 Welcome everybody to the Williston Development and Review Board of April 12th, 2022, I'm Pete Kelly chair of the DRB. Welcome to the applicants and the public participants. Please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant toolbar. If your participant toolbar does not reflect your name. This is a virtual meeting. 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 open. All votes taken at this meeting will be done by rule call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to April 26, 2022. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Here. John Hemmelgarn. Here. Nate Andrews. Here. Scott Riley. Present. Dave Saladino is absent. Dave Turner. Here. And I'm the chair. We have a six present. We do have a quorum. Okay, next up is Simon. Do you want to walk us through zoom instructions, please? So welcome everyone to the DRB. As the chair mentioned, if you can please take time to rename yourself so we're clear on who everyone is. You can do this by clicking the participants button on the toolbar at the bottom of the zoom. This will open up a panel on the right hand side, which will list out the participants. You can then hover over your name that will bring up the rename button. And then you can just type away. Alternatively, if you send me a message in the chat, I can rename you. We do have a range of features on the zoom toolbar. On the left hand side, we have the mute button that you can see there for turning your mic on and off. Please make sure you keep your mic off when you're not speaking to avoid feedback. We have the stop video button that also starts your video. Video is optional. There's the chat button centrally there, which allows you to contact me should you be having any technical issues and I'll see if I can help resolve them. And then we also have the reactions button. And if you click that, it will bring up a menu of options and you can use that, for example, to raise your hand if you want to speak during public testimony. We do advise the public testimony needs to be given verbally. Please don't send it to me in the chat. And lastly, if we have any telephone participants, which don't think we do. You can start nine to raise your hand and star six to mute and unmute. We are going to be using screen share this evening and this allows everyone to look at the same documents. We do recommend you use side by side mode. This allows you to also see the person who speaking. Your zoom should default side by side mode, but if it doesn't, you can click the view options at the top. Next to the green oblong scroll down side by side mode and click that. You can also use the vertical slider, which is highlighted there to adjust the respective size of document and the video. And lastly, if you do have a bad internet connection, there's a number of things you can try. You can try turning off your video. You can try closing browser tabs and computer programs that you're not using. Or lastly, you can use your telephone as your speaker and microphone. And you do this by clicking the up arrow next to the unmute button, leaving the computer audio and then dialing back into the zoom meeting. That's it. Great. Thank you, Simon. Okay, first up on the agenda is the public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone present on today's zoom call would like to address the board on issues, not on tonight's agenda. You can do so by raising your virtual hand, or by typing in a note in the chat box. Okay. I'm not seeing any raised hands for sure. Otherwise, I haven't had any chance yet. Pete, I'd like to ask a question when if nobody else is asking one. Please go ahead, Scott. This is kind of a point of order. You know what, I'm not going to help. Nevermind. I'm fine. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So agenda item number two is the public hearing. We have four items on tonight's agenda. Ethan Allen homes LLC has been continued to April 26. First up is DP 09 dash 01 dot 25 Snyder FC commercial properties LLC and Riley properties LLC requesting a master sign plan amendment and Mr Riley. I assume you're recusing yourself on this one. Yes, sir. Okay. Staff goes next. Okay. This one's me. This is a request to amend the master sign plan for the commercial component Finney crossing in the taff corner zoning district. Staff is recommending that you take testimony, close, deliberate and approve the application. After specific findings, conclusions and conditions to support that. Now the amendment relates to the Union bank building, which is also occupied by Gal and McAllister. It seeks to relocate two of the approved wall signs from the West elevation onto the south elevation, which is the front of the building facing onto root to the west elevation. The reason for this is that the construction of the LLC beam building limits their visibility on the West elevation. There is no change to the size of the signs proposed. They're simply relocated. Therefore, the master sign plan for the crossing will still not exceed the 8% limit. There are three comments from the public and the fire department noted that had no comment at this time. Now, all signs are required under the bylaw to be placed within a sign band and not obscure any architectural features. So staff has recommended a condition to ensure that at final plans, the sign band is sized fit within the available space on the south elevation. So, in summary, it's recommended for approval. Although there's no change to the size of the wall signs, they do exceed the area set out in table 25a of the bylaw. So we have drafted some specific findings along with the conclusions and then the conditions have the overall sign table for the finish crossing commercial component, which you probably are familiar with listing all the signs that have been approved. And then the various conditions, including the one for the sign band. That's it. