issue because the trees are the trees are pretty close to the end of the pavement so you don't have much it on the inside yeah so you don't have much room between the trunk of the tree the photo to at the end of the staff report looks from Boyer circle between the trees in the parking area page for street trees Boyer circle the fence is proposed on the interior of the existing trees the applicant proposes three additional landscaping feature three additional white cedars and three balsam furs as additional landscaping typically deciduous trees are required for the treat street tree section but the DRB can allow coniferous trees per 26.4 excerpted below a condition has been drafted requiring additional plantings what 26.4 says is coniferous trees should be avoided but may be permitted by the DRB where they contribute to required buffering or screening the board must make findings about the location of the fence and the provided landscaping street trees the board may decide an additional condition of approval is necessary for compliance the DRB findings offense on the exterior of the trees on Marshall Ave is is not in compliance with chapter 26 the landscaping street trees as proposed is is not in compliance with chapter 23 and 26 parking lot landscaping additional parking lot landscaping is not required outdoor storage outdoor storage is existing on the site it is identified on the site plan in the northwestern corner of the parcels paved area and also along the side rear property line to the south previously approved site plans do not identify outdoor storage areas the proposal for the fence is also a proposal to establish the outdoor storage areas chapter 36 allows outdoor storage but quote only within side and rear yards that are designated for that purpose on an approved site plan and it must meet the following standards for buffering and screening the board must make findings about the existing outdoor storage an addition of an additional condition of approval may be necessary DRB finding outdoor storage as shown on the site plan is or is not approvable per chapter 36 parking and traffic the project does not generate a requirement for additional parking or traffic study outdoor lighting changes to lighting for up to eight luminaries can be approved administratively six light poles are proposed to be replaced a lighting plan was not provided by the applicant a lighting plan must be included with final plans or the administrative permit in compliance with chapter 24 generally this is something that can happen outside of the DRB but because they're in the DRB process including it and final plans just streamlines the process signs no new or changes to existing signage are proposed as part of this application there are no wetlands waterways or conservation areas present on the site changes to stormwater treatment are not proposed nor are changes proposed to water and wastewater or utilities snow storage snow storage plans are not shown on the site plan it was discussed in the hack meeting that the location of the fence between the paved area and trees on Marshall Ave would conflict with snow storage the DRB should decide if snow storage plans should be identified at final plans an additional condition of approval may be necessary solid waste trash and recycling containers are not shown on the site plan these areas must be shown on final plans in compliance with the standards of chapter 16.7 design review this project is subject to design review because it's a long Marshall Ave the DRB reviews compliance with chapter 22 with advice from the historic and architectural advisory committee many elements of chapter 22 do not apply to this project and are shown as not applicable in the full transmittal the full transmittal can be found with the April 2nd 2019 hack minutes for brevity only the recommendations of their meeting of April 2nd are as follows for avoid dead walls they commented the fence screening would look visually like a dead wall therefore hack recommends against the privacy screening we're fine I'm fine with that or FedEx is fine with that yeah 2237 do just keep the building from looking like Fort Knox yeah 2237 do not use reflective materials the hack recommends the applicant shall consider a dark color or matte finish for the fence and post material instead of plain galvanized metal 2293 leave front yards open I'll read this section of the full front yard along the street fencing is generally not permitted for commercial industrial institutional or multi-family developments the DRB may allow an exception to the standard for industrial developments where the finds that the presence of hazards or the need for security outweigh the aesthetic value of an open streetscape the hack recommends against the privacy screening material because it detracts from the sight line of existing landscaping the existing street trees the applicant shall consider the relocation of a portion of the landscaping on Boyer circle to focus along Marshall Avenue basically the couple of trees that they're proposing on Boyer just put them on the other part of the site 2294 fencing and screening where fencing is provided it shall be a type that is compatible with the surrounding landscape and uses traditional fencing patterns like stone walls or picket fence be preferred the DRB may permit security fencing of on the side and backyards where it is necessary public access the hack recommended the applicant shall really consider relocating the gate from the corner of the pitched roof to the corner of the warehouse roof to reduce the visual impact of the gate structure as seen from Marshall out there's a photo attached for clarity and then the elevation that Jason provide shows the fence along that that gate along that part of the building comments from public works fire and conservation the fire department memo is attached and included as a recommendation as a condition of approval police and fire did not comment no comment letters or emails were received from the public at the time of this packet mail out recommended action staff recommends approval of this discretionary permit but only if the board is able to make findings and conditions about the following location of the fence in the front yard outdoor storage in the front yard front yard landscaping street tree requirements and the snow storage plan what follows our conclusions of law and conditions of approval thank you so you have read the suggestions by the staff and the hack obviously there's a lot of layers to it a lot of layers to it yeah you can take the easy way out and agree well the so can I give a little can I give a background to this yeah Jason I'm good I'm poking fun at you it's there are a lot of layers to it and it's just bear bear with us yeah why don't you why don't you go through why don't you go through you know your your ideas and then we're probably gonna back up and go through these one by one absolutely so just a little background information on the building and why we're here with this one the building was built as Emily said in 1989 at that time Marshall Avenue stopped basically at Boyer Circle so you had no you had frontage on Boyer Circle and Marshall at but there was no through traffic at that time so basically you know in my opinion the front of the building the customer entrance is actually on the east side facing another commercial lot and then you have the two sides that have front edge are basically the side in the back of the building so it's not ideal for today's standards by any means but it's obviously existing FedEx falls under TSA regulations so this fence a perimeter securing the perimeter with a fence like this was highly recommended by the TSA it was brought on because of a random site visit where they were able to access the building and they get they issue a $30,000 fine to FedEx for every time that happens so they got one fine they started this process of designing the fence getting it permitted that continues forever so the TSA does random site visits at any time and it's $30,000 a pop so it's basically critical for them to have this site secured to stay at this location and operate as they are that being said I sorry does the TSA have so like barbed wire is that is it does TSA have specific requirements that they from from the conversation I had with a regional FedEx representative they can't tell you exactly what to do they this is what they strongly recommended the TSA yeah the TSA this is consistent with other FedEx is around the whole country it's the fence so the kind of the at the hack meeting the the sliding gates we talked a lot about I didn't have a look I had some pictures that were included just an example I did find out since then the height of the I beam that goes across is 15 feet which is shown to scale on that drawing I made the building height is 20 feet that is basically the same gate that's at FedEx ground currently on Leroy so that's again consistent with what FedEx does has to be that high it's 36 feet so it's a huge load that's why there's an I beam it has to be that high to get trucks underneath seems like there's reasons for all of this you and aesthetics unfortunately is is not high on the list for FedEx you know kind of at the hack meeting that the conclusion was it's a FedEx it's a commercial industrial FedEx it's gonna look it's gonna look different but it's still gonna look similar to what a FedEx looks like everywhere else in the country the kind of the main points I see is is a fence allowed where it it where we're showing it on Marshall Avenue the location of the gate bringing it back from the quote from the northeast corner of basically the lower office portion moving it back about 40 feet to the the warehouse the 20 foot warehouse portion I did get confirmation from FedEx that they're okay with that change so that I it would kind of stick it between trees a little bit can you can you tell me again what they're tell me again what FedEx is okay with the change on that you just mentioned yeah so on the site plan currently it shows a 36 foot sliding gate at the northeast corner of the building so they are okay with moving that west 40 feet so it now lines up with the northeast corner of the warehouse so of the 20 foot section of the building which if you look at some of the street views kind of hides it but there's some trees right on the corner so it would push that kind of behind those trees you come up here and yeah please draw that where that is and this is just approximate the office roof okay I got it is like this yeah that slopes this way so moving it back to here okay basically by the by the first day yeah that way you're kind of getting a little screenage from these existing trees and customers aren't really turning into the building with a huge gate right there it's step back yep this office that yeah okay thank you that then free up those spaces for public parking I don't know if they're I don't I don't believe there's any signage that says it's employee only parking but the employees do not park along the front the storefront so that's where customers usually park so in theory unless they added new signs which they haven't proposed customers could park there but currently I don't believe that I don't think that ever happens so I don't see why would any employees get there very early so they would take up those and then they park their car and they take their FedEx trucks out so those cars stay there all day right it'll be it'll be more difficult then the other so they're the fence location especially along Marshall seems to be biggest you know we're 15 feet from the property line the FedEx ground that's around the corner on Marshall that fence is approximately 15 feet I looked at some site plans at the planning and zoning office of that building today and it's roughly 15 feet from the property line as well so it kind of although it's a change from what's there at this building it does kind of match what's different FedEx location trees and screening as I said we we thought adding the screening might be beneficial to hide some of the outdoors or not hide but to block some of the outdoor storage but talking with that with the hack is that the right do people say that yeah the hack committee it does create kind of a dead wall corridor and you know we've got the trees existing in the front are very mature they're they're good size we're thinking if it's a galvanized or if it's a fence that you can see through you're actually going to be looking kind of right through the fence and seeing at least seeing some of the trees whereas if it was screened then you're looking at a black wall the other issue I I found while while researching for this hearing is and if you flip the the plan I gave you today and I'm not too familiar with street trees and the whole process but when I read it it looks like there's quite a bit involvement from public works dictating and if you have to have a certain number of trees they actually they basically make sure you do everything you say you do and you have to guarantee it for a couple years so one of their restrictions in their standards is you can't be six feet from a waterline a sewer line or underground storm waterline and as you see I've xed out in red and again I just did this today so I'm sorry it's not more official that's all area that's within six feet of one of those items so if you're driving by FedEx ground their fence is close to the road but they have pretty dense like cedar trees planted there that would be out of compliance with public work standards so I don't know which is which which standard outweighs in your opinion but a lot of that area is is not is not plantable based on that six foot buffer I've shown in yellow what is kind of available for plantings that's on my property and then in blue is what's available for planting that's actually in the right away public works we've we've run into this before public works trumping where we where we plant where the board recommends we plant trees and that was seven seven point three point two no street trees may be planted over within six lateral fee of any underground waterline storm waterline sewer line transmission line or other utility so when I once I read that as I was reading the street tree and then I got to this then I'm starting to think as I look the site plan okay there's not really a lot of opportunity there for street trees if we're following public works standards why it seems like it's gonna be a lot up to your your guys and then the outdoor storage piece which has been existing I have satellite imagery I have a picture a satellite or a picture taken from an airplane from 97 and there was some outdoor storage in that front corner the northwest corner and then on google earth you can go from 99 to now and there's been it has varied I mean that's just one picture in every two years and I drive by there every day it does vary on a seasonal day-to-day basis it does seem like FedEx is getting busier in the last however many years I I'm guessing that's to do with online shopping and whatnot and securing this and one more thing to know securing this site to meet TSA's recommendations would allow them to expand their operations here so it is pretty they they are looking to expand their operations if they can get that fence in place and their operations what does that mean I don't really know okay so it's just not no no additions are anything at this point building it just means just cramming more in package volume right so many layers um so let's back up to uh let's back up to page two I'm gonna start kind of work through this so right off the bat right off the bat you say that um FedEx is willing to get rid of the screening yes yeah I think that kind of goes in the right in the right direction so Boyer Circle under setbacks um Boyer Circle west we're 60 feet from the line Marshall Avenue 15 feet from the property line and within the setback the staff does have some notes here that because the fence is within the 15 foot within the the 35 foot setback at located at 15 the board does need to decide whether that's um not going to increase the non-conformity double negative yeah the the other point to that is uh section 22.9.3 of the bylaws which Emily read specifically adds the drb may allow for exceptions of fencing along the street I know that's not the setback but um for adding a fence along a street like this uh if the presence of hazards are need for security outweigh the aesthetics so I mean I think