 Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Town of Williston Development Review Board for Tuesday, October 26, 2021. I am John Hammelgarn. I am vice chair of the ERB. I'll be chairing the meeting this evening. I welcome applicants and public participants. Please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant toolbar or commenting in the chat. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the Town Hall meeting room and online using Zoom. All members of the Board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. All votes taken in this meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, this meeting will be continued to November 9th, 2021. Let's start the meeting by taking roll call attendance of all the DRB members participating in the meeting. Let's see. Pete Kelly is, I don't think, attending this evening? Not here. Scott Riley. Here. David Turner. Here. Paul Christensen. Present. And finally, that would be David Saladino is, I believe, also not present. So we have four members. That would be a quarrel for this evening's meeting. So we have two items on tonight's docket on a tonight's agenda. We have the DP 2015. Kevin Mazuzin requesting a discretionary permit for a two lot subdivision and DP 20-13 from the Department of Buildings and General Services requesting a discretionary permit to construct a new public safety facility. The first item on the agenda is a public forum. Anyone who wishes to make a comment to the board this evening? Thank you, Scott. So as I promised earlier, staff is going to give us a little tutorial on using Zoom for this meeting. Emily. Looks like everybody here should be familiar with Zoom. Sign in on the toolbar. If you are joining in on Zoom in the meeting, we're keeping a microphone, camera, and speaker off. There's several tools on the toolbar. Using your camera is optional. Please stay on mute when you're not speaking. The raise hand button is in the reaction section of the toolbar. You can use the chat for technical help. If you're joining in on telephone, press star nine to raise hand, star six to mute or unmute. You can optimize view when we're doing screen share by toggling the toolbar in the slider bar in the screen. And if you're having that internet connection, try turning off video, closing other tabs in the program when we're using your telephone as microphone from the up arrow next to the microphone symbol. Reach out to me or Simon in the chat if you have any Zoom issues. Thank you, Emily. So back to agenda item number one, public forum. This is time for anyone in the audience or online to comment on anything that is not on our agenda for this evening. Are there any comments? None here in the building. Emily, any hands raised there? No raise hands, no chat. Thank you. So we'll move on to our public hearings. First item on the agenda is DP 20-15. Kevin Mazuzin request discretionary permit for a two lot subdivision on a 5.27 acre parcel to create one new dwelling unit at 1120 Butternut Road in the agricultural role residential zoning district. We'll open this hearing at 7.05. So I guess I would ask anybody representing the owner to come forward and sit at the table and identify yourself, name and address. Good evening. My name is Kevin Mazuzin. I'm the owner of the property, 1120 Butternut Road, Williston, Vermont, and Jesse Lauer, 1120 Butternut Road, Williston. Okay. And is there anyone else that will be speaking on your behalf? No. Thank you. All right. So staff. Okay. So Kevin Mazuzin requests the discretionary permit for a two lot subdivision on a 5.27 acre parcel to create one new dwelling unit at 1120 Butternut Road in the agricultural role residential zoning district properties currently developed with a single household dwelling. Staff is recommending the DRB approve this application with conditions as drafted. The conservation commission reviewed this project and made recommendations. The recommendations are discussed further on in the staff report. The Williston fire department reviewed the project and submitted comments. The Williston Department of Public Works and the police department did not submit comments. No comment letters were received at the time of mail up. So the proposed project went through pre application in November 2019 and obtained growth management allocation of one dwelling unit in March of 2020. Due to COVID 19 state of emergency, the discretionary permit filing deadline was extended from November 2020 to September 2021. The applicant filed a complete discretionary permit application within that timeframe. If the DRB approves this discretionary permit, the applicant is required to file final plans within one year after approval. Construction of a single household dwelling on the subdivide lot requires an administrative permit. The applicant has addressed all the pre application recommendations satisfactorily to in the staff's opinion, including comments made by the conservation commission and meeting with the director of public works and the fire department chief to clarify potential requirements. The project is in compliance with all dimensional standards, including minimum lot size, which in the ARZD is 80,000 square feet or 1.83 acres. And these proposed lots are 3.27 in two acres in size. And the lots each have more than 40 feet of frontage on butternut road. The parcel is less than 10.5 acres, so the proposed project is not subject to Wilson's open space provisions. And the applicant's narrative addressed all elements regarding lots and home sites and compliance is expected. The proposed project is estimated to generate one PM peak hour trip and a pre application that DRB did not require traffic study. The project proposes a new shared access location. Lot one and lot two will be accessed from a drive by an approximately 420 foot long by 14.5 foot wide gravel drive with parking areas. The existing driveway for lot one will be removed and a right of way for the neighboring Howard parcel will remain in place. And then fire apparatus turnarounds will be provided at the driveway split and both dwelling units and there will be a pulloff between the driveway split and the existing dwelling unit on lot one. So the applicant has been having discussions with the Wilson public works director and the Wilson fire department and the project is expected to comply with their standards. The project is proposing a wastewater, an onsite wastewater system and potable water supply system. And the applicant has provided documentation of the state of Vermont wastewater permits. And the existing home has a 50 foot underground connection to the existing above ground power located on the second of two existing poles on the parcel. And the proposed dwelling unit will have an underground connection to the first existing pole and parcel. The project can comply with the onsite infrastructure requirements of Chapter 15 as proposed. So as far as density is concerned, residential density is calculated on a dwelling unit equivalent for acre basis. The dwelling unit equivalent is equal to a dwelling unit containing two or more bedrooms. A dwelling containing only one bedroom or less studio is counted as a half of the dwelling unit. And the applicant is proposing two total dwelling unit equivalents in the form of two units with two or more bedrooms and no units with one or fewer bedrooms. Chapter 19 density requires that lands with wetlands, wetland buffers and slopes in excess of 30% be subtracted from the total acreage when calculating density. And that lands with slopes between 15 and 29.9% be calculated at a reduced density of one dwelling unit for 10 acres. There are no state map wetlands or wetland advisory areas on the subject parcel. And the engineer, the applicant's engineer confirmed this with a site visit. And based on the information provided, staff did a constraints analysis and determined that the parcel can support two dwelling units rounding down from 2.33. And the applicant has proposed two dwelling units for landscaping. Chapter 31 establishes minimum property line setbacks of 50 feet from the town highway right of way and 15 feet from the side and rear property lines. Chapter 23 states that open space residential developments provide ample buffers but doesn't specify minimum buffer widths. So the DRBS and discretion in determining buffer widths for this project in this area, the applicant is proposing to use existing vegetation for the landscape buffers around each parcel. And then the conservation commission had a recommendation regarding that the existing driveway, once it's abandoned, also be restored to a forested condition. So this will also eventually provide a buffer from the road to the road. The subject parcels within a significant wildlife habitat area. The applicant has provided a habitat disturbances assessment. And the HDA concludes that the proposed project will not have an undue adverse impact to the significant wildlife habitat area. The project area is within a secondary foreground view shed area. And WDB 27.9 directs the DRB to consider view shed impacts and apply conditions of approval to mitigate those impacts as part of its review of the project. The site plan shows that the proposed new dwelling will be effectively screened from butternut road. To limit impacts to significant wildlife habitat and the view shed, the conservation commission recommended that the applicant limit for the extent of forest clearing to the degree possible. Final plans should show defined building envelopes for lots one and lot two and no structures shall be allowed outside the building envelopes. And finally, at the time the proposed new shared driveways completed and operational, the existing driveway serving lot one