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Simon. I neglected to ask who was representing this application. I assume it's Chris and Andy is, is that correct. That's correct. If you for your record, Chris, you go first. For the record, introduce yourself and your address, please. Chris Snyder with Snyder FC commercial 4076 Shelburne Road. Sweet Six Shelburne. Andy Rowland Dickinson 14 Morris Drive Essex. Okay, thank you gentlemen sorry for that going out of order. Do you have anything to add Andy or Chris. Anything to add the staff comment was certainly applicable there's no intent for the sign to obscure the architectural element so we'll confirm both the size and the space available and adjust and note the sign banner as suggested. Okay, thank you. DRB members. Any questions for staff or the applicant. Peter, I have just a real quick one. And I should, I suppose I should know this by now. The, the actual sign areas are like 18 square feet, but at the approved areas 27. But you're just taking, you're just relocating the actual signs that are there on to the adjacent face of the building. Is that correct? That's correct. But the way this is, is approved is that you could actually have a bigger sign there. Right, you've got a 27 square foot sign approved for this sign. Correct. And I think that's one of the points staff was making is the sign being needs to be called out. And it can be longer. It certainly can't be higher vertically. Not exceeding 27 square feet. But again, you're correct that the existing signs are proposed to be relocated, which would are smaller than 27 square feet. Right. Okay. So, you know, again, you would be, you would be allowed to put a larger sign there based on the approval that you've already received. But you would be restricted by the inability to, to obscure any of the details in the building. Correct. So that's my understanding is much worse. That's as much work for staff as anybody here. I want to make sure that we all understand this correctly. Yeah. That's right. Okay. Good. Staff staff are you in concurrence with that summary. Yes. Great. Thank you. Go ahead, John. So it is, it is pretty tight between the top on that on the stone part of the building. It looks like between the, the band, the lighter colored band and the, the lentil above the window. Only comment is that may not be to scale, John. Understood. I'm, I have to admit, I'm looking at Google Earth in the street view, and I'm trying to visually take this, the union bank sign and set it above the window there. It's going to be close. I think, yeah, you know, I think staff got it exactly correct. Just make sure that it's the right size. Yeah, so. Worst care scenarios are going to have to build a new sign. That's the worst case. Yeah, but I'm sure nobody wants to do that. And in the sign is, to be honest, it's made out of one product. And it's the white background that would, if we needed to trim it two inches, we can trim it two inches. Right. Yeah, I've done Pete. I just wanted to make sure that we all understood the difference between the, the actual sign and the approved sign size. Okay. Any other questions by DRB members hearing done any questions from the public. There's no raised hands and no questions in the chat. Okay, thank you Simon. Chris or Andy any final comments. No. Okay, 715 I'm going to close DP 09-01.25. Thank you both for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up is DP 22-07. Catamow Outdoor Family Center, requesting a DP for an existing parking and service area associated with the recreational use of the site at 592 Governor Chittenden Road. Who is here representing the applicant. That's me, Kim Stinson. Hey, Kim, if you would please state your address for the record, please. My personal address. Are you representing Catamow? I am. Why don't you give us your personal address. Perfect. So I'm Kim Stinson. I am at 96 rabbit hollow road in Northfield. Right. Okay, staffs next. I'm going to close this one and you should have the staff report on your screen. This is a request for a discretionary permit for the Catamow family center. This request is essentially to memorialize the normal operations of the recreation center under a discretionary permit approval. That sort of review and approval by the town has not happened in the history of the family center. It has not happened since the town's purchase of the land that underlies the operations of the family center. So this is an application supported by the town of Williston as well as the family center. And the other thing that this application is about and why I chose the picture of the parking lot to show is just that it's about sort of the normal intensity of use that would be understood as permitted as part of the ongoing operations of the family center. As I've discussed in the past with the DRB, the pending temporary event ordinance, the town is working on to deal with larger events on properties in rural Williston, including ones like this. So this is this is about sort of normal day to day operations of the family center. A little bit, a little bit through the first part of the staff report. We're in the agricultural rural residential zone. This recommendation from staff is to take testimony and close the hearing. And the staff is recommending approval. The conditions are boilerplate standard discretionary permit conditions with no special conditions drafted. And I'm going to stop there for conversation with the DRB. Great. Thank you, Matt. All right, DRB members. Any questions? I guess I'll start that I'll start this one off. Matt. This is kind of the first time we've kind of seen something like this, where you where you say it we're memorializing something that's been in existence for 30 years. Is this something that you we are going to see more of? I would not anticipate many instances of this. This is something I think, when we're dealing with town property, it's a little more important to get things under permit. And I'll defer to Kim and possibly Melinda Scott, who works with the cat about committee, if there's anything else that I'm that I'm missing in terms of why we would want to follow this process in this case. Okay. All right. Interesting. Other questions from the DRB members. Yeah, it is interesting. You know, my thoughts are kind of along with Scott, which is I'm still trying to wrap my head around how to ask questions here. In this case, I'm looking at some of the conditions