this is a slam dunk of why that was put in there um I mean you have a government agency basically saying for safety this site needs to be secure um to me that's that screams why this was put in exactly okay so I I'm not sure anybody because the town has its ordinance and the TSA has theirs and one actually doesn't trump the other so you want to comment on the um the 20 by 20 paving that's been added at some point in the past I can't comment on it other than um in the photo in from 97 it was there so within 10 years how do you use is it used right now it this this is purely speculation but it's directly across from their large overhead drive-in door so I'm thinking they probably just drove on the grass enough that when they repaved at some point the the people might have just it so I think it helps turn in and back into an overhead door that's located directly across from it that's just a basic life idea do you own this building yes yeah um did the public work mentioning anything about a right away on the front for continuing the multi-use path across the front of the facility I didn't see any comments from public works no and I reached out to Bruce about it he said they don't know where it's going to go it might not even end up on that side of could we could we still ask for a right away for that though because really there's not that much more to extend and it could continue over to the one coming across from south brilington if we went that way would that be something they would entertain I mean if it if it if it fits there I I don't what right away do they typically ask for for those paths I think they usually don't they attend for right away 20 foot easement typically you know that allows them flexibility to place a path that's usually 10 feet of made it the current one that ends at the driveway entrance so it would make sense to extend it past there right um the fence is going to get in the way of it though right well I mean we have 15 feet there I'm fine with keeping it open for a path if they can fit it in FedEx certainly wouldn't have a problem with it so for for and if this is crazy just tell me but if the 20 by 20 pavement was not there and the trees along marshall avenue were not there would it be reasonable to move that fence to the edge of the pavement probably snow removal would be a challenge yeah I think it could definitely get moved closer again I don't think a fence right on the pavement would make sense even just from cars constantly people parking bumping into it snow storage I think there would need to be some kind of buffer what I'm what I'm thinking just for discussion purposes is it's right is is is you put you put the trees on the other side of the fence and create a landscape buffer for the public that can see the trees but if there's no screening they can see the trees anyways through the fence but this is a fence that has that's of substance with barbed wire yes it is yeah along a an area that's a gateway to wilson's shopping district yep no question I agree okay in an industrial zone though also it is it it is not that doesn't but that doesn't preclude it from looking good and it's a not and it's and it's a fence in an area that's not and compliant not compliant that's what I'm struggling with but it's also a site that's not in compliance with federal regulations nothing to do with us okay so that so that Jason attention the tension here the tension here is the site's non-compliant it's been non-compliant for a long time which is which is fine it was built for different absolutely yeah so the tension here is how do we get it how do we get do we leave it non-compliant the way it is and maybe make it worse that's something the board has to decide and we'll work on that once the hearing is closed or we go into deliberation but um what the board's task with doing is to try and decide do we make it does it stay at the same level of non-conforming does it get worse that can we make it better you know if we try to make it better it that you know it you it'll probably cost you something right because we're gonna what Pete's suggesting is we move the fence back and we put the trees on the other side right okay now we got to go buy a whole bunch more trees and and and uh or cost more cost there's some cost there's some cost to that yeah the good thing is you've owned the building for a long time hopefully it's you know hopefully it's paid for and all appreciated what happened you don't have to have a great you don't have we had a big change in our company in the last year though so yes we understand yeah um uh so so keep an open mind as we talk through these things um some of which will have a cost involved some some may not yeah okay Pete you got anything else you want to add to no that's my struggle could i could i make a comment about the street trees also why you're here yeah um yeah i'm in a way um so in the street tree standard even though the the street trees that are currently existing will now be on the inside of the fence but i think they would still they would still meet the purpose of street trees based on the standard improve air quality reduce energy costs due to shading i don't think that applies currently or if we move them out of the fence enhance reduce storm water runoff and soil erosion there that there is a little ditch swale for storm water along marshals so this is from the impervious parking lot it's between that so and the ditch so i think there is some benefit to having them there um enhance wildlife habitat i think that's minimalism they're big trees so there could be some wildlife in there um the only uh the traffic calming i'm not i don't really know how i don't know if street trees in any capacity would be positive for traffic calm in this area so i can't comment on that um and then increase property values i don't think that's uh it's it's a mute point um it's property values are based on appraisal so so i so i do think the street trees serve the purpose of the street tree standard as they are um being the larger mature trees um everybody understand the issues at hand with the um setbacks before i move before i move on obviously we're going to talk about this in deliberation the problem is if the street trees are outside the fence and they're taller than the fence then they are they're basically set up to defeat the fence just something to consider that's a good point those the trees of i mean i can i drive by there all the time so the trees are pretty good size yeah you have do you have any leeway to pull the fence in more besides i mean the only thing is the extended pavement that goes past there right i mean i i would i would guess we could pull the fence or if it especially if it got us approved um pull the fence back uh between where it is now and the and the north side of the existing street trees so closer to the building but not on the inside of the trees um with some buffer for snow storage and whatnot and then go around the 20 by 20 non-conforming i mean usually they build those a lot bigger than they really need so i mean if you look that have trucks actually been pulling all the way up in there to back end you know i i i don't know i can't and then you'd only have a 20 foot section close the road the rest would be set back or they figure out a different way to plow this right i mean it there's other ways than just direct you know plowing head on well yeah except you have the i mean the whole the whole site is enclosed so it's not like you can plow the other direction because you've got the fence on blow it through the well you could plow it to the east right i mean you could go through the gate to the east you could um i don't know what the uh i don't know what the standards are for when that fence needs to be closed so i don't know if they'd want to keep it open for plowing or not um i think it would defeat the purpose of some degree uh i know the one i believe the standards had some access controls so i i picture that being closed unless a truck is going through um but and maybe they give plowers the think that i think that this question this question has been asked but is there any ability to pull that 20 by 20 section back at all so if we were if we were to pull the fence line back from marshal lab closer to the trees it would it would cut across that 20 by 20 section is that is there any uh is there any ability to reduce that do you know i don't know i mean i would that's something you could find out i can i mean i can i could have an i think it would make sense to have an engineer run it on a program but again that's not is it going to stop someone from just driving on the dirt right there well there's a fence yeah i can certainly look into it i'm i'm imagining it would be it would be difficult for the drivers given how busy it is out there it's it's it's busy it's a busy site no i i i understand that um but it's give and take and get approved and lose a tenant or give it you know i mean it's it's critical for them to be operating how they need to so you said there's a there's a loading dock on that north facade the north side there are drive indoors the west and south side have the west side has one loading dock and us and the west and south side both have side loading docks so the trucks actually pull up parallel to the building and the the tractor trailers have like canvas sides that go up so they can go they're not going from the back they're going in from the side of the truck so they so multiple people can get in there at once um which is why for the outdoor storage piece which we haven't gotten to um there's also not a lot of other options on the site other than the corner that's that's shown on the site plan so let's let's i'm sorry go ahead i'm i'm trying to look at this site plan and make sure i understand this before we get into our our conversations about it but there's a note here that says the proposed fence is 15 feet from the property line on marshal on marshal avenue is that correct because then then there's another statement that says that the paved area along marshal avenue is a combination of 40 30 and 10 feet from the property line yeah that's just here here right but how can it be how can the pavement be 10 feet from the property line and the fence be proposed 15 feet from the property line and not be over top of the pavement that's a good question i don't think i put uh in my application the distances um looks like 10 feet for mistype right i'm just trying to be so i understand what the distances are so how far from the property line is the fence proposed to me i don't what it's shown i don't have a printed what is it shown do you have a scaled copy that we provided the 24 by 36 but i don't rule one of architecture school don't scale the drawings um well we we provide the 24 by 36 for that reason though right well all right looks a lot closer to 10 feet to me so if you pulled it up against the parking lot right there you'd be 30 feet from the property line is that correct have you moved on the other side of the trees yes although i think staying i think getting a fence in between the pavement and the trees would be difficult with the roots and the space that's given yeah which then our box right there someplace in the play tour right and and that 30 feet would still be non-conforming five foot set back 35 foot set back so to be common conforming you've got to you've got to reduce the size of the pavement so the fence is about 15 and then that paved area goes from like 25 to about 20 because it's on an ankle so that 10 feet should be a 20 feet my mistake now 15 is again that is consistent with what's at FedEx ground currently um which is in the same corridor coming into Williston absolutely i think part of it's to blend into the area doesn't count well blending into the area you can't own all the property can you okay page three i don't oppose landscaping buffers just to go just one thing you mentioned moving the gate back on the northeast corner back yeah 40 yes could it could it be moved back i'm not familiar with the front of the building but could it be moved back to the end of that bank of whatever 15 parking spaces could it be uh no then the overhead door to get into the warehouse would be on the outside of the door there it's pretty it's there's a the corner the corner of the warehouse then there's a man door and a overhead door right tight to the corner but is that really does that need to be secure i mean presumably that door has a lock on it right yeah it's the over it's the overhead doors that are the bigger problem um yeah it's it there's so much in and out that it i don't think it would be possible to open the door and close it for every person which is why tsa is can or anyone in theory could walk in it's not through the man doors it's through the overhead doors when people are moving those landscaping bubbles along the north we've been talking about that marshal lab no street no street trees in compliant no street trees in compliance with chapter 26 because fence structures proposed on the exterior but we do but we do agree that street trees do exist and it's a discussion that we have been having on whether the where the fence is located is located in relationship to those trees on the east side we got nine feet nine feet of buffer nine feet a nine-foot buffer maybe a nine foot setback with no buffer correct with just informal plantings correct me if i'm reading this wrong yeah but east side that's the part that's not being touched at all right so that's just nine foot with informal plantings but there will be some and and the the thought for those trees was to screen the outdoor storage a little bit more so than the fence itself on the east and kind of on the northeast on the no on the on the west side there's no outside storage on the east okay sorry i was on the west side okay but you would be removing some of those trees to put that gate in at the southeast corner right i mean it looks like there's a couple of smaller trees there yeah it looks like a small one might need to go instead be some trimming some pruning some of those would go away yeah right there yeah or we could just hack half of them off and leave the tree you know that so the front the so they look the same from from marshal south side under the south side zero buffer proposed fence proposed directly along property boundary pavement favored extends and is existing non-conforming there's no wish you build the fence along directly on the property line well they wouldn't have a landscape buffer on that side essentially right but that pavement's been existing to the property since this site was originally developed so today the maximum compliance would be to have landscape buffer then fence and pavement but that's not what's there currently so the maximum compliance would be rip up some of that pavement and put in a landscape buffer and fence but it's weighing what's existing with so we're just we're basically we're maintaining we're just maintaining the existing non-conforming or and or if we're adding to it if we're adding to it by putting a fence on right right and then west we last west we have a see street tree section below okay page four we talked about screening fences and the fact that FedEx is willing to willing to allow that to go away okay yes and like I said I believe this from out of the standards written those existing street trees would still accomplish a lot of the purpose of street trees even though they're inside a fence under under Boyer circle under the Boyer circle it does how does everybody anybody have an opinion on deciduous versus coniferous the coniferous would provide year-round screening these trees are are they street trees or are they screening of the of the fence and the outdoor storage or you're both well there's street trees that we put they we put in that kind of that corner in that side to screen the outdoor storage because there really isn't any other site for that outdoor storage the next concern was just a wall of cedars or something would feel like a blank wall is that the comment well I'll know that the screening would feel like a dead wall because it would be more or less look like a solid fence I thought you said to move there was also some concern about the well we talked about moving we talked about planning on the north side of the fence but then you get into the you know it's it's a it's a drainage stormwater swale it would be I think difficult to plant there and then as I got into the public work