shall be abandoned and restored to a forested condition. And final plans also must provide details for how the restoration will be implemented. The WCC's recommendations are included as draft conditions. And the proposed project is not anticipated to impact rare threatened endangered species, unique natural communities, farmlands of local importance or special flood hazard areas, wetlands or streams. WDB 29 got four establishes runoff and erosion control standards for larger developments in development and vulnerable areas. A low risk development is one in which the cumulative land disturbance is greater than quarter acre but less than two acres. And in which all land that's that will be disturbed is outside water protection buffers and has a slope of less than 8%. The proposed project is considered a low risk development. As required, the applicant has submitted a completed runoff and erosion control checklist showing how the applicant will comply with the guidance provided in the current edition of Vermont's low risk site handbook for erosion prevention and erosion control or sediment prevention and erosion control. The applicant has done so and the project can comply with the standards of WDB 29.5. Impact fees will be assessed at the administrative permit stage. So that's all I have. And I've included some findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval for you to consider. Thank you. Thank you, Melinda. So, Kevin, do you have anything to add or would like to tell us anything more about the project? No, I don't have anything further to add at this point. I'm pleased with the staff report and the findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval are all things that we are willing to take on. Great. So you have read the conditions that are proposed. Yes. Great. Thank you. So I'll open it up, I guess, to the board members. If there are any questions for the applicant? David? Paul? No. Basically, he's done everything we asked for. I'm good with it. Okay. Looks like that's about it. Anybody in the audience? I'm pretty sure they're all here for the next. So, all right, so no more comments from the applicant. None from the board. None from the chair. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll close this hearing at 717. Next up is DP 20-13 from the Department of Building and General Services. CEO Jennifer Fitch requested a discretionary permit to construct a new public safety facility, garage and storage building, and parking at 3294 St. George Road in the Gateway Zoning District South. We'll close this hearing at 718 and ask the applicant to identify themselves, name and address, please. This is Oleg Varvath. I'm a project manager. We have a building and general services for this project. My name is Scott Homesed. I'm a civil engineer, Krebs and Lansing Consulting Engineers. Marty Sincabich from SAS Architects. I'm sorry. I didn't catch the name. Marty Sincabich. Okay. Thank you. Jeremy Stevens, BGS. Good evening. Captain Mike Manley, Vermont State Police. All right. Anybody else? Anybody else in the audience when I done for themselves? No, that's right. I know the man behind that mask. So, who's got this one? Is that you, Matt? Melinda's got this. Melinda's got this. A big night for Melinda. Yeah, so if you'll bear with me, this has a lot of elements to it. So it may take a while to get through, but I want to make sure we cover everything. So the Vermont department of buildings and general services, care of Jennifer Fitch requests a discretionary permit to construct a new public safety facility. Wait, let me, I have not shared my screen. I apologize. Okay. Okay. A new public safety facility garage, storage building and parking at 32 94 St. George road and the gateway zoning district South. The staff is recommending the DRB take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate and approve the project, but only if the DRB can issue specific findings and make sure that the project is approved. And the monopole antenna. So these are, these are elements of the project. That the applicant has a partial exemption. Under. Under chapter four and under 44 13. And the applicant is claiming a partial exemption. And I will, we will be discussing that further along. In the future. So if you need more information. To be provided by the applicant before you can issue a decision. So as far as the project history. The DRB reviewed the proposed project as a pre-application on the, on October 22nd, 2019. And. There were prior approvals dating back to the 1970s. And there were prior approvals dating back to the 1970s. And some site reconnaissance. And clearing. Happened. Starting from 2011. And going up to 2019. The conservation commission and the historic and architectural advisory committee. Each reviewed this project. They also commented on building materials and colors, the security fence, way finding signage and the communications tower. The conservation commission has specific recommendations related to watershed protection buffers. A trail easement invasive species management and lighting. The hack and WCC recommendations are discussed in the staff report and included. Some of their recommendations been included as draft conditions. And so. The department of public works. And the fire department both commented on this project. And we received. Two comment letters at two public comment letters at the time of the mail out. Concerns were raised about noise and lighting impacts. Comment letters were received from Nathan. So the, the DRB had a number of pre-application recommendations. And I'm not going to go through them all. They, you know, they did the applicant responded to. Pretty much all of those. Recommendations. So I'm going to go back to that and, and hit on specific ones. If you need further clarification about the applicant's responses. So. In our WDB chapter four. There is a, an exemption for local permitting. Facilities owned and operated by the state of Vermont have a number of requirements under state and local regulations. As provided by. 24 VSA 44 13. And WDB. 4.2.2.1. The town is specifically authorized to regulate height, lighting and other development elements. Such that it doesn't interfere with the intended functional use. And the burden of demonstrating that a condition imposed on a applicant's development. Interferes with the intended functional use rests with the applicant. So. The DRB will be looking at this. This partial exemption and we'll need to decide if the applicant has met their burden of proof. On areas or elements of the project that they wish to claim this exemption for. So for dimensional standards. Or for uses, the proposed use is public administration. Which is allowed. And it's, it's allowed under NAS ACI's code. 92 and also allowed under. 44 13 and the, the. Wilson development by a lot chapter four. And that's it. For dimensional standards, there's no minimum lot size in the gateway. Zoning district south. There is a requirement to have 40 feet of frontage. On a public or private road. The subject parcels and compliance. The applicants proposing construction of a new public safety facility consisting of two structures. A main office building in a garage storage building. A parking lot to the south and an employee parking lot to the north. The site plan demonstrates compliance with respect to building height restrictions and property line setbacks. The applicant is proposing an 85 foot tall monofilament. Which doesn't comply with the 36 foot height restriction. However, an exemption may apply. The DRB finds the applicant has met the burden of proof. Demonstrating the need for an 85 foot pole. So that's it. This is discussed further under the telecommunications section that follows. Outdoor sales and storage. The applicants proposing outdoor storage area to the west of the main building and parking areas. Where larger equipment trucks and trailers will be stored. The storage building and outdoor storage will be surrounded by a security fence with a locked gate. And the parking lot. The parking lot. The parking lot allows service vehicles to be kept in parking areas that are in a side or rear yard. Buffered as required by chapter 23. And in compliance with chapter 14. Chapter 34 has specific provisions. Related to development on hillsides. The intent is to maintain the appearance of a wooded hillside south of 89. Including standards for maintaining existing forest areas. The WDB 34 requires the clearing of wooded or forest areas in the gateway zoning district south. With an average slope of more than 3% will be limited to 35% of the area of the parcel. That's within the gateway zoning district south. The remainder of the site must remain in woodland or forest vegetation. Except for certain exceptions. For example, the area of the parcel. The area of the parcel. All lawn areas around buildings. The applicant. Calculated the clearing area percentage. At. 35.2%. And they've indicated that they will. Re-vegetate. At least. 0.06 acres in order to achieve compliance with the standard. Landscaping details, including the required 75 foot. Woodland buffer planting are provided on sheet L. So. So chapter 34 calls for the removal of scrub forest on the north side of the development site and its replacement with a 75 foot buffer of mixed hardwood and evergreen forest. As well as the retention of a 75 foot wide strip of existing forested vegetation north of the planted buffer. And the proposed plan. Complies with the standard. For access, the site access is planned. The project is being constructed as part of a separate project. The V trans park and ride. The V trans park and rides being permitted on a separate, the parallel track to this project. V trans conducted a traffic study for the park and ride, which included the estimated trips generated by the BGS facility. Which is discussed in section three. And then we did a review of that. Page 11 through 16 of the traffic impact study report. Which we didn't provide any of packet, but we did upload to the website. The traffic impact. Study estimated that the BGS facility would generate. 