the draft the conditions of approval or it says the applicants show under into a development agreement with the town. Well, the applicant that is the applicant the town itself or is it someone else. This is understood as a permit that runs with the land which does make the town the applicant, although we are obviously working with the family center here john. And I would understand the ongoing memorandums of understanding between the town and the family center about operation to suffice for a development agreement in this case. Okay, so just a standard condition. The other thing I would note is there, there are no public or private required improvements that are proposed to be required as part of this approval, which is when we would normally really be looking at a development agreement. So, along those lines and I'm looking at condition number six where it talks about the lighting and whatnot and providing cut off fixtures, are we are we being asked to evaluate the lighting that's there, or is that all grandfathered. Or should be a just assume that they're all cut off fixtures already. And are there any being proposed and this this does this by by approving this agreement or this this permit application. The owner is now promising to put in cut off fixtures anytime they add one in the future. So, multi part answer to your multi part question. There, there is no new lighting proposed as part of this application. I would understand the lighting that's on the site to either be legal non conforming or just as likely conforming. And the reason for that is we actually do have some more flexible lighting standards for the outdoor lighting of recreational facilities so things like night skiing and lighting around the main area of the family center would be covered by that. And lastly, I don't believe this approval binds the applicant to any particular compliance or need to modify either what's there, or what might be proposed in the future. There was a proposal by the town or family center for example to light an additional trail or create an extended parking area and provide lighting for that. Yes, we would review that under the town standards, just like we would for any other applicant. Okay. One last question along these same lines and is, which is I know an issue near and dear to you Matt bicycle parking. I didn't see any shown on the plan. And is that something then that we should be, we should be evaluating here. That's a good question. You know, there certainly is some ability to securely pirate park bicycles on the side although it's, it's kind of like requiring ski parking at a Nordic center. Let me let me ask a question if this application, you know, this application is simply memorializing the existing use. If let's just say there were no bike racks on the site. Because it's simply memorializing the existing use and no changes are being made, then what. Now it's grandfather. Now it's grandfather did not have a right to not have bicycle racks. Is that train of train of thought or logic. Correct. I don't know that you would be committing the DRB or the town forever and ever from requiring them to say they're they're not there now and we're not going to require them. You know, in, in a lot of cases where we have partial conformity to the bylaw and even some development proposed the DRB says well, here's what we have is there enough going on that we should require greater compliance than there is out there today. And there's usually an attempt by the board to kind of, you know, do that in proportion. So here where there's no change proposed I would say I wouldn't look at that, but similar to my lighting example if if there was a big expansion of the parking area proposed. I would start looking at what would need to be done to bring the bike parking or end of trip facilities into conformance. Sure, so I certainly get that I was, I was kind of following along john's john's train of thought, which says, which says, you know, this is just simply we are we're making a file on in your office. And we'd want to make sure that there's no reason why, if you know if we're somebody doesn't take this example here as a way to require a change when no improvements are being made to the site. So if that's it. Yep. So, so Matt, could you. Maybe this is a village idiot question but what what prompted what prompted this to be in front of the DRB. Linda, would you like to take that. So, during the drafting of the temporary events permit. One part of that ordinance says that it limits any entity from holding no more than 12 special events a year. And at that time, it was my understanding that the outdoor center would want to hold more special events and I guess, I think, I think last year we, you know, the in previous years we had considered any of their like weekly race series. And any, any like race type events as special events, even if everybody could fit in their existing parking lot so there was some a little bit of confusion about what, what constituted a special event or a temporary event there. So just to kind of make it a little bit cleaner. We wanted to kind of bring like all of their normal operations under a DP, so that we could distinguish that from a temporary event, which it by our own definition would be any events that we're parking overflows, what you see there, and needs the old skating oval on the adjacent parcel or needs some additional offsite parking and those types of events would be characterized as a temporary event and go under the would be permitted under the temporary event ordinance. And that that was actually really helpful thank you. Yeah. And I don't think that this line and don't take this line of questioning as concern about the mission. I've got him out to our family center. It's, it really has more to do with what are we setting ourselves up for in the future with future applications. And we just have to make sure that we're careful in the, and we're consistent in the treatment of future applications and so that's that's really the basis of this discussion. Yeah, no, absolutely. Whatever I can answer. I'm here for it. Okay. Okay, other DRB members questions please. I just