standards most of that wouldn't even be plantable to their standards because there's storm water lines water lines sewer lines underground in that in in most of that section in most of that north side now if we could move the fence south and again I'm talking well I'll back up are there many issues on the Boyer circle side or is that the hack didn't have many we'll have to discuss it right I mean my only question is and I don't know the answer is whether that many trees space like that actually qualify as street trees or or not as a regular rhythm of trees planted at regular intervals that are similar in size and shape to what do you try to achieve street a street landscape or screening about doors now is my question to start with this is the screening yeah is this feature we were putting it more as screening because there are existing street trees and the definite the purpose of street tree standard doesn't mention screening at least in that first paragraph I didn't like I don't I can look through it quickly right now but to require a street so this probably had required landscaping different than our was permitted under different landscaping and street street tree requirements so what we have today so it's providing both that function of street trees with a little bit of screening there's a maximum distance between street trees 40 feet I think if I remember right so I'm going to guess that there's there's a missing tree here at least yes there's a little bit of a gap there along the angled spaces we've lost some trees in the last few years in storms exactly that's why I'm here I'm willing to consider those part of this street tree requirement as long as you meet those minimum I mean I think there's ways to do that to make it so that your street tree is in there and you've got other trees that are maybe smaller and they do more screening kind of behind them or something up against that fence we're not limited to the six that you're proposing I presume no we'll work on that in deliberation along with the deer we'll have to go through the deer be finding so I don't think that's anything we have to discuss right now unless anybody disagrees parking lot landscaping on something that's not required outdoor storage so existing non-conforming correct again given the way the building is or was built the east the northeast corner is the office is the customer area so that parking area is could not be used for storage the on the south side of the building the southeast corner is their maintenance garage so they do have some storage out there now which is shown with that hashed area but given the width of the paving there really the stuff that's in the northwest corner couldn't be moved back there again also because tractor trailers come in on that side of the building and load on a side loading dock that's in the southwest corner of the south side as well as the southwest corner of the west side and then on the north side you have the drive-in doors for the delivery trucks so there's traffic out there so the only quarter of the building that's not really used for their operations other than storage is where they're storing currently which is shown on the plan that northwest corner so again given you know the way the building was built based on conditions when it was built that's that's what's what that's what's there for storage and there's really no other option what is actually being stored there they're well they're they're metal like galvanized metal big containers and it looks like it looks like they're it's long-term storage but it's wondering what they are yeah it's what the cargo what the cargo comes in on what the packages come in on i see and they unload them at the site leaving there the thing is it looks like it's storage like this container's been sitting here for months but it's really a constant change it's it's not like something is sitting one container is sitting there for six months or a year it's in and out every day every week in existence when fedex changed their business model and went to the ability to load that unit right into the cargo planes and as i said fedex i mean that they're growing over the last 10 years their revenue has grown tremendously so as a as a corporation not i don't know that specifically in wilson what their volume is but from my observation driving by every day they've they've grown here as well did you see the the fence over at the fedex ground uh also as bar boy i don't know i i took a picture of the gate here um i i don't know as i said it's pretty dense planning so i i can't picture it from driving by um you have to park outside the fence then you go through a turntable after you do an entry code to get into the facility even so yeah that one i don't believe has customer traffic at all they are two part of the same parent corporation but two separate entities they get buzzed in if you pick something up there yep which will not be the case here that's why the gates it'll continue to be a customer service center which is a great asset for wilson to have discussion later on yep but do you mind if i i mean is any how are you leaning i mean i understand that's non conforming is there well if the issue the issue at the moment is that it's how are we leaning i really couldn't tell you i mean is there is there um openness to to see that it's existing and there's not really an alternative to it and if we have a huge issue with the continued use of that area on a an outdoor storage well they can't use it they'll be moving that's probably the case i'm just saying it comes right down to it it it's just when they changed their business model that's why it wasn't an original proposal because they didn't have that those containers came into existence because fedex changed their business model and it isn't it's integral now i take it from your comments that you doesn't bother you absolutely does not bother me in fact i would i'd rather have all those units protected by offense because all it takes is one guy putting an item in there that could be catastrophic outcome that's why they're getting 30k but that's why even though it's not a town ordinance it still it affects everyone in the town i mean you have to get some you have to get that some thought we're here to enforce town ordinances we're not here to enforce tsa ordinances right but if but if that is that is the that is the challenge and the tasking of this board but i agree completely but when the ordinances give you the jurisdiction we take it all in we take it all into account yeah i mean when it's when we're not here we're we are here to enforce the town unified bylaws right not here to enforce the tsa bylaws right but the only one time when i can actually say that no i can't tell me what to do i absolutely agree i absolutely agree doesn't have to take except that the the bylaws give you only get the drb the ability to take safety in certain cases in certain cases they do jason but it's something that we'll have to get the board to vote on it and we'll do that um and in the meantime at once this hearing is closed we will go into deliberation and we'll talk it out and we'll see where it goes so yeah you're not going to get a you're not going to get a thumbs up or thumbs down right now absolutely but i just i just wanted to be but it does sound like the board is not is not opposed to the outdoor storage just right which is what i think your question was correct and then kind of to piggyback on the fence issue well the fence is the fence is going to get discussed right but i'm just saying that the bylaws give only give the drb the ability to factor in safety which is what the tsa does so i i do think that is important to realize that this fence is solely for safety and the drb is the only one who can consider that i'm sure that that that that we the board will take that into account anything anything else on outdoor storage we guys okay with that very good so we talked about talked about outdoor storage we will need to talk about that after an in deliberation parking and traffic we're not worried about that outdoor lighting so emily did mention that you can this can be the lighting the replacement of the six poles can could be done administratively but you're gonna you're you are going to submit a lighting plan i'm going to include it with the final plans because she said that streamlines the process okay and the lighting plan will obviously will need to conform with the town's lighting department yeah okay no change on the signs no change on the wetlands no change on the storm water or wastewater no change in the utilities snow storage nothing it's not designated on here where snow storage is is that correct that's correct from what i've seen what do you how do how does it manage now um there's usually uh snow storage along the east side between uh the fedex parking lot and the daycare in that area there is typically some piles of snow along the front not the big the biggest piles are let me interrupt you for a second do you manage the snow i do not they do they do so based on where the based on where i'm seeing the fence being drawn all the areas where you used to be able to put snow or kind of going away correct off the site seems like it yeah which i would think would mean the fence on the north side could be moved in if that was not yeah because the snow will be gone right just blow it right with the truck as they go and they're done ship it to florida well that's what doesn't include salt lake city they basically go down the road with a lower blows right the truck i think they could probably also use i i would think it's a good question yeah this guy brings up and that on the on the boy or circle side on the west you've got you know i'm going to guess eight feet or maybe maybe ten if we're lucky if of space off the edge of that pavement right if that's adequate for storing all that snow why isn't it enough on the marsh lab and aside i mean to be honest i think they'll they'll have to make it work where the fence is i mean that's just i mean snow storage never goes to plan in general i mean how does that work with all those storage containers there do they move them to the snow no it's a constant i mean depending on when the plow guy is there there could be i mean it's just everything's moving i would all i would also think they would probably use maybe salt a little more and maybe put it down before its node with the heavy traffic inside the fenced area i think it would probably melt and stay down pretty well obviously you get a big storm that that wouldn't be the case but it seems like in general with a little salt on on busier sites that that we own that does a pretty good job of keeping the snow more mushy but again you're not at least you're not having the liability of public access in this area so the slip and fall of of customers and whatnot isn't really an issue for this part and then again where that is where the customers are you have the east side of the property that that currently is used for snow storage that's still available that seems pretty simple yeah on the east side yeah oh yeah that's straightforward it's where the fence is that we're having a hard time but i think you know customer areas are always treated differently than where people's employees are right rather different in theory it almost seemed to wash if you were to pull the north side fence back to the other side of the trees and then move the west side back on the back side of the trees you have about the same amount of snow storage but you wouldn't be it wouldn't be as visible to marshall avvars boyers less if there's no storage is critical to have right i mean we have two two frontages but it seems like your concerns are more marshall avv because that's the traffic so if we could move the fence closer to the building there and maybe make do with what's shown there or move the the boyer side out a little bit and they could plow a different direction and store it there people on boyer circle really don't care it's industrial customers so throw something out to the board what do you think about continuing this to the next meeting and let jason come back with a adjustment to the fence line showing showing places to snow the stores store the snow and a place for solid waste which isn't shown on here either as well as the new as well as the new change in the fence on the north side and the lighting plan and to verify just how that bump out is actually being used if it's necessary jason this is not pre-app this is discretionary permit this is supposed to be done before we get here okay so it means this type of discussion that we're having with you right now is generally something we do at pre-app we don't we don't i mean i know why you're here for a discretionary permit because you're trying to get this through as fast as possible to keep your tenant happy we all get that however we're sitting here designing your project which we don't like to do so obviously the board has some questions about this the staff certainly certainly certainly had some questions about this it shows up in the it shows up in the staff notes my you know my feeling is that this should be continued forward to let you go back tune this up show everything you need to show come back with the come back with a place for the areas that i just described and i'm sure the board is willing to work with you on this we you know it's an existing tenant we don't want to see somebody leave the area but we also got to get these things straight rather than trying to hash these things trash the issues out right now no i understand that i mean this is the again what you're saying but every aspect of this is all up to your discretion so that's true based on this we're not here we're not here you know we're not here we are not here to the project well it's designed here it is but we're trying to it's not and nor are we nor are we really here to to use our discretion on every on every item you know that's sure we can do it on some and we understand where the boundaries and the limits are of our discretion and thank you for pointing them out to us we we do know where they are but at this point in time it seems like there's enough items on that have come up during our discussions tonight that i think that you should get this thing cleaned up see if you can see if you can make some adjustments to where the street where the trees go where the fence lines go you know pull them back push them push them around at some areas where you're going to get some snort storage because you know darn well it's got to go somewhere and right now based on what i'm seeing there's not a lot of room for it to go it's basically being trucked off site which maybe that's the solution i don't know so i can i mean i can take the comments from you guys today to adjust this plan but it's still i mean just the fact of this project is unique the site's non-conforming so here's so i don't see why we wouldn't be doing this so here's what i'm going to suggest yeah my recommendation is to continue this for to the next meeting i'm feeling like the board is in agreement with me the we are going to deliberate on this tonight we will give our we're going to give some notes to the staff about the direction we think you should head and you can talk to them in the morning about it and then when we meet again you'll have an idea of what the board is thinking okay yeah all right i just i don't think that's the right way to go yeah that makes sense i just don't see how it seems like you like i you think that i'm doing the process in the wrong steps but it generally the board that generally the board i think i was i thought it was pretty clear um we're basically cashing out the design with you because it's it's not clear okay the property's been here a long time it is non-conforming in a lot of areas that does that does provide some discretion to the board you're absolutely right um but as you stated right up right up front there are many many many layers to it right and so like i'm suggesting we're going to talk about it under deliberation we will give the staff you know a direction and if you can follow that direction then i'm guessing we can get through this okay okay so before we all packed up any other any other areas to this did you say once is there's the the comment from the hack about the um lack as opposed to galvanized uh they actually wanted they did they did not want or they didn't they didn't think vinyl coated was a good option either