 So we have a number of items on the agenda tonight, well actually two items on the agenda tonight, certificate of appropriateness for some repair at 38 Slate Barn Drive and then we have a pre-app for a proposed 2,855 foot square foot addition at 99 Engineers Drive. First up before we go into the public hearing section is the public forum. This is an opportunity to address the board on issues not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone in the audience or anyone participating by Zoom who would like to address the board on items not on tonight's agenda? No raise hands on Zoom. Okay. Very good. We'll go into the public hearing. First up is HP 24-02 Naio Ogilvy for a Certificate of Appropriateness, is... Emily is actually online. She is going to read the... Okay. Sir, is that you or... The applicant's online as well. The applicant's online. Okay. So could the applicant please identify yourself with your name and address for the record please? Yeah. Do you have the address of the property or do you want my home address? Whichever you would prefer, it doesn't matter. Okay. The property of the address is 38 Slate Barn Drive. I am Nathaniel Ogilvy. Nickname is Naio. My mailing address is 434 Mayo Road in Huntington, Vermont. Okay. Great. Emily, you're up. Thank you, Pete. This is a request for a certificate of appropriateness. The property is 38 Slate Barn Drive in the National Register Historic District of the Village Zoning District. The applicant is proposing to make some modifications to the west side of the home. Most of the work that's happening is routine maintenance. So there's a failing support column that's going to be replaced. Some decking and latticing will be replaced. The main part of the review is the applicant is narrowing the stairwell. So right now the stairwell is the width of the deck. Code would require it to have an additional railing, possibly down the middle. It's causing structural issues. What the applicant is going to do is narrow the stairwell, bring it in conformance with code, and then create more deck space for more structural integrity. It's not the front deck that faces Williston Road. The Historic and Design Advisory Committee reviewed this application last week and recommended compliance as proposed. All materials are wood and colors and styling will match the existing railing and columns. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. To the applicant, anything to add? Nope. No. That's it. Okay. DRP members, any questions? No. Members of the audience, any questions? Any opposition to the chair signing this certificate of appropriateness? Nope. How about if I make a motion that the chair signs HB24-02? Great. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Nope. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. It's proof. Thank you, sir, for coming in tonight. We'll close that at 7-0-8. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Next up is DP24-15. This is a pre-app, Ken Pigeon, and if you would please come forward, state your name and address for the record, please. Okay. Ken Pigeon, I'm with Engineers Construction. I'm the property owner and applicant. And Jesse Carzwell, Prebs and Lansing Engineers. Okay. Okay. I guess maybe I should clarify too. The owner is Pigeon Farm Properties, 99 Engineers Drive. So I'm not exactly the owner. I am, it's owned by my father's trust, and I am not an executive owner right now, but I'm obviously related to the whole operation. Got it. Thank you for that clarification. Okay. Simon, is this you? It is, yeah. Okay. Thank you. This is a request for pre-application review for a 2,800 square foot addition, 99 Engineers Drive and Industrial Zoning District West. The existing property is partly occupied by whites, trucking and auto repair, and I believe ECI are in the process of occupying the remainder. In its age, the building and parcel were non-conforming with the current Williston Development Bylaws in several areas. So there's a few areas just where the DRB just needs to make sort of decisions to amend the recommendations as to whether to correct some of these non-conformities. We are recommending approval, and we just go through the recommendations at the end. We didn't receive any letters or comment at the time of mail-out, so on this parcel there are non-conformities. The report does reference these in the relevant sections. As you're probably aware, the DRB do have the power to correct those as a condition of approval, but that power is limited to what's reasonably proportionate the scale of the development. So in terms of dimensional standards, we're generally anticipating compliance. We normally require 35-foot setback from public and private roads, however, WDB 36 does envisage or does recognize that some older parts of this industrial district have sort of established themselves with different setback patterns. So we are allowed to average all the setbacks, and by undertaking that calculation of all the properties within 300 feet, we do end up with an acceptable 24-foot setback. We do have two sort of existing non-conformities in the front yard setback, the 24 setback. So that's the fence on the south side or the left-hand side of this plan, and the two parking spaces. The fence itself is being amended, but it's not being made any more non-conforming, and the parking spaces are just being retained. Both those don't increase the extent of non-conformity, so we're not recommending that they're regularised at this stage. You've probably seen from the aerial image that this parcel has historically had outdoor storage in the setbacks. This is acceptable where it's shown on an approved site plan. Along the south and east, so that's the left and the bottom of the site plan as you're looking at it here, the outdoor storage has been sort of removed because the previous tenant has gone away and ECI are in the process of resettling in there. They are proposing to keep that as outdoor storage outside of the nine-foot setbacks, which is acceptable. On the north property line, that outdoor storage, I believe, is still there. That's associated with the white's tenancy, so they should probably just decide whether to shut that out of the setback or not as proportionate to the scale of what's being proposed. We anticipate compliance with the access standards of the bylaw. Likewise, parking, the parking standards for industrial