have a question about the table on the bottom of the page that you just had up there, the 69 spaces and stuff. And I was trying to figure out if that's what that number comprises of, because there's only 65 spaces on the drawing. And it does have bike spaces on it already so they just don't show them. But I'm not sure what that table relates to. Dave, I think there's, I think there's three ADA spaces on there that maybe aren't delineated aren't numbered on the on the plan. Three, three additional someplace else. I think it does say three right there three ADA space 2048 5866 and three is 69. So I think they, I think they got their math right. All right, I guess maybe I just see it. Okay, you satisfied Dave. Yeah, I'm fine. Okay. Other questions. Okay, hearing none members of the public, any questions, please indicate by raising your virtual hand or typing in the chat. There's no virtual hands, and I've not had any chat messages to speak. Yes. You, you typically ask the applicant if they have, if they've read the conditions and are okay with us. Is that something we, we might want to, I mean, there's a lot of conditions that they're signing up for here. Memorializing exercise. Yeah, Kim, have you gone through each one of those. I have looked over them and it seems I mean, in many cases, it seems that they don't necessarily directly apply because there is no proposed project. There's no development being proposed to happen. Everything is already in place. So, certainly correct me if I'm wrong and that misunderstanding or if I'm missing something and any of them, particularly in the bike parking, we do have bike racks there. They're not permanently installed drilled into the ground just because of the nature of where we are, but they are, they are there. But other than that, I'm not really sure which specific conditions apply as regarding final plans and stuff. Okay, Matt, you want to speak to that please. I would see final plans in this case, comprising of the parking diagram narrative and photographs as they were submitted the DP just with a signature block on them to note that they're approved. That along with the minutes of this meeting would be enough to go on for any of our staff who are working to administer or decide whether something being proposed at the family center is within normal permitted operations or goes beyond. So, and yeah, there's a bunch of those conditions that say any if required or all required must be. There's really not a especially evolved plan set beyond what you're seeing tonight that I think is required to administer this going forward and final plans. Okay, thank you. Last call for questions from the DRB. Kim, any final words. Um, no. Thank you for hearing this and taking it all into consideration. You are welcome. Okay. I'm going to close DP 22 dash zero seven at 732. Thank you for coming Kim. Thank you. Okay, next up is DP 10 dash 34.5 chicken and solid waste district. Who is here, representing the applicant. Jeanne McCrum from the chicken and solid waste district. Welcome if you both would give your address please for the record. Sorry about that sure 1021 Redmond Road. Carl Marshall so 13 corporate drive. Essex, Larry Burke. Great. Thank you. Staff goes next. Okay, that's me. The chicken and solid waste district is requesting a discretionary permit to reconfigure access and construct a new scale. And scale house for the CSWD organic diversion facility located at 1042 Redmond Road in the industrial zoning district East properties currently developed with an organic diversion facility operated by the landowner chicken and solid waste district. Staff is recommending DRB take testimony and close the hearing deliberate and approve the project. Let's see a few things I want to point out so the conservation commission reviewed the project and their memo is included. Public works and fire also reviewed the project and their memos are also included. No public comment member memos. Sorry, no comment letters were received at the time of the mail out. So they're the dimensional standards on the property complies. They do there is a non conforming structure on the lot, which they will be using. It's a legal non conforming structure. They'll be using it as the scale house, but they will not be making it more non conforming. So that is allowed. And the Chittin and solid waste district. As a state facility is has a partial exemption from the use requirements and so they are allowed to have retail and wholesale trade on the property. By this exemption. The access the proposed access complies as proposed. They're proposing a U shaped driveway and they're proposing to modify their access as to so that so as to give them a longer queuing area off of Redmond Road. And the new access will use an existing curb cut and part of a previously established field access road. The existing access drive will be reestablished as a lawn area. And their parking can comply as proposed one thing to note. They are considered an industrial use. And industrial uses are very diverse by law recognizes that establishes a starting point of one space, parking space per 1000 square feet of floor area. By that criteria, they would be allowed 4.6 parking spaces. They're asking for seven. The DRB can use its discretion as to whether whether to allow those seven spaces. They have their required ADA spaces, bicycle spaces and end of trip facilities all comply. And then they're proposing some landscaping. They're proposing some additional trees along and screening along Redmond Road. The landscaping as proposed complies. And there are there are some impacts to an existing wetland and stream. Because of the construction of the new access that the applicant is doing some mitigation as part of a state wetlands permit and federal wetlands permit. And the conservation commission looked at that proposed mitigation and They're fine with it. And the the applicant did discuss with the conservation commission and is agreeable to providing and following a plan to monitor and control invasives within the wetland buffers on the property. So this all complies as proposed. The site plan shows watershed protection buffers