because that stands out more than galvanized they were looking for like a matte finish and i spoke to middlebury fence who's the contractor doing this and that wasn't available so it's galvanized or vinyl coated again they thought the vinyl coated gave you more of a dead wall that stands out more than kind of looking through to the trees that are behind it i don't know but it is like a green color no it's it's the chain link but it's all black so it's like the fedex ground fence now so it creates so it's so the coating adds thickness so it's a thicker fence and then it's more contrast so it does stand out more they also had concerns about um the reflectiveness of the fence so just i want to talk about that too yeah we can do may 14th it's a five tuesday month so you have a little extra time before the next meeting to get materials around so probably if we get materials by so you said 5 14 yeah may 14th and if we get materials by may 6th we can include them in the staff report continue to 5 14 all right and then check check in with emily or matt in the morning um and he'll give you an idea of the direction that the board hey okay thank you jason thank you okay dp-19-21 has continued next up is uh an appeal 19-02 mr donald bevin's mr bevin's are you here mr bevin's scott i'm just going to say that because this violation was issued by e-zone minister i'm going to step down from the staff table and sit in the audience and i won't participate in the hearing unless you ask any questions okay you can have a seat in the chair right here welcome mr bevin's is your attorney here okay very good okay um is your attorney here is your lawyer here the attorney um is no representing him okay we're going to open up the appeal 19-02 mr donald bevin's at 840 emily is this you okay i um i think we're going to have to speak pretty loudly for mr bevin's okay this is an appeal of the zoning administrator's issuance of a notice of zoning violation letter to 3173 st george road owned by donald bevin's per chapter 5.4 and as 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 may uphold modify or overturn the decision of the administrator in every case the drb shall adopt written findings and conclusions supporting its action attached with the staff report is the appellant submittal and the notice of zoning violation letter with attachments including site photographs taken february 7th correspondence from sergeant scott graham of williston police and correspondence and reports from health officer cindy thurston zoning violation history february 7th a site visit was conducted by the zoning administrator february 22nd the administrator issued a notice of zoning violation letter march 15th the property owner's attorney norman r blaze filed an appeal april 3rd mr blaze informed the planning office he is no longer representing donald bevin's in this matter and today april 23rd the appeal hearing findings of fact number one existing development the property is developed with a single family dwelling on a 1.08 acre parcel the tax map show the property as two parcels however they are non-conforming due to their salt my size and considered merged number two administrators determination the notice of violation letter is attached and summarized below allowed uses in the arzd are single family homes and where the parcel is large enough two family home duplexes no other residential uses are allowed for brevity the violation involves utilizing recreational vehicles and as occupancies using renting rooms within the home and then violations revolving trash involving trash receptacles and removal of litter the letter instructs the appellate to take the following immediate steps to correct the violations removing all garbage from all outdoor areas of the property and emptying waste ceasing all residential occupancy of the trailers and recreational vehicles on the site and ceasing all rental of rooms and apartments on in the house on the property immediately and returning it to its legal use as a single family home number three appellants response the written letter by the appellants former attorney dated march 15th is attached and is quoted as follows number one as to the presence of excessive recreational vehicles on the property the landowner has taken steps to remove most of the offending vehicles with the respect to the one remaining vehicle he has taken all steps to have the occupants relocate and then offered to pay them despite these payments and promises to pay the individuals are refusing to move to as the claim to the property is being unlawfully used as a boarding house mr bevans contends that the rental of the rooms within the structure is in compliance with the zoning ordinance and three as to the claim that there is excessive trash or garbage the landowner has removed such trash and garbage and the property is now in compliance number four of the staff report bylaw requirements they're quoted chronologically chapter 16 talks about maintenance requiring proper liver litter removal chapter 19 talks about residential density which is how this property is limited to one single family dwelling chapter 20 explains all the requirements for an accessory dwelling unit so a property that can have one single family dwelling has an inherent right to one accessory dwelling that's limited to certain criteria such as floor area parking wastewater property must be owner occupied etc chapter 20 also limits standards for portable structures including portable toilets and then 20.15 the limit on recreational vehicles as living quarters RVs can be parked on a property but they're limited to no more than 17 consecutive days of occupancy and no more than 28 days cumulatively chapter 31 describes the allowed uses for the ARZD including rural residential and then again talks about density standards and then chapter 46 I've included the definitions for accessory dwellings bedrooms dwelling and recreational vehicles comments public comment no letters or emails from the public were received at the time of packet mail out staff comment the listers card identifies five bedrooms in 2003 the division of fire safety inspection results attached to the violation letter identify quote tenant room number eight this property does not have an administrative permit for an accessory dwelling unit building permit 99-256 was issued to add on to an existing bedroom bath and kitchen eight feet and quote fire job gut house to framing replace as was and quote however no permits are on file to modify the floor plan or create additional bedrooms though the bylaw is silent on the number duration or relationship of residential occupants it does define a bedroom and a dwelling where the bylaw is vague the drb can always turn to the intent of the zoning district and allowed uses when making a discretionary decision the maximum residential use of this property is a single-family dwelling with an accessory dwelling in compliance with the standards of bylaw 20.1 per NAICS code 7021 rooming and boarding houses are defined as establishments primarily engaged in renting rooms with or without board on a fee basis this is not an allowed use in table 31.a defined in allowed uses in the ARZD conclusions of law the drb must find finalize the conclusions of law to align with the motion the proposed conclusions of law are as follows the operation of a rooming and or boarding house at 3173 st. George road is or is not an allowed use the use of a portable toilet at 3173 st. George road absent construction remodeling at the property is or is not an allowed use number three the use of recreational vehicles as living quarters at 3173 st. George road has or has not exceeded the number of vehicles and duration allowed by chapter 20.15 number four management of litter on this property is or is not in compliance with bylaw 16.4 what follows on the last page of the staff report are the proposed motions there is a motion to uphold modify or overturn the zoning administrator's decision the drb can select one and modify as necessary upholding the decision would be referencing the instructions in his violation letter thank you. Thanks Emily. Mr. Bevin's Emily just read Emily just read the zoning violation. What's that? You have you have appealed the zoning violation filed against your property. Do you understand that? Okay. Do you know? I just cleaned up that whole back there from Tanya and them they've been supposed to move two months ago. Who is they? Well they were people that ran trailers in the back. Okay. They had their trailer and I left them parking in the back but just thought that Dr. City jumped in rubbish everywhere. I think Scott seen it. Right it's your it's your property it's right it's your property so if they dump rubbish everywhere it's up to you to clean it up right? I'm not understanding that. Okay. But I've been running over a little over 10 years here I've been running to pay the mortgage payment bills yeah that's how I keep my house if I have to move then I don't have a place I'll lose my home and everything and I'm trying to prevent that if I can. Do you under do you understand do you understand the notice of violation against your property? What are the violations? A what? A chief. Are you excuse me one second officer what are you the chief? Are you the chief? No. You're not the chief. I'm getting you confused. Is Mr. Bevin's competent to speak to be here? I've talked to him quite often and he's fairly competent yes he has had time to hear him but he's you've seen it I think I've cleaned it. You've tried the property to clean it. I can't believe the police officer wouldn't mind echoing what you're saying. And 10 loads of rubbish they had. Officer could you give your name and your could you give your name and your rank and your position? Yeah my name is Scott Graham. I'm a patrol sergeant and I'm the police department. And you and you are you have worked with Mr. Bevin's? I have been up to Mr. Bevin's residence a thousand times since I've done here. Okay and and it's your and it's your opinion that Mr. Bevin's understands the zoning violations that have been issued against his property. Yes they do. Okay so is it also would be also my understanding that if Mr. Bevin's is telling me he doesn't understand that he probably does? I think he probably does. I think maybe have a hard time hearing you but he understands what's going on yes. There what's he uh what's he trying to say? He's trying to he's trying to ask me if you know what the violations are for your residence. My house? At your house. What are they? With the campers in the back right yeah they've been trying to get rid of them the people living in all the rooms. That one they did at Blue Campus. The campers. The campers. Mr. Bevin. The campers yeah. Right the campus that's what we're talking we're talking about the campers people living in them all the trash around them. They took me and they told me they weren't moving them and they've been served by the sheriffs tonight. To move them and they won't move. The sheriffs serve them? Yeah. As far as I know there's four campers up there. Two people living in one camp right now. He has cleaned up. He showed me over there. He has cleaned up some of the trash around the area but the four campers are still there. Yeah. It's clean up there. It's walk to leader as far as we can breathe. And truck roads I took to downtown. How is the gravitation running a truck to do it with? Can you hear him? I can't really. Is there an eviction proceeding going on against the people living in the camper? There's a whole bunch of different things going on. He says there's an eviction process against the last two that are there. And then one of the other campers there was a restraining order put on one person by the boyfriend. So he left. She says left. There's been a lot of court orders getting some. Yeah. I didn't burn them man. They brought them their jobs there. All right. There's been a lot of assaults. So he has one against his daughter so she's moved on. A lot of people have gone because of court orders. I mean with them man it is. Are there people living in the house? There's four that I know of as of yesterday. In your own renting rooms? Yes. There is okay. And there is a there is a portalette on the property? No. Ma'am if you'd like to speak you do need to give your name and your address and I can call on you if you would like. I've worked hard all my life to have what I've got. You know and I'm I'm 83 years old. I I'm getting good health. You know because I keep it clean there. I do. Long dollars mode. She spoke. You know. Outside looks good now. I want them trailers out there just as nice to do on them. That was this meeting most of the time. Well I think they're wondering about the trailers and the people rented the rooms in the house. Rent rooms. Yeah. For those what pays my mortgage payment. And the bills. Light, gas, water. You know. I guess maybe. I mean that that's fine. That's fine. He's confirming. He's confirming what's in the violation. I've rented. I've rented. We've had an issue with on there was he's still advertising on cryptos up until maybe a few months ago because we know that there was the guy that was going to work for the federal government was going to rent you had his check. Yeah. And he found it on Facebook right. Yeah. On that guy since said he's not coming for a transfer or a new job or whatever the why the reason he was coming but he was still advertising as a few months ago. Because fire marshals give us a less what to do in the rooms. We can only have five people there. That's what he said. Five people. Fire marshals stand there. We're not we're not here to debate that. What does the fire marshal has nothing to do with who's living in your house. It's up to the board. Yeah. Yeah. I know. I'm just saying what they when they come for inspection. Does he is there regular trash pickup at the site. No. I don't believe so. The only thing I've got left in my life is my home. You know. Is there anything from the board any questions. The board. I mean I've been there right in rooms over 10 years. You know. Any questions any comments or questions from the audience. Nothing. Just that he has to read around the house a lot of stuff. I don't think he can find anywhere to take him off the property. But he still feels there's nothing wrong with the rent in the rooms he's been doing for 10 years. Correct. Is the portable toilet still on site. Is the portable toilet still on site. I don't know what you're saying about the portable toilet. I think maybe in the camper. I'm not sure. Don't tell me. The way the the way the violation read I believe is that the portable toilet was being used in lieu of the fact that there were no toilets in the campers. Yeah. So I think maybe he provided that and asked for the generator or something at one time. Tony what did you give Tony a toilet a portable toilet for the camper. We're telling you what I'm trying to call you. I'll call you in a second. Yeah. I'm not talking about telling you though but where did the toilet come that Tony uses for his camping. But what are you talking about. How does he go to the bathroom. I've heard correspondence about this. Hold on one second. Ma'am you raised your hand but if you would if you would state your name and your address and your question. I'm Cindy Thurston 70 Lois Lane and most of them I'm a town health officer. The Port of Potty was put there at an emergency health order because there was raw sewage going onto the yard and it is was removed on I apologize it was removed February 19th due to non-payment. Raw sewage I assume was coming from the campers. Yes. Got it. Okay. Not Tony. Not Tony. Well I don't know you don't get along with Tony so I don't know. Okay. You had a comment in your broader. Let me just establish one thing. Brad you're speaking as an assistant zoning administrator. Yeah. I'm speaking as a planning technician who's had a team correspondence of this matter that's all public record. Yeah. That I was going to reiterate what Cindy just shared that the Port of Potty ended up there as a result of a public health emergency like it was required to be put on site. Other questions on the board? Just to be clear the parking of the of the trailers is not in violation right it's the it's still having people live in them that's the violation. Correct. You can keep the trailers there as long as no one's living there. After your period of time. Right so is a permit required to park an RV on my property? No. Recreational vehicles may be stored on residential premises without a permit. Is there a limitation on the use of the RV parked on a residential property? Yes. A recreational vehicle may be used as guest quarters on a residential property for no more than 17 consecutive days and for no more than 28 days cumulatively during a calendar year and then it goes on about that they can be used during construction or remodeling. Now the note says Ann RV. Is there a limit on the numbers that they're allowed to have? I guess the bylaws kind of a because it does say Ann RV and then it says no and recreational vehicles plural. So I decided to state it. Up for board interpretation. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Any questions from the audience? Mr. Bevin would you like to say anything more to the board? Would you would you like to say anything else to the board? Do you want to say anything to them? Do you want to touch say anything? Comment. Do I want to adapt to them? To that. Well I did tell them but I've been doing it. You have a face of a face. Oh yeah I cleaned up all the rubbish up at 10 loads. I rented a vehicle and cleaned everything up there and learned the number for the whos ever around you know I'm saying because I like a clean place. I'll pick up a piece of paper if I see you on it. You know that's the way we were brought up. That's the only thing I got left in my life is my house. You know it's expensive to live but where am I going to go? I definitely don't want to be placed in a nursing home. That's I you know. I mean I they they were over three months right now supposed to be out there. They said they're not moving their trailer. It's going to be it should be a way of having them taking out there isn't it? The only my lawyer said we'll probably have to take them to court and have the judge order them out there at once. I think that's next. We can do that. We're going to close we're going to close the hearing at 9.05. You guys speak louder. We're going to close the hearing at 9.05. We're done. What do you say judge? We're done for tonight. We're done for tonight. Okay all right thank you for coming. Whatever you want done up here I'll do it and we're trying to provide by what they want help. Officer can you help can you help him out the door? Hey Scott can you help him out the door? Sure. Thank you thank you. Thank you. We'll be in touch with him I guess. Yes we will. Okay you'll be in touch with him right? I said they will be in touch with you. Yeah. Okay next up is uh next up is DP 19-16 grassroots Vermont. Okay DP 19-16 grassroots Vermont medical marijuana dispensary. We're going to open the hearing at 9.07. If you would state your names and your addresses please. Devin Walsh 84 Levers Lane Brandon Vermont and the assistant general manager for grassroots. Christopher Walsh general manager 67 Pearl Street as extension. And Edward Clark NBF architects 24 and a half center street Rotland. Thank you. This is a request for discretionary permit to locate a medical marijuana dispensary at 45 60 Williston Road in the industrial zoning district west. The subject property is currently developed with a commercial office building and associated parking. Medical marijuana dispensaries are listed as a permitted use and the IZDW is subject to the approval of a discretionary permit by DRB in Williston development by law chapter 36. So the DRB previously approved in application submitted by grassroots Vermont in 2015 to locate a medical marijuana dispensary at a different address in the IZDW. The applicant didn't submit final plans within the required time frame and the project was implemented. The applicant has submitted a new application to locate the dispensary at a different address in the same zoning district. This request was originally considered by the DRB at the March 12th 2019 meeting and continued to today's meeting in order to prepare some revisions to the proposal stemming from comments at the March 12th DRB meeting. So the applicants requesting the approval of discretionary permit to operate a medical marijuana dispensary the state of Vermont licenses a limited number of these types of facilities that allow patients with certain medical conditions to be able to purchase marijuana and the state has statute includes certain provisions for locating dispensaries including that they must be a minimum of a thousand feet away from the property line of a pre-existing public or private school or licensed or regulated child care facility and for security at the dispensaries. Vermont statute allows municipalities to also adopt local regulations governing the location and operation of these facilities in their jurisdiction and the town of Williston has done so and local regulations may be more restrictive than the state's requirements. The town of Williston adopted its own regulations pertaining to medical marijuana dispensaries in February of 2014. Medical marijuana dispensaries in Williston are only allowed in the IZDW and growing facilities are not allowed in Williston. The town's regulations for these facilities are contained in WDB 36134 and are excerpted below. Williston's requirements increase the minimum distance away from school properties from a thousand feet to two thousand feet and places restrictions on the hours of operation and the amount of signage allowed. So the IZDW is the only zoning district where medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed and they're only allowed as follows a discretionary permits required. There's a requirement to submit a security plan and that security plan must include a description of how all points of entry including but not limited to doors, windows, HVAC grades, and roof accesses will be secured, description of how all marijuana materials will be secured within the dispensary, a description of what onsite security will be provided during hours of operation, and a description of all alarm systems and automatic lighting or other systems used to provide security for the dispensary after hours. The applicant has submitted a revised security plan that's fairly substantial and and has stated that the policies and procedures are compliant with Vermont statute and the security plan appears to adequately address the requirements stated above. Other than these general requirements the Wilson bylaw doesn't have specific standards against which to review a security plan. Melinda, can I interrupt you for one second? The security plan that you've submitted as Melinda just said is hand above what was here before, what we saw before. So one of the questions I have is, it's a hell of a document. I read through it and it's interesting on what it covers. I've never read anything like that before. Who checks to make sure that you're doing what you're supposed to be doing? Where's the backup? How do you get your hands slapped if you don't do what you're supposed to be doing? Well the Department of Public Service wouldn't allow us to operate if we didn't meet. Get that, that's not what I asked. Who's our regulators? They would be our primary regulators as well as the Wilson Police Department would be my understanding. Primary regulator would be Department of Public Safety. Department of Public Safety. Okay, so that's the State Department of Public Safety. Do they ever check? Yeah. How often? We have about once a month regular site visits right now that are not planned but they should. Do they tell you they're coming? Yeah, they come on their own and they walk around and make sure that everything is exactly where it should be and up to code or law. And so you have another facility in Rutland? Brandon. Where? Brandon. Okay. Same type of thing. They do site visits to there on a on a random basis. Okay, Emily, I'm sorry Melinda. So as for the hours of operation the DRB may permit a medical marijuana dispensary to operate between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday in conformance with the bylaw. In it may the DRB may decide to further restrict the hours of operation. The applicant is proposing to operate the facility between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and the wilson planning police and fire departments are not recommending further restriction of the proposed hours of operation. Signage for medical marijuana dispensary may only be approved as part of the discretionary permit. Signage shall include text only and shall not incorporate any graphical elements. And signs may only be placed on the wall of the building containing the main entrance of the dispensary or on the ground within 50 feet of the dispensary entrance. Signs are limited to one wall sign of 12 square feet in size or one freestanding sign no more than six feet in height and no more than eight square feet in size. So the applicant is proposing to place one sign on the existing signposts located on the property within 50 feet of the building and the existing signposts will be modified so as to imply with the sign height restrictions. And the sign dimensions are shown on sheet A1-A of the plan set and are in compliance with the bylaw. So other limitations include so the applicants proposing to operate the dispensary following all the requirements of VSA 4471 to 4472 adopted in June of 2012 including but not limited to the number of registered patients amounts of marijuana allowed on the site and all prohibitions on the consumption of marijuana contained therein. The applicant will apply and receive approval from the Vermont Department of Public Safety prior to beginning dispensary operations on the site. Staff recommends a condition that state approvals be submitted to the town prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy. Let me interrupt you again. From the Department of Public Safety will the will the Department of Public Safety visit your site in advance of you opening? Yes. Will they visit your site while you're under construction to make sure you're doing everything that is laid out in here? Okay. While I'm being while I'm interrupting here feel free to jump in, okay? You're taking our questions away. Well I guess I follow up with that question is that when DPS is there doing that is it the same people who are inspecting for fire code violations? That would be the fire inspector who would also be looking at fire code. But they have a copy of your security plan and they will be enforcing that. I mean they typically enforce the building code. I think you're talking about two separate same department statewide but you're looking at the Division of Fire Safety versus the Department of Public Safety which is going to regulate the medical marijuana dispensary. Because the fire safety is part of DPS? It is correct but it's a kind of a different division. This is the... So you are going to have two different inspectors in there. One looking for fire safety and another one making sure you're complying with your security plan. It's marijuana registry which does the compliance and that they're the ones that will do the surprise visits to make sure that we're adhering to all of our compliance cultivation security dispensary. You know how everything's in order from the way people sign in to you know all of our biological assets being locked up inventories. They're very similar to like DLC. Moderate Scott's question then is are they also coming during construction to make sure you're putting in the door frames properly? Not the door... No DPS is not looking at door frames that would be the building inspector I assume. They are going to make sure we use the right doors that we said we were going to use but they're not going to inspect for the code. What would the building inspector... There are regular building inspectors right? How would the building inspectors know that they're to be keeping an eye out to the standard that you are building this to? Would they know? So that's where the architect comes into. You know we will typically design a project and then the contractor will construct the project and we go observe door and construction and make sure everything that's being put in is as we have stated on the plans and is what they owe the owner. So that's a whole... That's just in terms of strictly building a building. Yeah whether it's a medical marijuana dispensary, a drugstore, apartment house whatever it is. Those kind of standard of the industry so to speak to make sure we're getting the correct hollow metal frames, metal doors, the right hinges and all that kind of thing that the vault is being constructed properly. The Division of Fire Safety looks at things in terms of life safety and adherence with the Vermont State Building Code. So there's a lot of oversight. But this really kind of exceeds the Vermont State Building Code. Oh absolutely because this is also involving the whole other layer of oversight. So there's a lot of eyes on the project. That's kind of what I'm trying to get at because the oversight you know it's an elevated layer. It's another layer as you state. So and I'm surprised to hear that the architect is the one that's charged with... Well we do that through the over. ...compliance. Well we do that because there's a contract involved and we're... we do that for all jobs. I mean that's... I don't know. I don't understand what an architect does but... Be nice. I understand that but again I don't... As an architect you know you're... you're saying you're assuring the general public that they've done this and that you're now responsible if it's not to whatever it is that happens because they didn't build this building properly or they didn't properly secure the the whatever you call the organic... Well if there's an operational issue that's strictly on the owner. If there's a something during construction you know we we should notice that and make sure that the builder is making corrections. They are electrical inspectors that that the state goes in and makes sure that it's done right in addition to an electrical engineer who's designed the project and I'm just wondering if there's that additional level in this case. There's no one from the division of fire safety that gets down into a lot of little details. They look in terms of fire safety and life safety and adherence with the building codes. You know if we say it's a a metal door frame and someone puts in a wood door frame if the owner doesn't notice it or we don't notice it and it slips through the cracks it can slip like on any construction job. If the state doesn't feel compelled DPS does not feel compelled to check compliance with this security plan in terms of the construction details. I would guess in this instance the Department of Public Safety not the Division of Fire Safety Department of Public Safety is going to make sure that what's in the plan is what is in the building. They're going to come inspect it they're going to look and say hey this you know this vault door you said is such and such this vault they want to see what is being constructed. They want to see where they're putting their products and how they're running. Yeah that's a big one. Cameras how's the buzzer system you know how how do we get in the building how do we buzz I think they're going to walk the walk these guys through the entire you know put them through the ringer so to speak. This is really germane to I mean do we have any say what happens within the walls of the building. I tend to think of our jurisdiction as being kind of the walls and outside right I mean how the interior. Our jurisdiction does extend to how how a business operates in conjunction with the public. And it and that the I would say David that this is we're tasked through the zoning code with making sure that these guys have a security plan in place. That's what it says that's what we require that's one of the reasons why they're back in front of us tonight and they've certainly put the ante on the on the on the security plan it's way better than it was. And so we're just asking about how once it's here how do we know that this is actually going to be constructed the way you've said it is because this is you know we want this to be more than lip service. I think it's absolutely that's kind of work what trying to get out of it worked a lot with the Department of Public Safety to come up with policies and procedures and they are very attentive to making sure that we are following every word that we put here and have actually worked with us to figure out how we describe things to make sure that we can follow them in a way that sets us up for