40 PM peak hour trips. The traffic forecasts and the feasibility study were based on. The proposed public safety and V trans facilities. And the current. The current estimates are 70 employees. So the report concludes that the anticipated traffic volume increases associated with the proposed development or minor. We're off street parking and loading. So we're off street parking. The, the Hicular parking. Proposed complies as proposed. The proposed use is rather unique. And the state is partially exempt from zoning. So staff. Does recommend approving the 86 parking spaces. There is not. When. Usually we have. We have. We have. We have. We have. With the use indicated. And. Based on. Table 14. A of the bylaw, which specifies. Required parking. Based on different uses, but this use is actually not included in that. Table. In chapter four. So. It's kind of at the discretion of the DRB to determine. The allowed parking. The parking lot. The parking lot. The parking lot. The parking lot will be reasonable given the use. The applicants proposing. 86 parking spaces. 36 public parking spaces, including three ADA spaces and 50. Employee parking spaces and one additional ADA space. The parking lot design landscaping dimensions. The parking lot. The parking lot. The parking lot. The parking lot. The parking lot. The parking lot. WDB 14. It's only the number of vehicular spaces that would need an exemption from. WDB 14. The. Proposed number of ADA space spaces are sufficient. For the number of parking spaces, but the DRB may wish to require the spaces be apportioned. More evenly. As in two parking spots per. And the bicycle parking and end of trip facilities also comply as proposed. Or short-term spaces are proposed near the main public entrance. Or long-term spaces are identified in the storage building. And a minimum of two end of trip facilities are required in. In a sheet a. Dash one shows three bathrooms with showers. And the parking lot. The DRB can choose to reduce the parking bicycle parking. But given that the trans access road will include a pedestrian connection. Under exit 12 staff doesn't recommend reducing the bicycle parking. Because bicycle use is likely. For onsite infrastructure. Proposed utilities include new electric and communication services. And the parking lot. And new sewer connections to both buildings. In storm water, collection, treatment, and attention system. All utility lines and connections must be underground. Water connection fees will apply. And then the department of public works requested in a comment. Memo. That the water main be extended to the end of the parking lot. will allow future taps off the main if necessary. And they also requested that both buildings be metered for water usage. On-site stormwater treatment and retention facilities are shown in two locations on the stormwater and site restoration plan. The project will require state stormwater permit and must comply with state standards as well as most in public work standards. Waste and recycling receptacles are shown to the north of the outdoor storage yard. Per WDB16, solid waste disposal containers must be accessible to haulers, but must also be fully screened from public view. This can be accomplished by architectural and or landscape design. Designated snow storage areas are shown on the site plan. Per WDB23.5.3, salt tolerant plant materials must be used in or around parking areas and in the snow storage areas required by WDB16.6. And plant materials selected for these areas must also have a growth form and it's not subject to or that resists the physical damage that can be caused by snow moving equipment in the stack in the snow. For telecommunication facilities, the applicants requesting a partial exemption from zoning. The project includes an 85 to 90 foot tall monocoque antenna for police and public safety radio communications. It will not be permitted through the Vermont Public Utility Commission and therefore it's subject to the standards of WDB chapter 21, including the height limit of 36 feet. The applicant has provided supplemental documentation of microwave path survey report documenting the on the ground conditions that necessitate an 85 foot antenna. The hack made a recommendation about co-location. The hack noted that the town is looking to build a similar communications tower and recommended the state discuss co-locating with the town manager and relevant town departments. But the hack also recognized that co-location is somewhat beyond the scope of the DRB. The DRB can require the applicant provide a commitment to share space on the antenna per WDB21.3.1. The DRB will need to determine whether the report the applicant provided satisfied the app satisfies the applicant's burden of proof to allow an exemption to the 36 foot height limit. The DRB may also want to consider a condition requiring the applicant to design for future co-location per WDB21.3.1. Co-location of telecommunication facilities is required. The antenna must meet the standards or the design and color of telecommunication structures per WDB21.3.2. Just being the exterior materials must be of a type and color and style that minimizes glare and contrast with surrounding environment. For design review, the hack recommendations are included as conditions and detailed in a separate report resulting from their review. Much of the hacks comments relate to site lighting and are included under the lighting section of the staff report. The other recommendations include that the chain link security fence and gate shall be black or green vinyl coated and not plain galvanized or visible from the access drive employee parking area and public parking area. The plain galvanized offense around storage building is okay because it will not be visible to the general public. The applicant shall provide roofing and siding color samples for the DRB review approve. I believe they've already done that and the hack recommended subtle earth tones that blend building into the forested hillside. They feel that the light beige may contrast too much in the forest and the trees. Final plans shall include wayfinding signage that differentiates the employee only entrance from the public entrance. And so the DRB should review these recommendations and decide if additional conditions are required. For landscaping, WDB table 23A does not list standards for this type of development. And the landscaping is partially regulated under WDB 34.8. The east side of the property fronts a public way is proposed to be landscaped by Vermont by VTrans during the construction of the Park and Ride Access Drive. The south side of the property is a primary concern with regard to the landscape buffer to reduce impacts of light and noise from the site to nearby residences. The applicants provided a landscaping plan shown on sheet L.1, L-1. So we've already talked about the 75 foot wide planted woodland buffer for the north side of the property. And a type four formal planting buffer is proposed to be planted in the land area north and south of the public safety building and along the southern edge of the development. Landscaped islands are proposed for the parking areas. The applicants proposing a buffer of densely planted arborvite along the southern boundary of the property. An earthen burn is shown on the site plan at the southeast corner of the property to further screen the development from the budding property but this will be completed by VTrans on the access roads constructed. A comment letter requested that the applicant at the landscape buffer along the southern boundary be extended about 50 feet along the western edge of the storage yard to reduce impacts of lighting from the nearby residential areas. The DRB may wish to include this as a condition. The DRB should discuss the landscape buffer on the south side of the development. If this use is categorized as retail service commercial then according to table 23A either a 13 foot type two buffer or a 27 foot type three buffer would be required. The applicant should provide more detailed landscape plan showing how compliance will be achieved along the southern boundary. The Wilson Conservation Commission reviewed this project for impacts to conservation areas and the WCC's recommendations are included as draft conditions. The subject parcel is within a significant wildlife habitat area. The applicant has submitted a habitat disturbance assessment. The proposed development is cited so as to minimize disturbance to the significant wildlife habitat area. The subject parcels within the secondary foreground view shed area but the gateway just zoning district south has specific requirements related to view shed which have already been discussed in the section under the gateway zoning district south above. And the parcels doesn't contain any other types of natural resources like threatened uncommon rare threatened or endangered species unique natural communities, farmlands of local importance or special flood hazard areas. The Wilson Conservation Commission reviewed the project for impacts to watershed health and their recommendations are included as draft conditions. Class two and class three wetlands are shown on the site plan. Class two wetlands are outside the area of development. The Conservation Commission submitted recommendations related to the demarcation and protection