uses are pretty flexible, and the eight-spaces are consistent with the minimum and maximum standards. The existing building is non-conforming on bike parking and in-the-trips, so the applicant is proposing to bring that into line with current standards, and this property is going to share an empty trip with the applicant's property opposite on 98 Engineers Drive, which meets the standard. We're just recommending that it's all confirmed at discretionary permit. Moving on to Chapter 15, the existing parcel, but obviously it doesn't have any sidewalks, and generally the DRB does require or can require sidewalks along existing and new public roads, so the DRB should just decide whether requiring a sidewalk is reasonably proportionate to what's being proposed here. There is further guidance in WDB 15.2.4.2, which is in the SNAP report, for those of you who don't have that particular element memorized, and that does allow the DRB to exercise discretion where the type of density or development doesn't necessitate a sidewalk. I think in this case looking at sort of the non-conformities that would need to be resolved and the sort of the scale of the addition and what else is going on on Engineers Drive, I think staff didn't feel that the scale necessitated that sidewalk. Moving on to private utilities, normally they're supposed to be underground, got an existing non-conformity again there serving the existing building, so likewise the addition would presumably take its power from that overhead line, so just another decision to make there. Maintenance, they're showing a new dumpster pad and designated snow storage, which is sort of down here in the southeast corner of the parcel. This is acceptable in those locations. The dumpster should really be screened from public view, and the storage area, snow storage area is at the back of the lot. One of the things WDB 16 does require is that we deal with the sort of runoff from that snow storage area appropriately, given this next to a wetland that's just going to require a bit of care at the discretion and permit stage to show how that complies or be relocated as the case may be. For landscaping but the requirements, the DRB has a lot of discretion. To the east and south, the land is owned by the applicant, and generally it's been DRB pressed and not to require landscape buffering between properties in the same ownership. The joining parcel to the north is in different ownership, so if we're looking to set back that non-conforming outdoor storage, there is the opportunity to put in some landscaping there if you think that's going to work. In terms of street trees, there are two on Engineers Drive. During the summer they do make an Engineer, Engineers Drive does, it's not the best looking street in Williston, but these street trees do make a difference, so there's an opportunity to look at maybe installing some southern end of the parcel in the front setback, which doesn't really have much of a use otherwise, but one for the DRB to think about the practicalities of that, and it also needs to be safeguarded from vehicles maneuvering. And then lastly, moving on to the watershed protection buffer, there's an advisory wetland and a Class 2 wetland mainly to the parcel to the east, which is the parcel that was set aside as part of the Robare subdivision to contain all the habitat and wetlands from that subdivision. We do normally require wetlands delineation, where wetlands are suspected to exist, and we're recommending that. The parcels historically had outdoor storage in that area, so our bylaws do allow the UPCON to retain that non-conformity as long as they're not increasing it. However, this right is restricted to the use of the land as outdoor storage and doesn't allow for structures like building additions or fences, so that can be fleshed out at discretionary permit. They can sort of keep doing what they're doing, but we can't start introducing buildings into it. And we're also recommending that the watershed buffers or the extent of the non-conformity where they're allowed to place outdoor storage is marked on the ground in a similar way to the way we require other applicants with watershed buffers to mark it on the ground. That's really to let everyone know where it is and stop encroachment onto that, that neighbouring parcel. So that's it. That's what follows is sort of some recommendations for the DRB to discuss and finalise. Okay. Thank you, Simon. Ken and Jesse, what do you have to add to Simon's staff report or comments to you? I was just wondering about the watershed buffer demarcation. Were you saying you would want to place concrete blocks or boulders along the edge of that? So I think where we'd probably end up is you tell us where it is. You've got an existing non-conformity in there, which is your storage. It would be, it wouldn't really be appropriate to sort of block you off from using that by placing concrete blocks, but I think what we want to do is define that area to prevent any encroachment into the wetland or the watershed buffer that is not your sort of non-conforming right to use that land. So depending on where the watershed buffers is, I was sort of anticipating they'd probably be along the past line. Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. Basically, I guess you've got this much, but don't go any further, is I think where we'd end up being. So would it be kind of along the nine foot? Yeah. Where you've got your setback? Okay. It seems the most likely place to be. Okay. Yeah. And that's consistent with the plan that you've submitted? Yeah. You're one of those football wheels with the painter and just drive over it. Any other comments or thoughts? Have you read the proposed recommendations by the Vice-President? What about the underground utilities? That's a question for you guys. That's a question for the DRB, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. I looked at the pole this afternoon and it's a pretty busy pole. There's a big transformer on it and there's already underground going in different directions. And right now there's lines going above ground lines going to 98 engineers drive on one side directly across 99. So taking it and putting the 99 side underground would mean we'd have to put the other side underground, which might be desired, but still it adds to the complexity of bringing all those utilities down the pole