success not failure. So I there's I get what you're asking in terms of the oversight for holding us to this plan and I would offer that the DPS the DPS's primary goal is about security and diversion and making sure that we're addressing those so I feel very confident that what we right here we will be held very highly and strictly to this plan. Occupancy permit to verify some of that stuff no? What we would what we would be verifying following a permit and inspection is that the final plans were followed. So you know anything that final plans upon which the approval is based are fair game for you know confirming that inspection in general what I tell people when I inspect something where we require an inspection is did you build what you said you were going to build did you build it where you said you were going to build it did you do the things the DRB wanted you to do in order to be able to do the things you wanted to do. So you wanted to build a building the DRB wanted landscaping and screening of utilities I'm going to make sure those conditions were met. So it's a general check through the final plans. The zoning administrator will be doing a walkthrough prior to issuance of as a CO. Yes okay I kind of look at this like a like if an elevator is going into a building and there's there's an elevator inspection and and we don't really ask the applicant is there and is there going to be an elevator inspection there's an elevator inspection that's incorporated into the certificate of occupancy and I think there's some parallels to what's going on here that we ought to consider in our line of questioning. Yeah I'm not so sure about that because it's a because it is it's and it and let's assume you are right it is a this this is a a new enterprise that this board has really never seen before consequently we consequently we don't have you know we've seen buildings with elevators in it if you want to follow on that analogy. We've never seen a never seen a building that has this level of security in it we've never permitted a jail we've never permitted another you know a pharmacy that you know somebody like Burlington Drug which would have something similar similar in it. So certainly me as the chair has not been exposed to this level of security and I'm you know one I said I read it and I found it you know vastly superior what was here before so then the follow on question is how do we as a board make sure that it gets installed correctly and not having any experience with DPS and their oversight the my line of questioning is is you know what came what came out. So I certainly hear you I understand your time. I think yours is motivated. Absolutely nothing nothing more. Yeah so but is this really different than a CVS or you know I mean or a bank right I mean there's there's this is a drug store right I mean in some ways right it's up with CVS we weren't tasked with making sure that the building complies with the security plan that the zoning regulation requires them to submit. That's what I see and so and I look through this and it also now is incorporated the comments of the police department one of which says all vault room walls will be reinforced with welded steel mesh and anti-spread bracing. Well after the fact when they walk in there after you when you're ready to open nobody can tell whether you've got welded steel mesh in that wall or not. So who came through during construction to make sure that it actually went in. Well the first the first attempt at death will find out whether that stuff's there. That's the wrong time. I think it's a fair question. What happened to the public restroom? If we don't have an inspector then I would think it's up to the zoning and planning. I'm not for yet. So let me just add a little bit to what I said before in determining compliance I often rely on the certifications of experts who put their reputation their stamp on the line to say something was done the way it was supposed to be done. Every every survey I look at has a survey or stamp on it. We tangentially administer energy efficiency standards where we're asking someone to show that they filed an energy certificate. But I'm not going out and seeing if there's r60 in the attic. I'm relying on somebody's certification. Similarly here I would encourage the applicants given the level of detail here to you know document everything. You know I'm probably not going to be available to go out and check for national walls. But you could walk in anytime the construction and do a visual so. And I can and I can have a letter from an architect who says I monitored you know construction and this is what I observed and not all that different from when a septic system goes in and I get a letter from somebody saying I'm an engineer and I witnessed the installation or expected the installation of the septic found it to be in good working order and compliance with the wastewater permit. So you know I think we can only do so much but we certainly you know the applicants would be well advised to document those things and be ready to provide them. I agree again this start is a very simple question which is does DPS come through during that time frame to to do that inspection because if they do now you have an expert who works for the state who's licensed to actually make that inspection who's saying that it happened and it makes all the rest of this moved. So if the answer is yes then great if it's not then we have to start talking about what you just mentioned you know in my that's how I how I look at that. So yes we'll be an active part of the process in getting us to opening day and they will very actively want to be there to see what we're doing review our plan. I do feel confident about that. Be prepared to get interrupted again. So in compliance with the excuse me so I've reviewed a map of the subject parcel showing that it is compliant with the locational requirements of the list of bodies to 1,000 feet from a daycare property and 2,000 feet from a public or private school property. For parking and access the dispensaries proposed to be located within a 3,000 square foot building that's supported by 11 parking spaces. Six spaces in front of the building will serve patients and one handicapped accessible space will be provided as required. Five parking spaces at the rear of the building will be used by staff. The project does not generate a requirement for additional parking. Access to the site is from Williston Road. The location of the delivery intake area is shown on the site plan. This area will be screened by 8 foot tall chain link security fencing with privacy slats. Outdoor lighting, this is a change from the last time that applicant is now proposing outdoor lighting and is compliant with the bylaw in all of the aspects listed. The only suggestion that recommendation that I would have is that a condition be included stating that the security lighting after hours be motion or be controlled by motion detector. So one thing that's come up this time which also is new is that because the applicants have decided to remove a lot of the windows on the building, I believe in order to address comments by the police department around security, that now this project is subject to design review because there was kind of a short timeline between when they got their materials in to us and this meeting, the hack did not have time to review this project for design review. So one decision you'll need to make is whether you would need them to review this project. The main issue around design review has to do with the removal of the windows and creating so-called dead walls. The street facing side of the building complies with the bylaw as it retains all of the doors and windows. It looks pretty normal. The south elevation is obscured by trees. The east elevation the west elevation complies. The east elevation may not comply because it's the removal of the windows has created a dead wall there. That's the the wall that faces engineers drive. So you'll decide whether it complies or not. One of the facilities is you want it to be visible to the police on a drive by. You don't want bushes and stuff to be blocking. You want the police to be able to drive by and see the entire side of the building. You don't want people to be able to get behind a tree and then start to go to work on the side of a building. So I don't think that hack is going to be able to say oh it's a dead wall you got to put trees up there because it's like that's that's kind of back up. So that was the main issue and then another thing is regarding airlocks. So principal entrances to buildings must incorporate an airlock. This standard does not apply to entrances for vehicles to loading doors or to emergency exits used for that purpose only. The DRB may permit other exceptions to this standard for minor entrances. Here the applicant is proposing to have the reception area at the front door serve as an airlock. There's a sliding glass or sliding door to the to the office and so it'll be basically closed off to all of to the rest of the building. So you can't figure out how to get an airlock on this thing? Well the if I may uh I brought these big old plants I don't know what's in that here for you. So you can see uh this is the main entrance right here and that is essentially what the size of an airlock would be. Oh good I don't have three. What's that? Big airlock. So this reception area right here is where all the patients would enter. Essentially one person would enter here get checked in and then move directly from there into the waiting room. So this reception area really acts as the airlock. To put another airlock when we were done it's a fairly small building. For monestate energy going wouldn't require a plus and five thousand square feet. But this you know the dimensions of an airlock would typically be seven feet from this point to where the next door is. So that's roughly the size of an airlock. It will act as an airlock. There's a door there a second door and then this is the sliding transaction window that would remain closed most of the time except when they wanted to uh check someone. All right um so project elements not proposed um the applicants not proposing changes to setbacks and landscaping, access, utilities, stormwater, water and wastewater, snow storage or solid waste. The site is served by municipal water service with an on-site septic system um for comments. So the fire department did actually respond with comments. They were sequestered away in our office and I did get them um hand those out to you um and the applicant has been having discussions with both the fire department and the police department and is aware of these requirements. Okay so you've been you've been through all the bullet points on page seven and page eight that are there from the fire department. Um and we've met on site with Chief Foley. You have. Ryan Prouty. So you've met you've met with both uh both the police chief and the fire chief. We walked around the building with proposed drawings. So you so there's one two three four five six seven there's eight there's an eight and nine ten so there's 13 or 14 points here bullet points here you're you're um yep you're familiar with all of them. I don't think you need to re-true them. So it's the staff's opinion that the applicants revised plan set and security plan addressed the police department and the fire department's recommendation to the degree feasible. Um and as you know from last time we have received one emailed comment on this application also attached to your packet. Um so staff is recommending approval of this discretionary permit with recommending findings of fact um conclusions of law and conditions of approval as provided. We're kind of going normally normally staff goes through this and then we we give you guys we give you guys the floor we have been going obviously back and forth with you um as part of this process. What would you like to add that we have not already covered before I open it up to the board? You had some questions for the last time and I don't know if you ought me to wait for you to bring those up but um like around restrooms boiler room access we have we can address those. Um so you asked about what kind of door to access the shipping and receiving you're going back and forth where you're going to stay with a norm. How do you describe such a story? Uh it's a regular swinging door steel door steel frame. So we're not going to look the question was where we're going to look at a garage door are we going to keep a a swing door and we're going to stay with a swinging door. Uh the other sorry did you want to edit? Well just I was going to say the boiler room was the there's not a question about the boiler room. Yep it was going to go. Yeah um so you asked about the external uh door on the east side of the building. We're going to do that It doesn't answer the purpose. The current toilet will be located there would uh there'd be a door there that we are going to wall off. Um you asked about access to the boiler room uh the way we are going to construct it is that it will only be accessed from the outside and it will be reinforced with the barrier mesh similar to the vault so that the only access would be from external side. So people coming in to work on it don't have to access the facility at all. Um there are not going to be four separate entrances to the inventory room. As you can see on this revised drawing there's one single access point to it. Um and then you wanted to know about the deadbolt locked uh employee access. So um if you read through the security plan it talks about key access fobs um and so we will be utilizing that in that back receiving area. Employees will enter through there. You do have to have two people arrive at the same time to access first thing in the morning and then employees can access on their own but it would be back through that back lowering area. So not deadbolt but uh electronically locked. And then um we talked about the sign and then there was a restroom question last time. Um we redesigned the flow of the building. We're going to seal off the stairs so that we can create a flow that doesn't actually access the dispensary and we've created a uh secure area separate from the staff room and allows access with a squirt from the dispensary if a patient needed to where they could not access the inventory or anything um regulated and would be escorted by staff into the toilet area in the back through the dispensary. It's going to be a lot of a lot of walking steps. Yep. Yeah. Is there is is there still a stairs to the second floor? Yeah we um the stairs are removed but there'll be a drop down uh like a disappearing stair to get access to the attic. So does the security and the wire mesh and what have you on the on the roof as well over the top of the room over the top of the vault? Uh over top of the vault. Yes it's on uh five sides of the vault. Four walls and a ceiling in the vault so that vault will be secured and constructed. Per those uh I don't know if I send the typical vault details as part of the package that's just a typical vault detail uh to describe it to us. So constructed uh with a single entrance door which is complies with that standard uh uh hollow metal frame with a steel door uh it's going to be all uh metal studs uh we have a detrick uh security mesh uh the gypsum board that's in place is an impact resistant gypsum board. It's your typical five-eighths paper face gypsum board uh it's a solid uh non-paper gypsum board uh highly impact resistant um and that will be on four walls as well as the ceiling of the vault. So it's uh pretty well constructed uh probably not like a bank vault but certainly is a uh well constructed vault that will keep people out. There's an alarm system and a motion system. Oh yeah uh yes. So we did think somebody long enough it'll take somebody long enough to get through it for the police to arrive. But the time they get even to go off uh we have uh supplied some security plans that will uh show you know where the sensors and everything go uh as well as the plan that indicates uh what doors are all access control electronic access control. One recommendation I would make to you is I would all use it. Don't let him put up. Now one recommendation I'd make to you is I would make sure that the doorway out of your general storage receiving cannot be opened at the same time that the door to the outside receiving general is open. Yep. In other words