of watershed protection buffers. So this development is considered a high risk development and the applicant has submitted an erosion prevention and sediment control plan that complies with the standards of WVB 29.5. Department of Public Works had a number of comments related to stormwater and their comment memo is attached and included as draft conditions. For outdoor lighting, the applicant is requesting a partial exemption for the public parking lot. The applicant has provided a lighting plan shown on sheet ES.1L as discussed in the table below. All proposed fixture types comply and are fully shielded. Total lumen outputs, parking lot, elimination levels, maximum uniformity ratios, Lumiere orientation all comply with the requirements of WDB 24. There are a few areas near the building entrances where the illumination at a single point exceeds the five foot candle threshold, but the DRB can allow illumination levels above the maximum around building entrances and pedestrian ways. The lighting on the north side of the vehicle storage building is proposed to be mounted at 17 feet, which exceeds the maximum allowed height of 15 feet, but the DRB may allow an exception to the standard where the full luminaire assemblies are more than 250 feet from the nearest parcel boundary, which applies here. WDB chapter 24 has limits on the duration outdoor lighting can be turned on. Typically 24 seven sites that operate 24 seven are required to dim their parking lots, parking lot lights 75% overnight and use motion sensors for security lighting. The applicant submitted a memo requesting that outdoor lighting be permitted to remain on all the time for safety, public safety reasons. The hack also discussed the lighting. My apologies, the hack made recommendations that state that the lighting shall be dimmed to 75%, not by 75% from dusk to dawn. So that's their first under the first recommendation of lighting and eliminated to 100% during shift changes and when activated by employee entrances, access date and or emotion. Lighting shall be programmed to turn off no more than 15 minutes following glass detectable motion. And then the public parking area and the Sallyport area lighting in this area can remain on 24 seven without dimming as to not interfere with the intended functional use of the 24 seven publicly accessible facility where troopers might interact with distressed individuals and or take police reports in the parking lot and evidence and our people are taken into custody in the Sallyport area. And then the storage area shall be dimmed to 75% during nine hours and activated to 100% by motion detectors, by motion sensors programmed to turn off no more than 15 minutes following the last detectable motion. And then finally, there's two pole mounted fixtures on the South side of the public parking lot and the hack is recommending that they be shielded on the South side. And actually the DRV may wanna include a condition that requires all the pole mounted fixtures near the Southern boundary be shielded on the South side. So the DRV will need to decide whether the applicant is satisfied with burden of proof to allow an exemption to the lighting standards. Okay, so this is just the lighting table. So for signs, signage is proposed and can be approved with administrative permits. The applicants proposing one free standing sign at the entrance of the site. Maximum size allowed is 32 square feet. Maximum allowed height is 12 feet. The base must be landscaped and internally illuminated signs are prohibited. Additionally, no permit is required for the placement of posting of up to four directional signs that have an area of less than two square feet and do not include a logo larger than one half square feet or a commercial message. And these smaller directional signs are not counted against the permitted number or area of signs, but must comply with the individual sign standards of table 25A. More than four smaller directional signs may be allowed by administrative permit and direction at the discretion of the administrator. Lastly, impact fees. Impact, the assessment of impact fees will be determined by the administrator. And that is all I have. Thank you. The applicant to perhaps this is a fairly big project. So it might be useful to give us a little bit of a tour of the site. If that's something that we could put up on the screen and, you know, for example, it's not immediately apparent where the monopole is on the site plan. So I think it'd be good to kind of point out some of those major elements here and how you're looking to, you know, light and screen the site. Sure. I'm a little unclear how to do it on the screen. Well, I am as well, I mean... Melinda, perhaps if you could share the site plan? Of course you guys can. I've got it pulled up. I can see it. Okay, okay. So I can describe it. Okay. Yeah, Melinda, can you put the site plan up and zoom in a little bit? Melinda, if you could go to C2, that's a little more zoomed in and show us the whole site. So I can do my best to describe it. So essentially, as Melinda discussed, the project holds share and access with the VTrans Park and Ride on the south end of the site. And essentially vehicles will come in and turn right to go to the parking ride and to our lower parking lot, the employee parking lot, and then public users will basically go in straight from route 2A into the site where the public parking is and then through the gated access to get to the storage building and those facilities. The public safety building is then directly to the north of the public parking. We are taking advantage of the hillside here to have essentially a walkout building where the one level is on the public parking and then you'd be down a full story on the north side facing the employee parking. The monofull that we're talking about is on, I would describe it as the, just off the northwest corner of the closest wing of the building towards the lower parking lot. It does say new. Yeah, it does. I just, I want to make sure that everybody that's watching here is aware of what we're looking for. So there is, exactly. So there is a label there that says new intact. Okay. And so that is, I know that's a concern. So she's got. Other particular site features that people might be wondering where they are are the two stormwater treatment practices are gravel wetlands. One is off to the northwest corner past the storage building and that parking and one is directly north of the, what we're calling the lower parking lot, the employee parking lot back towards where the park and ride is going to be. And then, so I know those are the things that came up during discussion was, was there other things that people wanted to sort of know where they are? So public accesses on the south side of the building right across from the public parking. The Sally Corp is off to the west side. Basically it faces the storage building. So that, so that is through the gate into the, through the gate into the. Keep bearing to the right and come right in the west side. Come around the back. Okay. And then the lower parking lot is basically for the 911 Collin Center and employee parking lot. It'll be gated access as well. It'll be gated access. Right. So again, it might be useful when I realize you're working in tandem with it. I'm not sure who's, is that you Simon that's drawing on here? Nicely done. I think he's got. Is to just kind of maybe outline where the fence is and where the gates are. I think that's because we've been talking about fencing here and screening and whatnot. So. So the first gate, if you look at this public parking area up on the south side, and you see where it says new concrete curve in the middle of the parking lot. It's just the left of that. And you can kind of see where the fence comes along the south side of the property in front of the, you know, behind the storage building parking. And then turns north and goes across and then comes along in the general area where the sally court is, John. Mm-hmm. Simon's just outlined the gates in green. I thought that's accurate. Yep. Any other gated access is to that lower parking lot, as we're calling it. It's the second access off from the V-Train's parking right, road, loop road. When is the parking right plan to start construction? We are very close to taking in permits on the parking ride. And as I understand it, the curb cut and access to this facility is part of the parking ride project. So. I think they want to start plenary this winter, obviously before the parking ride. So we'll be seeing that application soon. You've already seen the discretionary permit. And amendment on the parking ride. They've filed final plans and are in process with the administrative permit. So you won't see it, but you have. Right, you have to see it. Yeah. They're slightly aggressive. Yeah, they're about one step. Mm-hmm. Not for long. Yeah, yeah. Which facility is scheduled to be completed first? Parking ride? It's definitely sort of a parallel path. I think there's a very good chance the construction will be occurring on both at the same time. So is the access road going to be built in its entirety, top and bottom, at once? We haven't really compared to our schedules, our hopes that they get this curb cut in for us. And if they don't have it built, we'll have to work with them on getting our construction vehicles in while they finish their road. Is your, I assume your plan is to bring the, if they don't have it built, then you're gonna be bringing in on the south entrance. We're gonna have to build an access road through their curb cut area to get into the building. But we've been in communication with that and our hopes are that they get this built for us or roughed