south of the access road and south of the developed portion of the site. Demarcated with a line of trees that complies as proposed. One thing to note about their outdoor lighting. They have their plan shows some parking lot lighting and that was The illumination levels that were calculated and the maximum uniformity ratios that were calculated. Don't actually comply as proposed. It's actually a little bit under lit. So staff is recommending lighting be modified to achieve required minimum parking lot illumination and uniformity ratios. And also the applicant should provide some information on the timing and duration of outdoor lighting. Both conditions have been drafted for for both of those points. And then signage is proposed and can be approved with an administrative permit. The non-compliant sign signage has been cured and the applicants proposing one free standing sign at the entrance of the site. And that's that's about it. Right. Thank you, Melinda. Okay. Comments from the applicant. Good. Please address. Any proposed conditions of approval that you have. Concern with. Hi, this is Janine and with the Chittin's Law Waste District. I. Thanks for seeing us tonight. I have reviewed the comments or the conditions proposed conditions and I did meet with the conservation commission. And we are, you know, amenable to their condition regarding the riparian buffer and what. What it means. Melinda, I actually might send you some verbiage that's consistent with what Act 250 is asking us to do in terms of defining, you know, what undisturbed area means. We could put that right on the plan. And then, you know, what activities can't happen there. So we're, we're fine with that. And similarly, we are fine with, you know, the idea of monitoring and controlling for invasive species on at least an annual basis in that in that area. In terms of the lighting. Yeah, I, I, I chatted a little bit with Melinda about this but I, you know, honestly, I'm kind of, I'm not quite sure what to do here because I don't, I don't really want to put more lighting than is necessary out in that area. And I know we're, we're kind of close to that ratio. Carl, were you raising your hand or were you just. Yeah, on the lighting, there's really two things going on. One, we got a light in the front, really just delineate the intersection. And two, I think shouldn't have solid waste is to predominantly, you know, they don't need much light. So we're trying to do some new lighting. And so there's one really little bit of a conflict in that, when we calculate the area we're kind of encompassing, you know, like a rectangle encompassing all the lighting. And so that's why the ratio is incorrect. So, really, when we do that little area in the direct vicinity of the parking area. We're really in an effort to try to, well, for one, you know, we're saying at some point we're going to cut power to 75%. So then we don't meet the ratio at all. But essentially, we just got to give you a time at which that's going to occur and we're definitely going to do that. And the second thing is, you know, it's really just kind of security lighting because really nobody's going to be there to use the facility after a certain turn. So I think it's more important for the board to realize like we just come up with a timeframe to really say we're going to shut the lights off. But adjusting the pole heights obviously we could do that. But I think it's really just a calculation to meet your ratio to say, look, this is the area that we should calculate and not try to encompass the area in the front. So I think it's just a complete just calculation thing that we have to do. And it's pretty much that simple. So with that, Jeanine, I mean, do you agree that you don't need a whole lot of lighting because, you know, you guys aren't going to do anything at night there, correct? Yeah, I guess I would like to, yeah, I guess so Melinda, would you concur with in terms of like, you know, how it was calculated that we did, so it did encompass kind of this larger triangle, or not triangle, larger rectangle area. But then Melinda is just to calculate, you know, just to reduce the area of the interest. Can somebody tell us which rectangles you're talking about? I don't, I'm not seeing it here. Well, the calculation is really that that area of the calculation is not on the plan. So that's, that's one thing that I guess we could add. But we'll do that and we'll show the area that we're doing the calculation for and I think that will solve all the problems. Can someone, Melinda or Simon, can you give us a rough sense of this rectangle please? I can try to point my cursor, is this about the area that you're, that the calculation was done? My mic's on, I'm looking it up right now and. Well, just look at Melinda's cursor. She's creating an outline. Is that roughly what we're talking about? Because that's what I was envisioning when you were describing it. Yeah, I'm sorry, Pete, I'm actually looking at the set of plans and I'm just zooming into the last sheet because I think the area, I want to, I want to say it was like really kind of enormous. Like we're actually, we're actually including the light in the front, but there's there's a calculation right on the plan. I think if you scroll up, you'll see it. And I want to say it was like, like 1100. So I think it includes the front light too. But that's what I want to look at. Oh, yeah. So the grid, the grid's like 397 by 499. So, yeah, that's, that's basically encompassing the front. So we basically just drew like a big rectangle. So it's bigger than what Melinda? Yes. Yeah, so that's what I mean. And the calculation like it includes that area at the bottom. That's why the number is so kind of like low. So, yeah. What are the, what are the hours of operation of this facility? Janine, don't you, doesn't she get done at, well, like before dark, right? Right at dusk. Yeah, so our hours are 8am to 3.30pm. 3.30? Yeah. So we, so, you know, just to kind of get to the lighting, there are, you know, obviously times in the winter time, you know, where it's getting dark early and, you know, we're kind of, we're kind of down in a hollow a little