I recommend that to you is because if you get sloppy the guy's doing the delivery he's got both those doors open you're now open for a a hard crash where the guy just comes in and basically shoots straight in he's in the vault right now. Give a count for that and that will be similar to the front door where you can't access the front door and that is the waiting room door at the same time it will operate the same way. It will be interlocking so one door will have to be closed in order for the other one to open up. The vault will also require two person entry to start the day so you have to have a double entry to start the beginning of the day. Ask a question. I'm Andrea. I'm from the Euclid Park Road. I'm a self-engineer. Just a general question. This is the first media mentor that's of a secure type thing. I haven't seen any of your documents just listening but all of your security stuff is going to be on public record. I'm just wondering if that helps anybody crack the code. It is one of the risks that we run in doing this that we are pretty much giving you guys the key to the closet. Public access TV is on. So that documents the security plan so I know how to like drive through. Unfortunately we can't go through this process without providing it to you guys and you make it public so that is our rub of all things. So that is the rub of all things that you don't tell anybody about. Yep so we beg your discretion on all that we can to protect this. I'm not going to add this onto other secure type facilities like banks or airports that are military type homeland security is in Williston. I don't think that I don't know if they're right. I'm just curious what level where do you draw the line? We draw the line on the the Vermont State statute and the Williston statute that they present us with a security plan. It's about the only one I can think of that is required. You know so TSA banks aren't required. It's not it's not it's not part of the approval process. Because of the tenderness of this subject amongst the some of the general population this is a this topic comes up. I very much understand why I'm turning the file so you guys can look at it and say okay yes this is a secure community but then I wonder the other secure facilities that don't have that that you don't have those things on public record is putting this on public record detrimental to the health and sleeping welfare. Maybe but in this case it's not you know it's it's not okay. We should also keep in mind what we're doing here. I mean if somebody doesn't want to break in they can just grow some in their backyard. No question about it. So is this a this structure a slab on grade? It's on a slab. Well the back is a slab on grade but it is a crawl space and a basement and we are there's two vents on either side that will be blocked off as part of the they should be indicated on the plants. So the so you mentioned five sides and the vault. I guess there will be have to be six sides of all that. Yeah. Patient arrival is it scheduled? Yep they're scheduled in 15 minute chunks and so we discussed this last time. We tend to find that we don't have more than three patients maybe at one time in the building because of the rotation. So we don't expect there to be a lot of people waiting if you don't. We heard last time people will wait outside. So occasionally when people sit in their car until it's about five minutes of and then they'll come in but we don't tend to have a line because we are rotating through and people come and they go and they come and they go. So we don't expect to be a backup of traffic or any issue needing more parking space than we already currently have. Also just curious the the lot lines were these surveyed or did were there are their pins that you found at the corners? These are approximate lot lines it's an existing piece of property that's being rented from. Pigeon. Yeah pigeon. Properties. Engineers construction. So it's there's no survey has been done but the landlord is has been consulted in terms of parking these are you know approximate lines that were taken from the tax maps just visual inspection but there's no actual survey site survey or boundary survey. It's a it's a small matter but the the pylon sign you know is right along according to this it's on the on the property but you know if it were just to straddle or be into the state right of way that would. Well it is the there's two existing signs one is for this building for this client and then on the corner is an engineer's construction sign that I believe is the direct traffic back engineers lane so that's that's not anything that we're dealing with and this one's an existing sign so we just figure we'd use the existing one. A lot to put on. I'd like to commend you for your ability to listen the last time you were here because it seems to be extremely responsive. And I also brought some smaller copies of the updated lighting. Additional questions from the board? Just one question on your security cameras are they going to be wired or wireless? One last time. Thank you very much. It's the last approval that you need or are you the final occupancy I mean until you come in and inspect and they're going to need to file final plans. I mean outside of the DRB is there state approval is already a little chicken and egg there where his final approval and their final approval will probably happen simultaneously both one here from the other that's like their own right so there's a little chicken and egg there we're gonna have them negotiate and work together but yeah so last is kind of the final bill. Mandy you're here for Burlington beer? Yes. I'm wondering why you're here. It's awesome I was like if I join a DRB I need to know what it's like I'm not joining a DRB. Yeah it's a hell of a night out. No it's not an if anymore. I'm not I'm not obliged to share that with you. Okay uh let's see here next up is DP 18-07 the Burlington beer company and the submission of final plan so we're gonna open up the hearing at 9.54 so I think I think we could probably be Emily you got this? Yeah um I think we can be relatively brief here if you want to go through here's here's what I would recommend if you want to go through and touch on the areas that Burlington beer complied with their approval and then there's a few areas in here I noticed where they did not if you want to cover what those were and why they were changed and why you're recommending approval with those changes and before we get started you get to state your name and your address again for the record. I'm Andrew Abcheel consulting engineers 478 Blair Park Road. Very good. Well done. Okay so Burlington beer got their discretionary permit approval last July 24th final plans were submitted in August but there are some significant changes mostly things to the way the pump station and high I forget what the system's called um our high strength waste high strength waste so things that concern the DPW comments leftover beer water leftover beer water basically um so the final plans respond to the DPW comments DPW DPW signed off on the final plans checklist the final plans also modify the outdoor seating area basically the seating area and the front door are flipped the seating area is still only accessible by walking in the main door and then entering outside on the patio and it's contained by a fence it's the bylaw requires that it be 500 square feet or less it complies the landscaping and association with that outdoor seating area has also changed shape but they're still providing the required amount of landscaping to meet parking lot requirements these have all been noted on the final plans yes yeah so you'll see um Amanda's letter she provided it's a screenshot of the what was submitted at discretionary permit and what's shown on the final plans today where that patio area is changing location but still within the requirements of what the bylaw requirements and still with the landscaping component now this is a this is a little unusual in that we issue an approval for a set of plans and then we come back for final and they're different I read through the bylaw and it has a lot of guidance for if you make changes between final final plans and administrative permit but there's not guidance in the bylaw about between discretionary permanent final plans so if they had submitted final plans and got an administrative permit and then wanted to make changes that's where the really sticky stuff happens where you'd have to go back for a hearing but here minor changes between dp and final plans as long as it's still found in compliance with the conditions of approval then it would continue for solid waste management that's shown on page two there's a screenshot of the dp and final plans site plan at discretionary permit there is a discussion about the number size and location of dumpsters for all tenants on site the final plan identifies dumpster enclosures in compliance with the requirements of chapter 16 this leads into the parking in order to accommodate dumpster enclosures for all tenants on the property they do lose for parking spaces bringing the total parking from 114 down to 110 um a revised parking shared parking analysis is provided staff finds that even with the reduction of four spaces the provided shared parking is in compliance with chapter 14 and the bicycle parking and long-term park bicycle parking are also compliant with chapter 14 my recollection of the discretionary budget hearing was final um the fire department had comments about the distances of dumpsters in relationship to the building so all the dumpsters from the site got relocated to that area both departments police and our public works and fire have signed off on the checklist and staff recommends approval as submitted with a proposed motion below okay maybe you would like to sure I'll have a turn so I went through first of all this project has been kind of ongoing and we're here in front of you now with our final plans now that we finally got public work sign off for our high strength wastewater internal pump station and what that does is it's a side stream pump station for a brew facility this is a not really a new thing but a new thing that's starting to be enforced by public works because of all these breweries and other things that create high strength waste like green mountain coffee roasters to reduce the the strength of the wastewater discharging so the municipality and wastewater treatment facilities aren't burdened by this so we have worked on a design bruce has accepted our design our sampling plan all of that information has been provided to you that's basically been our our big hall over the past since last october november so so i wanted to present that to you guys and then while that was going on joe had a little rearrangement of things the site plan type stuff that he was looking at and we figured now we're submitting final plans if this is considered a minor change under your review that we could just get this all permitted finalized and um continue on so that's just a little background on why we've taken so long to give you our final plans those two break tanks you've added they do not have human access correct uh i don't believe that they do no i'm trying to think i've been there a lot but i'm so focused on the wastewater they don't have uh one of those covers that you can take off like 40 gazillion bolts and have person have to go in it i've never seen from the top down i think that there's i don't know if there's access on top but i know on the front there's a fort that's about this big i think so i suppose if you're small you could get in there but i don't think that they're getting in there i don't think they enter these to clean them as a confined space i don't know just in case they you know don't have like to seize a confined space uh plan is all i don't think that they do any confined space the way that i've seen them clean the other than the silo right they got one for the silo right so i haven't looked at the silo up close i know that entering a silo is confined space i don't know if they have to do that for theirs as part of their management i would imagine that they would comply with that requirement though but yeah i'm not 100 on their confined space plan for their silo okay so when i went through so jeff um is no longer with our company he prepared the final plans for this so i went through and tried to recompile everything and remember what he had done as a as sitting here for a different project so bear with me on some of this i did look at the parking and that inside of the discretionary apartment approval does mention 114 parking spaces it also mentions that there was no increase required no no new parking spaces were required but we were proposing new ones as part of our shared parking analysis which was required so abbey dairy who's a traffic engineer at our firm took a look at the shared parking analysis that jeff had prepared and found that there was a number in there that wasn't correct and she reevaluated it and found that 110 spaces is sufficient 105 spaces would work for our shared parking analysis so even though we are proposing a reduction which is due to accommodating the dumpster requirement and consolidating those in one area and this is actually the area that they use for their dumpsters which you see pictures in this and achieving that and achieving the dumpsters we lost a little bit of parking spaces but reevaluating it with the traffic engineer we found that the parking is still sufficient so it does look like it's a loss but it's not actually a loss we're still sufficient and that's something that emily had also agreed upon as for the changes so that's that one is one of those ones that as you're going through discretionary and you talk about things you say okay yes we need to consolidate our dumpsters and we make those changes present them to you in final so i figure that that one is one of us complying with one of the requirements inside of here the voluntary change is our deck swap with the entrance and that's the one i want to get your opinion on to see if you still agree that it's minor and that this can still continue through other than that i've listed inside of this letter all of the conditions of approval and how these plans conform with that and i think we want to try to keep it short so if you have questions on any of those in particular we can talk about them um and i'll just leave it at that the new patio deck will not be no roof over it no solar roof no nothing over it right no so my architect did not come to support me tonight i thought i was going to be here he knows that area more intimately than i do i don't believe there's anything proposed over the top i know that it will be contained by a fence and on the loading dock side that fence i think may be a little bit taller just a screen from the loading dock area and then on the entrance side shorter so that way people coming can see everybody having a great time there there is one other change actually i recall that i did not address as far as things inside of here and that is just with the architects plans the interior floor space has been recalculated at around 1700 square feet it's still less than the 2000 that we are permitted however i want to make sure that in the in the dp approval it says 1575 square feet that number is actually 1720 so i just want to take note of that number and that those are on these plans number that number doesn't change any of your other calculations correct i think abby used the correct number for that or it was let's take a look here my understanding that the fifth was that the 1575 was a finding of facts for the approval in july so while you're allowed up to 2000 square feet in the bylaw with the discretionary permit only covered um was what was proposed 1575 yeah i'm pulling up the minutes from july i have them right here so that's what it says here is 1575 and the parking analysis was done for the full amount 2000 so we're covered there um it's just that yes this number is not the same as in the minutes is the area involved different or was there a calculation issue the first time i think that the area involved is slightly different because as the architect was going through laying out the bathrooms with bathroom requirements that architects have to deal with they the shape of that i believe change i looked at this this number came up today and matt you when you were asked the question about you know the maximum