in so we can use it for construction use. Okay. Okay. Yeah, it's interesting. I'm looking at the plan here. They don't, at the south entrance to the parking lot, it doesn't look like the driveways line up right there on this plan that I have. It's a bit of an offset entry to, and that was to stay away from a stream buffer. There's a small stream just off the property to the south. So we had to tweak our entry over to address that. So which of these is accurate? It's accurate that it's just, it doesn't look like, it's not a perpendicular T. Okay. So the south side comes in at an angle? Correct. So the curve on the access road is gonna kind of come around and meet up with the, yeah, I'm not sure how that's actually working, to be honest with you. I mean, the plan I'm looking at, they're offset by probably 10 or 12 feet. I'm not sure where you're talking to. I'm looking at this, actually it's the north, I guess it's the north access point, not the south, I'm sorry. Well this is south, isn't it? The south at the bottom. So I'm looking at the one in the north, the lower lot entrance, the employee parking lot. I see perhaps a very small offset, which we'll fix. Okay, I'm looking, well, I'm looking on a sheet L1, maybe that's, I don't know what that could be. Yep, that would do it. Never mind. You might want to adjust the landscape plan. They are the last to know, you're absolutely right. That serves me right for looking at the landscape plan. C1 seems a lot better. Yeah, so all right, we've straightened that out, so to speak. So I think I'd like it to hit straight up here, a couple of the issues that staff brought up. Let's talk about the monopole. I think it's important here that my understanding is that we're trying to establish that it's necessary for the functional intended use of the facility for us to kind of allow this exemption. I think that's the way I read the rules here. So you've submitted a report saying that you need an 85 foot pole, is that right? You're getting from a company called ComCast. Yeah, ComCast. ComSearch. ComSearch it is. Yep. And so they... Like a way to pass survey from our pole or our site to both Cam Johnson and Mall Mansfield. I see. And that's what we have to have a communication to. All right. And is there the requirements of how close to this building that pole needs to be? I believe so. I believe it has to be within 15 feet is the number. Actually, it's 10. It's 10. Okay. So how tall was the pole down at the existing facility down at the bottom of the hill? Got it manually. Do you know the answer to that? Sorry, Zoley. I don't have the exact measurement. I can get it. It's a pretty substantial tower as well. I think the information actually shows up in your report somewhere that it's close to the same size, about 85 feet. Yeah. That roughly sounds right. So I guess my question, my question is, I mean, how well does that pole work down there? How well does it, I assume it's got in a microwave antenna on top of it. I think the issue here that they state in their report are allowing for the growth of some of the trees in the area and maintaining that line of sight. Is the pole down, is the dish down at the bottom of the hill pointed at Cam Johnson? Both Cam Johnson and Mansfield. And Mansfield. Dave Turner, feel free to weigh in here. You're the expert. So Mike, here's, so I have. You're asking the questions. I have a, I'm not an expert. I'm simply going by what seems reasonable. No, those are great reasonable questions. Yes. So my question is you've got a pole, an 85 foot pole thereabouts down at the bottom of the hill, which is significantly lower, pointed at Cam Johnson and pointed at the, and pointed at the Mount Mansfield. You're, you gain a huge amount of elevation going up that hill. You've got the same size pole. So it seems to me that you don't need, you don't need that tall pole, at least to point to Cam Johnson, because you're way above the line of sight. I don't know about Mount Mansfield because there's probably a hill in the way. And again, I'm not an expert on it. No, but you're asking for an exemption and you're here as an expert. We submitted the report. I understand you did. I'm a search. So just because you submitted it, it doesn't make it, you know, make it. I would say Paul. So hold on a second. Oh, sorry. So David, help me out, help me out here. What do you think? Well, I see where you're heading with it. Going up the hill, the elevation, I don't be able to hit Cam Johnson at a lower height of the pole. It's going to stick out the sore thumb. It's going to stick out like a sore thumb because it's probably about 40 feet higher than the building. But I've also looked at some of the other ones they had at the other facilities. And they weren't that bad looking. So, but I don't know what the heights of those were at the St. Albans and the other barracks. So I don't know what the heights of those are, but it will stick out. And without actually, I mean, these people, concerts did the study. So if they say there's stuff in the plane of the microwave path, they're the ones that would know. OK. Usually you have someone actually come and do a study like that to tell you what potential things are in the way of your half of the other facility. Are you familiar with Com Search today? I have not used Com Search before, no. So there's other features that could be in the way, hills, that would interrupt this facility and trees that wouldn't be in that line of sight down in the valley that may be up on this hillside or other hill sides that are in that path. OK. I mean, I had similar concerns in that I'm looking at the profile that's here. And it would seem to indicate that there are some obstacles much closer to the Williston site, I'm sorry, Winooski, why they have to be so similar. I don't know in this case. But the Winooski site that you need to get kind of up and over. But it seems like if that were the case, then you'd have a problem at the other site here in Williston as well. But apparently it seems to be working. So I'm going to stick with Scott's question of, I'm not sure what's different. I mean, here versus, I mean, I don't even know what the elevation difference is. It looks to be a million, 100 million. Do you guys know what the elevation, the base elevation for the footprint of the proposed building versus the elevation down at the existing barracks? I don't. But I agree with you that the site is certainly much higher than that. But I would second Zoli's comment that that site doesn't have mature trees. And I highly suspect that that's a lot of the reasoning behind that. We just need to make sure we have the shortest pole we need to make for your necessary use. And there was a note in the staff report that said that you are not seeking, I'm going to get this wrong. You're not seeking approval from the regulatory authority. I don't see it right in front of me. Public utility? Yeah, utility. Yeah, the Vermont Public Utility Commission. And the reason for that is why? I think it's because it's not a public utility. That's not a public utility. Yep, that makes sense, I guess. Are there any issues that would preclude sharing this pole with, as suggested in the staff report? You're suggesting sharing it with town, police, fire, or town need? I don't think there is. Jeremy, you want to speak to that? I think all we need is a letter requesting what you guys would need. Obviously, there's security issues getting into the site. That lower parking lot is a secure parking lot. So we are actively looking for co-location opportunities. We currently co-locate on the existing tower as well. So we're planning continuing that process. But it's the same as everything else. The state likes to wave that 4413 letter around. And as long as it doesn't interfere with the operations of the facility, it shouldn't be an issue. And as long as the tower has the capacity, of course. OK. And you have seen the condition of approval here that requires you to cooperate in that respect, I believe. And the current location that's co-located? There are only these on that, and we're researching all those right now, seeing if they do co-locate. But the existing one has co-location on it? The existing one has others, yes. OK. Sure. So if we, as part of one of the conditions, you're asking us for a letter stating that I think we've got to be careful how we word that letter. And it meets your needs. I mean, as long as it doesn't interfere with the security and the operation of this facility, the 911 call-out center, the dispatch police vehicles, I don't believe we're going to have an issue with it. OK. OK. Good. This is Dave Turner. Do you currently have a public cell service on the tower at the lower facility? This is Mike Manling. We have VTEL, AT&T, Verizon, and the Jericho Park Department are on the current tower, along with us, obviously. So you plan on bringing the cell service providers to the new tower, too? That'll be contractual, probably, more of the BGS to your everything you have input on that. Yeah, we're trying to work with them right now in terms of what comes first. The chicken or the VA, we got to get agreements in place and understand what they need in terms of design. So we're working through that. Yes. If they want to. Right, right. Absolutely. We don't even know if they want to at this point. Correct. I think I found the language in the development bylaw says that a binding letter of amendment to share space must accompany the application for a permit for the facility. So that would be. BGS doesn't have an issue with the way that's worded. And once we get past this phase, the attorney general is in this ball. We'll develop that letter first. Excellent. Thank you. I want to kind of