in that underground. The gas goes right through there. There's fiber optic communications through there in a very narrow zone. Can a trailer fit under these lines? Under the overheads right now? In most cases, yes. We had an incident about probably 15 years ago where the guy wire on that pole broke and the whole line sagged. And then when Burt White came in with a truck one night, he swung in under it, not realizing they were sagging that much and it broke the lines. That was further up engineers drive, but it tore out everything. Currently right now, there's no clearance problem right now, if they're maintained right now. Currently 99 is fed with overhead wire. I'm sorry? The current building that is there is with overhead wire now, so with your new addition you're going to tap off the existing building or you're planning on putting new service to that one. Will we need an upgrade in services, your question? Yes. No, I don't believe so. It's got pretty good power in there, just like free-phase power over at the building. Anything else in the list of recommendations like that? I did want to just touch on Simon, were you thinking for the street trees and the possible part of that? I would be the... So you sort of have sort of that area? We'd have to pull the ground up back, obviously. It would take some work on your part to do it. I mean, you're not permitted to have storage in that front yard, so to speak, it's a question of like, if you feel that's a lot of work, you should probably take this opportunity to explain it, because this is your opportunity to do that, really. I think that existing tree, the larger one, is an ash too. I don't know what the current thinking is on ash, but I know that the town is replaced a lot of the ash on public right-of-ways, but I noticed today looking at those lines you can see that the dashed line there is the overhead line. We're going to have to trim some of that tree because the branches are... Right. I mean, probably more than 99% of the ash are going to die in the next 5 to 10 years, so it should be replaced with something else. We probably won't add ash. Yeah, well, our bylaws don't allow you to plant ash, actually, anymore. What was that? The bylaws don't allow planting of ash trees anymore. I see. That's because with the emeralds... Yeah. Yeah, emeralds for... At that state, they might take it down for you. It might. It'll all come down on the lines. Okay. Well, we'll talk about trees. Do you have any other comments on trees? Any further comments on trees? Nope. Okay. DRP members, questions? Now, the outdoor storage, that's all temporary stuff, right? That's all that is. Stuff that's not... I mean, it's not going to be like parked there forever, it's just going to be in and out, right? I rule about the temporary storage on this. Why don't you ask the applicant because I don't know. Okay. Well, are we saying it's temporary storage or... Yeah. It's just going to basically be like parking stuff there, getting the service, and then... Yeah. The equipment going in for service, coming back out. There might be some pipe rack and material rack that might be... The rack might be a little more permanent, but the materials are coming in and out. Okay. That's all I need now. Okay. I'm good. Scott? Also? Is there anybody online? Yep. Okay. Any last words? That's pretty, that's pretty leaving. We're going to try to make the building look similar and maybe improve the looks a bit too. Yeah. No, it's an old building. The report said 1970, but I don't, it might be older than that. Yeah. Okay. It has a standing seam roof. Pretty impressive, huh? It was when a standing seam was not outrageously expensive. Is that the original roof? No. It was replaced probably five years ago. Okay. Okay. Any other final questions by the DRB? Okay. We're going to close DP 24-15 at 728. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. The DRB is going to go into a deliberative session now. Recording stopped. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Welcome back. Recording in progress. I'm on a Williston Development Review Board for a Tuesday, February 27, 2020. The DRB is out of deliberative session. The time is 740. Is there a motion for DP 24-15? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Scott Riley, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted, has all the confirmation materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board, have required a comment on this application by law. And having heard and believed and considered the testimony presented at the public hearing on February 7, 2024, accept the recommendation for the DP 24-15 and authorize this application to move forward to discretionary permit review, we have made some adjustments to the recommendations they are as follows. The application should relocate the outdoor storage out of the 9-foot buffer to the northern property line. Landscape buffer should not be provided recommendation 2EWDB 15. A sidewalk is not required along engineer's drive. Recommendation 2FWDB 15 overhead power is not required to be placed underground. And recommendation 2HWDB 26. Additional street trees should not be provided along this way. All other recommendations remain as put in. Thank you, Scott. Dave Turner, second. Any discussion? Yay or nay? Paul Christensen. Yay. Lisa Brayden-Harder. Yay. Scott Riley. Dave Turner. Yay. The chair is the yay, five in favor, unopposed. Motion carries. It's a motion to approve the minutes of February 13. There's a motion by Lisa to approve the minutes. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it. Is there any discussion? Yay or nay on the approval? Paul. Yay. Lisa. Scott. Dave. Dave. The chair is the yay, five in favor, unopposed. The minutes are approved. Before we close tonight's meeting, I'd like to thank Simon. For your service to the town. He's leaving us to go back to his home country. Thanks. And we appreciate all you've done. We're going to miss you. And thank you very much, Simon. You're welcome. It's been great working with you guys. Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. And if Brexit gets too much, feel free to come back and visit us. Our chef is Simon. We'll put you back. We'll put you back to work. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Is there a second? Any discussions? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We're adjourned. Thank you.