that they could be doing that's when i took a close look at this number i'm more outside versus inside when i put a rectangle around the tasting area that had not changed shape so where the people will actually be eating but it was more like back of the house type stuff it seemed to be where that was and the question came up from the architect asking of this 2000 square feet what does that include does it include only the area where the patrons will be or is it what else and clarity was given to us by matt that that area includes everything that's not the brewery so everything that's not the brewery needs to be the accessory use and is in that 2000 square feet so that's when i drew my new rectangle around everything that's not the brewery and have 17 20 square feet i also compared that to the old 1575 and it was approximately around that number the 1575 matched up with everything that matt had said was included so i have to think something in the back of the house slightly changed shape i didn't overlay the architects to plans to see where that difference came in to effect because i wasn't sure at what level if if that was going to come up as not going to be allowed or if that was minor um and i didn't design the inside so i don't know where that that delta is back around is there any is there any difference anything different between 15 there's actually a new bathroom with the shower in there that could have been you know they send that box down to pick up its entrance here that hallway comes down from the tasting area and then now there's a big box in front of all the in front of all the bathrooms and i'm assuming assuming that you're counting that as part of your square footage uh when i did the square footage calculation on a dash 1.2 in your plan i included all of the outcrops but i did not include the bathrooms because those are shared with the breweries not the bathroom but the hallway yeah the area in front of kind of that though right i did i did i counted the entire hallway in that area looks much larger with the extra bathroom and with the shower added to it looks like it's been pushed out about okay so the plan which which sheet are you looking at you're looking to see 901 see 901 right okay so don't trust that one that one is out that one's as built that one's as built at the time i did an as built for the pump station inside so that right there is speaking very much to there's a little disclaimer here that's basically speaking to the pump station as built trust it for that the rest of it is proposed so you could compare that floor plan there to the a 1-2 this is the architect provided but yeah a dash 1.2 and that's what they're proposing there so let's see so the floor plan i guess the question comes back though so we could try to find where the architect added this is it a problem is it because it's still within the 2000 um so the floor plan c10-01 with trudel logo on it that floor plan appears to line up with the one that was submitted at discretionary permit then there are the additional floor plan stamp g4 the a 1.2 yes that shows something that extra exterior entrance ties into the hallway that's our best that i'll put so the the these plans here so the c901 the c10-01 in my letter i note to you which plans you haven't seen before and those are speaking to the dpw required infrastructure so when i created these plans they were done at the completion of the installation of the pump station that's inside of the building and also with the grease trap proposed at the time the kitchen was proposed was when these plans were created and they have um the grease trap plan doesn't have the disclaimer but it probably showed that they're they're more speaking to the water and sewer type infrastructure um and they could have been updated with that but they were these were created at that time and i wanted to provide those to you as supplemental information that we use to address dpw comments so the actual plans for the interior functions of the building as far as the building is related i wouldn't you be using the architect's plan as reference that's what they're going to be but that's how what their walls will look like my stuff is more subsurface below the slab not not to play with this but on the shared parking analysis the abbey does you know the summary at the kind of halfway down does say 2000 square feet of restaurant but abel itself has 1600 square feet 1.6 for restaurant so if you carried if you carried 2000 let's see what abbey did here in her tabulation kind of halfway down right it says restaurant equals 2000 yeah i see yeah i see where you are abel obviously the 1.6 yeah i see where other numbers are there so you're right that's a if you put in 2.0 or 2000 that gets you during the three to five p.m. time period that gets you up to 30 spaces from 24 up to 30 which brings the total up to 112 which is above 110 i suppose we have to keep that at the proposed which is 1.72 and then we would be okay so that table would need to be revised for that yes at the 1.7 so they would have to do something before they went to their max at 2000 good catch like it so one thing i'm hearing is that the board approved a discretionary permit for the finding that the accessory usage is time of 1,575 square feet and i'm hearing tonight that the final plans before the board have a larger but still approvable under the terms of the bylaw area of that area of accessory use is that correct i would say that's a fact this arcing number becomes an issue then well let me let me clarify that um square footage of use certainly does impact parking but the bylaw was amended to allow for this expanded accessory use for prudent beverage manufacturers in the industrial zone in district less and it was amended to allow the establishment of those accessory uses through discretionary permit review process by the drb the board knew when it approved the discretionary permit for this project that there were going to be some changes uh there was a specific condition related to the outside of the site figure out how many dumpsters you need make sure you consolidate them the board understands this may impact the site plan et cetera um but i would i would say to the board that i think the critical issue in deciding whether to sign off on final plans at this stage is whether the board feels that the change in size of the accessory use on the inside of the building is an acceptable amount of change from what the board saw during his hearing process we are not in a warrant hearing process right now this was not something that went out to a butters we are in the stage where you are processing final plans and determining their compliance with the approval you established a little less than a year ago not going to offer a whole lot of guidance unless prodded beyond that but i think i think there's a difference here that is bigger than the board is used to seeing in between discretionary permit and final plan well i will tell you and i'm the chair of this board that i don't like seeing changes made at this late stage at harm and i guess i consider this to be significant yes it's a hundred square feet it's it's not it's not it's not huge but generally when the board when the board does approve issues its approvals okay i'd like to see them come back to the board i mean that's the reason why we bring them back it's because we're expecting either we don't trust the applicant to do what we're giving them an approval for and we were requiring them to come back in front of the board to prove to the board that they did it the way the approval was issued as opposed to having staff simply sign off on it so yeah that's that's my opinion as as one of the board members others others on the board may feel differently but i'm i think i'm mostly raising that matter of the interior size just to say that for all of it's going on in the adjustments to these plans i i think if there's a a linchpin for board members to think about in terms of how they want to process this that that's where i would identify that i guess i guess i would take a little different approach i mean i i would agree with you that you know when we we make an approval we we expect people to comply with that i think that a hundred and forty five square feet is not very many i don't think so and i think that um that that you know people need to have at least some latitude here to kind of make improvements to the plan we really don't review interior layouts to a very big extent here i don't know and i don't know what caused that hundred and forty five square foot difference it could be nothing more than somebody else requiring you to put another bathroom stall in somewhere like um actually exactly the things i noted what i'm just now looking between the changes mostly are with how the bathrooms are laid out at the rear end so that the kitchen area and the bar area stayed the same it's that far back where the bathrooms are that shifted a little bit and that and that exterior entrance uh was that correct yeah that one's a big one that one i know about i can speak about and uh this thing has pushed that hallway down some more which is why i asked about whether the you know the the size of the for the tasting room itself the seating area for the public in the kitchen whether that changed or not i i would have to look at that and see um to make sure that that's where it all is by looking at the way are these tanks are i think that on the we'll call it the right side of the piece of paper because i don't see the north arrow on here that may have gotten a little further because it looks like it's just ever so slightly to the right on this page on a dash at 1.2 so that seating area may have grown by a few feet like extended out that wall documented how much the seating capacity of the of the space before and now so i don't lay out the seats on the inside but on this plan it says that the max seating is noted as 75 persons it was originally that's my question so no it doesn't matter how much the room is if it says max is 75 do we know yeah as my understanding is that the number that was originally proposed for the seating i think it's not when they first came in so i'm just trying to recall because again i put this project up i know that they originally wanted 100 they thought they thought about 50 and they thought about 75 so a lot of these numbers were thrown out there i think that the as i read through this the the minutes from July 24th it does not mention the number of seats and i don't think that that is a condition or a finding effect of this approval rather it's related to the square footage so i think really our conversation is more focused on the bylaws limit on 2000 square feet and this change that we're presenting before us yes that's correct the number of seats was not part of the record in July of 18 and we when we make our calculations either you know for the accessory use size or for parking we're looking at square feet we're not concerned this is showing 955 square feet and the plan set that to June 15th i think that was a long time ago right oh yeah more than five more had changed 837 is what's shown now but i think this original one included some of the hallway space that's not longer anybody anybody want to carry this one further are we good with it as long as i'm trying to increase the number of the occupants that's fine but that is a note are there any other are there any other are the other any other issues on this one no emotion on this are we are we well we're going to do we're going to go into deliberation we are we there's a there's a motion on this right man i or is it just a signature i i'd recommend when we return final plans to the drz urge you that you you take a vote or or note that you've had consensus to sign them it's again not a hearing it's a it's a ministerial act by the board at this point but something in the record that says you decided to sign them is good because backs up when somebody finds the sign final plans we know that you you really did decide to sign it what's that it's not a hearing so we're not we've got nothing to close and i'll get your decision in the morning get your decision in the morning call one of our crack staff in the morning i'll just wait for like a surprise thank you okay all right scott shut her down it wasn't there's content all right here we go it is it is what i can't even read it anymore 1118 and the wilson development review board for april 23rd is out of deliberation do let's see here for dp19-19 saladino would you make a motion for jc prop excuse me yes for mr for jc properties office edition as authorized by wd 6.6 30 i david saladino moved at the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson wilson development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearings of april 23rd 2019 except the recommendations proposed by staff for the review of dp19-19 and authorize the applicant to proceed to discretionary permit review the one change to um under staff comments parking section to modify the total spaces great thank you very much uh do i have a second second all seconds it any further discussion all in favor aye six ayes no nays motion carries let's see dp19-21 is a discretionary permit application for the federal express building requesting a fencing around its perimeter has been continued to may 14th staff has been directed to offer suggestions from the board to the applicant let's see next up is uh at the appeal of 19-0 two of mr donnell bevin's uh pete oh i have a motion uh first conclusions of law uh the drp has determined the following number one the operation of a rooming and or boarding house at 3173 st george road is not in allowed use per wdb 31.a conclusion of law number two the use of a portable toilet at 3173 st george road absent construction slash remodeling at the property is not allowed per wdb 20.14 conclusion of law number three the use of recreational vehicles as living quarters at 3173 st george road has exceeded the number of vehicles in duration allowed by wdb 20.15 and conclusion of law number four the management of litter on the property is not in conformance with wdb 16.4 as authorized by wdb 5.4.6 i peter kelly moved at the williston development review board having reviewed the appeal of the administrator's decision all of the accompanying material and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of april 23rd 2019 accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for app 19-02 an appeal of a notice of zoning violation and uphold the decision of the administrator to require the applicant to follow the steps listed in the nov letter to correct the violations thank you do i have a second all second sir any further discussion hall in favor hi hi six eyes no nays motion carries next up is dp 16-19 do i have a motion for grassroots vermont medical marijuana dispensary yes as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 i john hemmelgarten moved at the williston development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the williston development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearings of march 12th 2019 and april 23rd 2019 accept the findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval proposed by staff for the review of dp 19-16 this approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for future development which must proceed in strict performance with the plans on which this approval is based we're going to add a couple of conditions number 11 all comments from wilson dp w wilson fire department and the wilson police department shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval number 12 security lighting shall be motion detected in lieu of full-time security lighting thank you do i have a second i'll second it Dave seconds it any further discussion all in favor aye six ayes no nays motion carries next is um next is dp 18-07 burlington company is an affirmation of the completion of final oh dp 18-07 18-07 burlington beer company is accepted by the wilson development review board and staff great that's all we need to do we don't need to vote on that i have a motion to approve the minutes of april 9th 2019 i'll make a motion to approve the minutes of april 2019 as written okay let's make that motion do i have a second second john seconds it any further discussion all in favor hi hi i have eyes one abstention motion carries do i have a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11 we'll get overtime back oh my not tomorrow