let's work through it. Paul, Dave, do you have any other additional questions on the poll? The only thing I have on the poll is will it be painted color or galvanized color? Like the ones on top of Mansfield are required to be a specific color to blend in with the skyline. So are you planning to do anything specific with the poll there? I believe we were going with a colored poll, correct? That's what we've done over there. We can put any finish that is desired on the poll. So, and I agree, it should be painted to match the skyline. Absolutely, an adult finish with no glare. So what color? He said to match the sky. That's the skyline. Is it on a sunny or cloudy day? Well, there's a lot of studies that have been done about that color. And I think, for example, a lot of the big windmill towers that you're seeing now have studied that a lot. And I think that their color does a good job in matching the generally overcast skies that we see here. So I'm thinking it's kind of light gray color. Yeah. Yeah, so it'll be painted, and I assume that that's a color that will be submitted with the final application as well. Yes. We can do that. So, Paul, did you have anything you wanted to ask about the poll? One thing I was going to ask about the poll is, would the higher poll improve the cell service down the interstate? I would say only if there's any cell providers that are sharing that poll. It'll improve it up, too, but that's not a causal concern. So let's talk about one of the other items that came up here, which was the lighting and the lighting control sequence. The hack made some very specific suggestions, recommendations, and I'd like to hear how you feel about those suggestions. We actually went through it with them. This map that's on here between the blue, green, and red, we're OK with. The other conditions are fine, with the exception of what? Well, the dimming levels, those fixtures will be reduced to 75%, not by 75%. I was going to ask you about that, because that's not the way it's written. Well, that's not the way that was typo or something. I don't know all that. They dimmed to 75%? Not by 75%. So it was 100-foot candles when they dimmed, they'll be at 75-foot candles? Correct. Manly, you're OK with that, right? Yes, sir. Yep, that sounds good. If we stick to the map that we agreed upon. Yeah, I'm just trying to make sure that we all are understanding the same thing. You went to the same time document as a team before we came here, and that's a red flag that came out to all of us that they were being reduced. OK. Can I ask a question, Matt? And in this case, all light fixtures are shielded in downcast? That's correct. So they would have to abide by the other light fixture requirements we have in town? Correct. So what we're trying to do for you in the staff report is identify any places where you would be allowing anything different under the 44-13 exemption, but otherwise, proposal is for things to be in compliance with the town bylaws. And so then I follow up on a question on that, where there's a suggestion here that we include a condition that requires all the pole mount fixtures into the southern boundary to be shielded. My understanding is that all the fixtures typically are downward-facing and shielded, is that? That's correct. Sometimes you can add some additional horizontal shielding so that if somebody is really close to a light, even if they're standing down from where that fixture is mounted, so someone on level ground is looking up at the fixture from off-property, they're still going to perceive that a light is on. Sometimes that can be mitigated by some additional shielding on that side. So I think that was the root of that. So on the backside of the light? Backside of the light. Backwards facing, OK. Which would be towards the residential uses south of the site here in this case? Correct. There are some spots where you exceed the maximum allowable. Can you kind of go over where those are and why they need to exceed the 5.2 foot handles? It's overlapped the lighting at our entries. But did you see that? I have. It's essentially occurring. You know my age approximately. I think it's essentially occurring where the lights at the doors are also being impacted by lights from the parking. And so you get an addition of light just at those few localized spots. So I see that. Is that a 9.3 there by the main public entrance? I didn't bring my readers. Yeah. They're cheating. Yes, that is John. That is the main public entry right there, the 9.3. And I guess I would ask, Melinda, whether in your review of this, were you found any that weren't near public entrances? No, they were all right around the entrances and where the sidewalks are. And in the laying chapter, it does say that the DRB can approve that. It can be a little bit brighter around entrances in estuarine ways. Was there any thought or modeling done, given the fact that this site is a cut and fill site? Was there any thought about coming up, driving up the hill and looking and being able to? What are you going to see in terms of light, bleed, or light? I'm back on the unshielded or downcast lights. But seeing as how you're coming up the hill, anybody looked at that at all? I think as part of the VTrans project is really where that's most affected. And they did propose a landscape burn at the top of the hill with additional plantings to help screen those property owners. Screening their lights on their property? No, that would be for the cars, specifically. But our lighting plan shows the lighting level is all going to zero before the property line. OK, all right. Yeah, OK. So to the other board members, any other questions on the lighting issues that have been brought up? The only question I have is, I saw the mention of the poles being 17 feet. Are all the poles going to be 17 feet, or just specific for a couple of poles? Like the employee parking, are those poles 17 feet too, or 15 feet? I believe all the poles are 17 feet. Is there a spec for that? The Williston bylaw is 15, and you're at 17. There must be a reason why you're doing that. Uniformity with a lesser number of fixtures. If we drop down to 15 feet, we need to add more fixtures to get the uniformity levels that we need. OK, thank you. And Matt, there's a rule that says if you're so far from the edge of the property line, that they can be higher. I believe we do have something like that. You covered that. I think you covered that. That was mentioned. That was it. That's in the staff notes. Good. So then the last topic that was brought up was landscaping. And I guess I would ask the question first, which was I would like a little context on, Belinda, your statement that says if this is a certain use, then a type, I think it was a type 2 buffer, was required. Is there a question about the use here and whether that's going to impact what kind of buffer is required by the WDB? Is that a question for you asking me? Yes. I'm asking someone to provide that context of why there was a if statement in there. Yeah, so similar to the parking analysis, the uses listed in the landscaping chapter are not applicable to the current situation. Like when looking at those uses, normally you're looking at uses between the subject property. What's the use of the subject property? And what's the use of the abutting property? But in this case, there wasn't the use listed for the subject property that matches this use. It's like the closest one that I could find was retail commercial. And that's not really what this is. So that's like, so if you were to use retail commercial as the use, then it would require the 13 foot, I think it was typed to, but I think really it's up to the DRB to kind of think about the context of this particular use and what kind of buffer should be required to mitigate impacts to the abutting properties, particularly on the South side, really on the South side we're talking about. And really what you'd like to see there. I mean, they've shown the row of Arborvite in there. And do you think anything more is needed to buffer the sound and the lights? Right, and I guess that would be the question I have for the applicant then is to explain your thinking of what you're trying to accomplish and how you think you're getting there. Marty, do you have a better understanding of the landscape plan? Perhaps, I mean, I can talk about it a little bit. I mean, we have the road screening next to the property line and then larger trees right off the parking lot. And certainly, you know, the buffer from the adjoining property line to the parking, as you know, park seats, any of these numbers we're talking about, it's more like, you know, 40s, 50s in both cases. Right, it's usually though there's a density of planting that's involved with the different types. And I have to admit that I don't know the specifics of each of those. Like Matt does, but same boat. So Matt, what would what is being proposed with the row of Arborvite, which is a dense hedge, which I assume is how tall we're going to be? Talking about six feet. They're only six feet tall to start. And then, and I think, I don't think we're all, the other thing is I don't think we're proposing to clear cut this area either. I think they'll be, you know, addition, you know, natural vegetation. That's me. Yeah, from looking at the landscaping plan, it seemed like there was like a tree line on the southern edge, but it was hard to interpret. Yeah, the hedge is to supplement that, not to replace the natural vegetation that's there. Say, I mean, that's not what I'm actually seeing here. I'm seeing a thick hedge of Arborvite, which I understand is meant to screen. It starts at six feet, you're saying, when planted, and they can grow quite