bit in that with the, you know, the forest areas on each side and little hillside on each side. I would say, you know, kind of what I think what Carl was explaining was, you know, honestly, it's probably our staff that would would benefit from having a little bit of lighting, you know, early in the morning, as well as maybe later at night or operational hours extend beyond that. You know, we're allowed to be there and do some do some screening and moving material around outside of those hours, but I would say generally, you know, I think we're, we're not there at dark generally it's it's more like a dusk or a dawn situation. So, does that answer your question. Yeah, I think I think so I'm just trying to get a sense on what are people around and, you know, it's, and even in the winter time, is there is there going to be much activity there in one in the, in the, you know, the deep dark part of winter. I mean, again, other than early morning, you know, and end of day, it'll be a few people know it'll be employees. So but we wanted to have the option there. You know, for them, but you we are totally open to a timer I had some suggested hours for that. You know, that would be kind of more of the, the dusk hours, we could put it three to eight somehow be flexible like that so that, you know, it needs to meet your the town needs and ours as well in terms of like not having to switch it every season. So that, that would, that would be what I would propose and quite honestly you know they might not even turn. It might not even turn the light on that I think is that the taller pole that's that's there. I could see them using the building, the ones on the building, probably more so than the taller one. Can I make a suggestion and that's it sounds to me like the calculation was just done over a larger area and if it was done over the parking lot that it may actually even comply as proposed so. I think Melinda is dead on right there. I thought that's what I meant to say and I'm sorry I didn't explain it as well as Melinda but what you just said is exactly what I meant to say so sorry if I wasn't clear but I yeah I agree with you. I mean we shouldn't include an area that we don't intend to light which is the road. So, maybe the condition could just be modified to say the final plans need to show an accurate calculation for parking lot lighting or something. Yeah and just leave the other ones with just the red numbers you know just to show that obviously there's a little bit of light there but focus the calculation and maybe perhaps put a light you know maybe like a light red line or something just to delineate the area so that you can tell where the calculations being performed that would be probably you know something that makes the most sense I agree with Melinda on that if that's okay with that. I think it's important that that area does include the parking lot and the main entrances to the building though. We don't want to just kind of draw an arbitrary rectangle that allows you to meet the lighting requirements but it has to it actually has to include functional areas. Yeah, I mean the road obviously we don't want to light it up so we can just do two calculations one for the entryway, and then one for the parking lot I think that would be most appropriate is that what you mean john or. It is. John, I'm sorry. Sorry john. I just want to be clear so that light that's in the front. I think that between the building in the road that's actually not an entryway there is a garage under the house there that old branch house so. So again it's more of a staff. You know it's an area that that staff will go into but it's not that's not actually the entry in the facility the facility entrance is going to going to be up on the side of the parking lot so to speak. If that helps answer the question. It does, I guess what I'm just, I'm just lamenting that that there's no clear definition of what area we're talking about here that we can judge that whether it's appropriate or not. Yeah, I think the area needs to be to delineate the parking lot because that's the emphasis. So we'll, we'll address that was with Melinda, if the board's okay with that. Okay. Any other questions. Yeah, I've got one question for Janine and Carl. Just as it pertains to the general flow of traffic through your facility. You've got a nice flat straight away into your entrance. And then the exit is what we kind of talked about the last phase. It's a left hand turn across traffic on Redmond Road and it's, it's a pseudo blind corner up a hill. You know, a lot of these trucks are loaded down pretty heavy turning across traffic there. Did you have any discussion about just simply reversing the flow of this so that your entrance was still taking a right in but then, as everyone exits they're not going up that hill. We, we actually did. We kind of sat down with a site designer and did run through a couple different scenarios. And I'll just say that Nate, you know, the problem with reversing it is that to try to take a large truck and turn into the facility there. That turning radius, it's just nearly impossible to do. It's also, you probably know it's a, it's a, it's a larger grade or there is some grade there. It's not a flat entrance in. My kind of question, the exit to we are still thinking about it is there a way for us to improve that. But you know we, we right now that's kind of how people are flowing is, you know, in the one and then, you know, out of the other and, and it's been manageable. So, definitely something that, that we hear and we did look at but, you know, based on just what we have and what we have to work with this seem to be the better option. You know, we are also going, you know, we're proposing this kind of one way. But I, but it's designed so that, you know, if things don't work out that way if we start to encounter problems we could potentially make this, you know, this could be the in and the out, you know, for vehicles so we've kept that in mind too but you know, that's great. That was my next question. Yeah, yeah. And the other driver with this, you know, when we did this site design just so you guys are aware is that, you