tall, depending on what kinds of that you're putting in. And then it says that there's a native wildflower and grass seeding area between there and the parking lot with some trees along the edge of the parking lot. So it does appear that the, I don't see any notes that say that the existing trees are to remain. Okay. But now's the time to, I'm not seeing that correctly. I think we can clarify that on our final plans because there's stream buffer in here that we're not allowed to clear cut. Okay. Yeah, it does say native, you're right. It does say native wildflower and grass seeding, which would lead you to believe that it's great. It's been flashed, it's been cut. The intent is to do the grass and wildflower seed mix only in the areas that are excavated. And Scott is correct that we have that stream buffer zone that we cannot touch and that all of the native planting in that area would remain. So I agree that the drawing needs clarification so that that is, so that's more clear. And this, clarify the existing tree line too, Marty. So staff on page 10, on page 10 at the bottom, staff does state that the state that the applicant needs to provide a more detailed landscape plan to show how compliance will be achieved on the Southern boundary. So that's clear. There is a note in the paragraph above that that there is a comment letter from the neighbor to the south on the same side of the driveway or the same size of the side of the development that is asking for an extended buffer by 50 feet. That comment came up before when we did this two years ago. And that's something that I think the board would probably like to see. We have no issue extending that buffer. You did in two years ago and I wouldn't know. So I think that covers those three major components. So now I'll open it up to the board members to put forth any additional questions that you have. All right, I'll start. Just bear with me, I'll go for it. I'll start. Mechanical equipment and dumpsters are required to be screened on the site. I was having a hard time. I can see where I think the dumpsters are. It says new concrete pad for trash and recycling, but it does not. I didn't see anything in here about screening of that. And of course, if that is a, since it's behind the fence, if the fence is a solid fence, that probably would count as a screening device. But it's not clear on these plans, kind of what. Right. Are you saying, John, they need to be screened in general or just screened from public view? Screened from public view. Screened from building screens. There's not any place. Matt, you want to weigh in on that? But I can see, you asked about specifically what item? The dumpsters and mechanical equipment. But I'm looking at that. I believe the dumpsters for the trash and recycling. I'm assuming you're going to have a, you're going to have a generator, a big generator somewhere on site. The generators down between the building and the lower parking lot on the west side. So that'll need to be screened. So, so the bylaw says 1672, they must be fully screened from public view. Okay. So we believe the dumpsters are screened from public view, the building screens them from route 2A and they are behind the building within the secured area. So public can't drive back there either. Very good. As long as I can't be seen, as long as I can't be seen and you can, that's fine. Right. Yes. You might be able to stand up tight in the corner of the fence there and catch a glimpse of it, but I'm not going to worry about that. So can you, are there other pieces of equipment, mechanical equipment that are on the site that I maybe didn't see as I looked here? So if you look at C2, that's where our generator is. It's kind of toward the northwest of the manifold. Yep. With a transformer there. Right. That one would be from the access drive, or visible. Is that correct? There are a series of trees proposed sort of parallel to the parking lot between those equipment and the route. You're going to need to screen those. The public parking lot drives right in. You can park right next to it. That's the point. That's the point. Lower parking lot. You're still thinking. I don't think those trees are going to cut it. You know, in a moving vehicle, as you drive through there, there'll be glimpses of that. Fair. Yeah. We can provide additional screening at the transformer and generator. Yeah, thank you. I would suggest landscape screening. I would, I would appreciate that. That would be very nice. So guys, pipe right in with you. Have any questions? I was wondering if we could bring up the picture of the antenna at the lower building, the existing building now for a second. Thank you. So basically, if you get the tenants that you have on this existing antenna, the new antenna would have similar with cellular and other radomes on it. So, like on this antenna right here, I'm assuming you're, are on the pole. I'm assuming your microwave dishes are the weight one right behind the line and the other one headed towards transmitter site. That would be my assumption. I'm not a radio person, but that would make sense. And the rest of them above that are cellular? That would be my assumption as well. Yeah. And then we have the Jericho fire department on there somewhere as well. Thank you. You're welcome. Is that tower coming down once your new one is up? We don't know yet. The talk is, is that once we get the new facility constructed and Vermont State Police moved over that we will put it up for sale, whether or not that's with or without the antenna. I'm not sure. Okay. Anything else there, Dave? Nope, that's it. Okay. I wanted to ask about the trail easement. And the report here states that you're unable to to put that out there right now, or you're not able to, I wasn't clear on what you were, weren't able to do at this point, or why that we weren't that we can agree to. Yeah, if I may, Jeremy Stevens of BGS. We weren't able to promise a floating easement, but we were able to promise discussions for a future trail, as long as it didn't impact operations the proposed and future site. And I believe that became exactly what the wording was of the statement that went in, but all that requires is contacting the BGS commissioner, Jennifer Fitch, at the time. You're ready to propose a location for that trail for discussion. Okay. Melinda, how are you? That's been your bailiwick for a while. How are you managing that? Or how does that sit within your requirements? I think it's probably okay. You know, they said they're good for their words, so I guess I'll trust that. And, you know, when and if, I mean, when this, I guess when my understanding was they wouldn't be able to do it as part of this project, but, you know, when the time comes, we can pursue conversation with BGS and, you know, go from there. I think we'd be happy to talk about it more if you knew exactly where you wanted an easement to go, but the way it was proposed was a floating easement. And that wasn't something that the state could agree to. So we continue to be willing to discuss the location of a future easement whenever you're ready to buy a location for that. Okay, well, maybe as soon as this winter we can get out there and take a look. I mean, it would be kind of nice to have, it would be kind of nice to have something identified, you know, that doesn't, that obviously doesn't conflict with their needs, you know, from their security, I mean, there's, you know, they've got security issues. So, but there's seems like there's enough, there's enough space on this property that you ought to be able to identify something and get it in writing or get it on paper so that, because if you don't, I'm never gonna have. I think in discussions with conservation commission, I think where we landed was having a trail go through the undeveloped portion of the property, even though it's pretty wet back there, but we'd have to do a site visit and kind of determine the feasibility of developing a trail somewhere back there. And, you know, yeah, like that site is it could take place, you know, probably in the next couple months, maybe. I'm not sure how the message was delivered to you or if it was delivered at all, but whether that decision from the town is made this winter or after we construct the facility, BGS is still committed to discussing a potential location. So it doesn't have to be now if you feel rushed. And, you know, we can put something in the conditions if you want, we've already committed, you know, to be willing to discuss that whenever you're ready. Doesn't have to happen now or can happen later. I mean, sometimes what we've done is put a condition that says BGS will provide a draft or a commitment to provide a trail easement at a location to be mutually agreed upon between BGS and the town of Willis is something to that effect. It doesn't sound like a problem at all. Okay. We'll certainly be discussing then the wording of that condition in our deliberations. But thank you for your input and your flexibility on that. Yeah, if you don't mind, I would just like to reiterate the way it was first proposed was a floating easement and that was just a little bit too loose for the state. Yeah, I've noted that. That's fair enough. Everybody okay with the traffic study and traffic information that was presented? Yeah. There was a note in here on parking, on parking about the ADA spaces are sufficient. But the board might want to move two and two. Yeah, we're happy to even that out. Great, thanks, great. And again, I know this is going to sound really nitpicky, but it's the only time we have to bring this up. The bicycle parking is required at, I believe, 10% of the vehicular parking. In which case that puts us at 8.5, which I think means nine. And there's only eight proposed. So we may want to put one more in there. Add a bike spot. The public, are you clear on what public works is asking, requesting in terms of extending the water main? Well, I can continue to work directly with them on that. We did want to bring up that we thought it was a little unreasonable to require a second hydrant here when we have one so close. And then there was only a water service beyond that. I know that the board doesn't typically overrule public works on that. You got it. I'm asking you to figure that out with me. So we'll work. Right. So we'll work. And we make the comment without any comment as to whether we agree or disagree with them. We'll work at least it. Water meter issue, we're OK with that. The stormwater comments were all reasonable. We'll adjust the points. Excellent. There was a question out there about the fencing material. It's all black vinyl. Black vinyl? So it'll be chain link. All the fencing is chain link? Correct. OK, black vinyl. This is what you get for putting in such a long, complete proposal getting down here. So I know this is kind of a peripheral piece on the lighting. But I know there's security issues with the fenced-in storage area. But is there any perimeter lining that's kind of triggered at the fence if somebody approaches that? Or is it just on the motion sensors on the building lights? Because I noticed that the bylaw has some very specific requirements about what they call perimeter lighting. And on the fence, the triggers if someone touches it. OK, that's exactly right. Maybe a shawl? Maybe a shawl? Not lit up. Right. Yeah, it talks about lighting that's triggered by intruders and whatnot. The idea is there's enough lighting to its own motion sensors. OK. All right. So I guess we'll give the board, if you think of any more questions, one more chance a little bit. Right now, I'd like to open this up to anybody in the audience who has any questions for the applicant. Three members of the public are not seeing anyone raising their hands to ask questions. And we're also going to have the public getting the audience to see them with us. And tonight, I don't think he's going to speak. OK. They're speechless. All right. So I guess I'll throw this right back at the board one last chance. Paul, anything from you? I'm good. You're good. David? I'm good. Scott? Also it. And I think I've exhausted my comments as well. So any last pieces that you'd like to? No, thank you for your time. All right. Before I close this, I know there was one question out there about the landscaping plan and additional information on that. I'm trying to think how we get that information to us in time. Or do you want to make it so that they can revise their landscaping plan submitted to staff for their approval? I think that's something probably that we should do that to submit a revised landscaping plan to staff. And whether we want to bring that back to us or not, if you're going to bring it back to us, you're going to continue it. Well, you can retain. In other words, you can decide not to defer a review of final plans to staff, which means we would bring them back to you to see. And you could condition that final plans must include added detail on, I believe, retention of the existing vegetation on that southern boundary. Or if you want to see that added detail as part of your discretionary permit review, as Scott said, you would need to continue the hearing to a date certain where you thought you could get that information. I think we can condition this adequately to allow you to resubmit those to staff. That would be one. That would be my opinion. Just going to pop it up. Yeah. Put the onus on Matt. I'm going to make Melinda do it. She wrote the whole staff report. I'm just the warm body in the room. I'm going to make Emily do it. Got it. So all right, well, thank you all. One last chance for anybody to make any comments before I close this. This is an important project we've all been working on for a long time. Great. I'm going to close this hearing at 840. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Appreciate it. So the board will now be going into a deliberative session. There are still attendees. I will now question the way to move during deliberations. Recording stopped. We'll be back in after we speak. Deliberative session at 918. And do I have a motion for DP 20-15, Ms. Uzun? We're going to take a short break while we fix some technical difficulties here. David, you there? Paul, are you there? Maybe you can't hear us. David? Dave, can you hear us? I'd say you cannot. Emily, can you hear us? I would say that's a no as well. Oh, I see the video feed now. It looks like town meeting TV just needs to be on mute. Dave and Emily, can you hear us now? I can see John talking, but the mute symbol is still on for town meeting TV. Is that better? Yep, we can hear you. Great. All right, we'll try this again. We'll come out of deliberative session at 920. And I am looking for a motion on DP 20-15, Ms. Uzun Project. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, moved the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board required to comment on this application. At the public hearing of October 26, 2021, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 20-15 and approve the discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval of law. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, retain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Scott Riley seconds it. So we'll do this by roll call. So I or nay, Scott Riley? Aye. David Turner? Aye. Paul Christensen? Aye. And John Hemmelgarn is an aye. So it's four ayes, no nay, it's motion passes. Do I have a motion for DP 20-13, Vermont Department of Buildings General Services? As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Scott Riley, moved that 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 hearing of October 26, 2021, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 20-13 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. We have made a couple of changes to the conditions of approval. Emily, if you can have them on the screen, there they are. Conditions of approval 2A1 will read, the applicant will work with the Conservation Commission to provide a trail easement location connecting the existing trail easement to route 2A. Final plan shall include a commitment letter if easement is to be determined at a future date. Next is condition 3II, I guess is what it would be. Emily, backing up, if you scroll up just a little bit, this is still condition number 2. OK, so we are condition 2A3II. To avoid impacts to the buffer, vegetation management must be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary open parentheses, 14 feet or less clothes parentheses to maintain the security fence. Next is, again, it is condition 2A4. The applicant must submit a landscape plan in compliance with the standards of chapter. Scroll down a little bit, Emily, up other way. There it goes, chapters 23 and 34. We have struck the last sentence. OK, this is great. What condition is that? This is 2D. Is that condition, OK, is that still condition 2? 2D4. 2B4? D4. The hack recommends that the outdoor lighting levels be modified as follows. Employee parking, open parentheses, blue, clothes parentheses, colon, lighting shall be dimmed by 275. Excuse me, let's try that again. Lighting shall be dimmed to 75% from dusk till dawn. And then the sentence goes on from there. Scrolling down, security, lighting, area, open parentheses, red, clothes parentheses, colon, the storage area shall be dimmed to 75% during night hours. And the sentence goes on from there, unchanged. Next section of this condition, all pole mounted fixtures, open parentheses labeled SA, clothes parentheses on the south side of the public parking lot and storage area. The sentence goes on from there, unchanged. OK, what are we doing with that? Emily, did you? Just adding in 98-folder drive. OK, scroll up again. That's in the same area. It's the same one, right? So to comply with WDB 22.7, select a different fixture style or add a shield on the south side of the fixture to prevent light trespass and glare onto the abutting residential properties at 98-folder drive, 3348 St. George Road, and then there is a parcel ID. OK, and condition number seven, we are adding the sentence, applicant shall submit revised landscaping plans at the final plans. That extends the Arbor Vitey hedge to the west, open parentheses, see highlight in image below, close parentheses, and identifies existing landscaping to be retained along the southern boundary. Condition number 15, we are adding a sentence that says the transformer and generator shall be screened with landscaping to soften the view from the public access road. And finally, condition number 22, we are adding a sentence to the end of the condition stating, the pole and antenna shall be painted a matte sky gray. Thank you, Scott. Do I have a second on this motion? I'll second it. David Turner seconds it. Any discussion? Good. So, Ironade, Scott Riley. OK. David Turner. Aye. Paul Christensen. Aye. John Hamilton is also aye. That's four ayes, zero nays. Motion passes. So the next agenda item, communication of the business, I know of none. So do I have a motion to approve the minutes of October 12, 2021? I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of October 12, 2021 as written. I'll second it. Scott Riley seconds it. David Turner made the motion. All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? We have four ayes, zero nays. Minutes are approved. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. So moved. Oh, I want to keep going. We had a lot of fun. Thank you, guys.