know, we also have kind of commercial traffic and we don't we don't have a ton of commercial traffic but we do have commercial traffic and then during busy times of the years we get a lot of, you know, residential that will come in to drop off leaves and food waste and whatnot. And so with this design, the commercial traffic is actually going to go over the scale and left hand side, and the residential will be able to bypass them on the right. So we're going to, we're trying to break them off a little bit. And then there will be kind of a, a meetup space if you will, further north but it's it's almost design, I don't want to say like around about but it's designed almost like a four way stop so that we do have more separation of those two traffic flows because right now sometimes it's kind of a free for all during certain times of the year so we're trying to get that a little bit more established on site. So, so if you were to reverse the flow. You would have to excavate is that correct to change that grade that you were talking about. I think what Jeanine means is there's a 30 foot road that you know we went back and forth on this. There were several iterations. And what we decided was a 30 foot road was the best because we got 11 foot scale, then we got a two foot break in the pavement for stormwater anyways and result is we got a 15 foot lane for the trucks and a 15 foot lane for basically others. And so, I guess, what we're saying is, you know, not that they want to tear them out because the tarweight or the tarweight of the trucks are going to be taken and that's why they don't have to come back. And if you so choose, they could pass them by the right lane, and then, you know, the other traffic basically could go, you know, use all that, you know, one lane could be devoted to going in, and then one lane, you know, devoted to going out, because there's 15 foot lanes. But right now, CSWD is like Jeanine said, they're thinking, they just want everybody to go one way. We think that's just simpler for everybody. Right. I just mean, if you were to actually completely reverse your flow here. Right. I think it would be a combination of needing to deal with the grade, but I think also the turn, because it's, I don't want to say it's hairpin, but it's definitely it'd be really to do with controlling the truck traffic to, you know, that'd be the biggest thing and like Jeanine said, you know, they don't have that much of it. But, you know, that's, that's one of the considerations that there was much discussion about. So really, it's more about design enough with, like you said, so that we wouldn't have to come back and, you know, do escalation and widen it later. That's why we decided to go with a 30 foot road. Thanks. Okay, any other questions from DRB members. Yeah, Carl, can you just for for the record, can you define what you mean exactly by super elevated super elevated. I understand that. Yep. All the grading is going to be diverted to the west and the reason that is is a typical crown road is kind of like, you know, this and now we're doing this. I guess that's the easiest way to sort of. So it means that one side of the road is higher than the other. The left side is the curve side as you're looking at the plan, and the curve is going to draw all the storm water to the system. And it's really for stormwater reasons that's why the road super elevated because we don't want water to go off into the wetland untreated. And so to get our stormwater permit from the state, we're choosing to super elevate and really it's for a couple of different reasons. The main reason is, I didn't want to put more stormwater into the wetland and associated buffers and then have more impacts. So this is the predominant reason. And in so doing that was the only way to do it would be to draw all the stormwater nor the lead to the system. And so that's why all the storm waters to one side, if we were going to, you know, do a traditional crown road you need another curve on the other side in the collection system to get it to the other side of the road. And we thought it was much simpler just to draw it all to one side. And then you don't need one curve. That's those are the two main reasons. I mean there's other reasons to answer your question john yes it's elevated on the left side on the curve on the. I was going to restate what I understood his answer to be, which is there's a curve on the left of this. And then I'm looking on the inside of the curve. And that's at the high side of the road. That's the low side. That's where. Let's see here. I don't know. Do you see my cursor on the screen or no I don't know. Hang on, I'm a little where's the water being diverted to and where does the curve and the curve. It's shown on the plan and profile I think so if you go to sheet three every week. So just just, yeah, we'll do that john so it starts at the at the at the height of land if you will on the road and then it flows actually northward because we have a storm water. Retention area for like, it's not the proper term but to the north so the water will. You know, it'll, it'll elevate. It's on sheet to. Sorry. So she too shows the whole feature. So the dark line on the well existing dwelling site that's going to be the scale house. You can see the contours there they're all super elevated on the side of the scale. So the storm water feature, as you look at that sheet is to the right right right where it says Redmond road right underneath that that's our pre treatment and infiltration base. So it starts at the high point which is station. If you look at the profile, it's station. 1100 roughly. I mean it calls it out right there like it's a station. Yeah, 11. And you just point on the road map of where I want to go now hang on. Let's see I gotta. How do I get my cursor to you guys to be able to see it. Oh, let me stop. And then maybe Simon if you can allow him to share. Yep. So while you're doing that so all the water that lands all the rain that lands on the road is going to fall towards the curb and go right past the scale house. That's correct to the further north to the future. Yes. So Carl, you should be able to share your screen now. Okay, so can you guys see my screen or. No, yeah, no, you need to click the green share screen button on the bottom of toolbar. There's a little lag there. Can you see it now. I can't. Did you click share screen. Yeah, then it should bring bring up an option you click which screen share. Yeah. Okay. That screen to share. That's not what I had it up on the screen. And now I don't. There we go. Oh my God, I got the wrong plan here. Sorry about that. I'm a little, I'm struggling a little bit. I have it up on my screen. Okay, there we go. There we go. All right. So the high point starts right here. And it goes all the way down and the storm water is going to travel right down this curb line. And now it won't let me down. Okay. So it's going to go right by the scale house. There's going to two foot break along this curve and then it's going to go right into this facility right here, the pretreatment area, and then this is the main filtration bank. Okay. So the road is not higher than Redmond road at the intersection. There is about a I think what do we calculate I think it's a one to 2% grade I know we had this discussion with Bruce. Yeah, it's a 3.4%. Let me finish this. So, yeah, because he was concerned about, you know, water running, running in the road and usually they like to have some kind of depression we're a little bit limited because of there's a gas line there so we have to maintain a distance between the gas line and and the road so but we talked with him about it, we're aware of his condition, his concerns so I don't think we're going to have an issue there. Outside of, you know, the area is very well drained in general so but but it is definitely something we'll keep an eye on. Is that what you were kind of. Yeah, I was just, yeah, this gets back to my questions about being super elevated and whether you're actually just raising the elevation the road. I think I think using that using that term can yeah, it's yeah, using that term can be confusing so it's super elevated compared to normal. I think the only differences between the traditional road is super elevated means all the water's raining to one side instead of a traditional crown road so I should have just explained that better so my apologies for that. I had a question about the landscaping as well. So on your landscaping plan, you call for 19. 19 red Oaks, but you also list white pines and I didn't know if there were white pines on the plan or not. And where they were and I couldn't find all the all the red Oaks be honest because they're green and they I think they're mixing in with the green hatching on your plan. Yeah, so I wanted to clarify that so the white pines will probably go in the front I don't I don't really want to do all white pines so even though. So in that squared john it says red oak white pine or to be determined so we'll, we could work with with Melinda on that exactly I didn't want to do all white pines, although that is what we have along the road now. I'm in front of the current facility. So if we were to do white pines it would probably be in the front just to be consistent with that screening. Red oak, and there are a couple other species and I'm drawing a blank. Oh, they're down at the bottom there. Red maple birch. These were a couple species that were called out by our, when we had our wetland delineated as species that you know are kind of in the area and work there. But I just wanted to have a little bit of, you know, flexibility. We did, and I did kind of already give you guys kudos on, or at least through the conservation commission on kind of hooking us up with that interval nursery community nursery, because they, they have a large selection of species but it does, you know, vary from year to year. But we would select, you know, hardwoods that are are consistent with what's there and what would work in a wetland area. So Jeanine, I think what I hear you saying is that there's there's your proposing 19 trees to be planted, some combination of red oak white pine and the the infamous to be determined. Red maple birch, it's actually in really fine print under there. Yep. Okay, so it's not 19 red Oaks. Correct. Okay, so in. So in my understanding is that these trees are are serving a couple purposes one is street trees. But they're also being used to demarcate the wetland buffer. Is that right, Carl. The intention is to demarcate. Well, basically, yes, the 19 trees they're all the same symbol, but you have the red oak white pine and to be determined like we just said, there's 19 symbols on there and like Jeanine said, you know, they just want to use a mixture. So we want to do kind of do a lightness along the road, and then do, you know, red Oaks and like she said, the other species that the nursery recommended, and we want to use those to delineate. You know, those wetland areas as shown on that plan. Right. So if you go over to the plan. Yeah. So this is this is the delineation right here, you know, right to this tree. And then, you know, these are the, the other trees. On the PDF it doesn't. Yeah. We're going to darken those trees on the final plan so that they stick out more because I'm having a hard time seeing them and we put them on the plan so. I was looking at them in the bright sunlight over the weekend and I couldn't find them. The, but what what I'm confused about is, how are you demarcating the wetland area buffer, the wetland buffer on the, the one that goes through the center of the site there. Because the conservation commission, I believe, asked that you demarcate all those on the site plan. Yep, so it's a little, there actually is kind of a wooded area along there on that location already. It doesn't really show on this ortho photo very well, but. This is, this is all wooded right here. I don't know if you can still see my screen, just to iterate what. Yeah, this is kind of all wooded. Yeah. There might be so Carl. Yeah. So right where those big trees that you're going to cut. So right. Yeah, right there. Stop moving your hand. Go up to the big trees that we're going to the big conifers that are going to need to come down. Go up to there. Yeah. So, so kind of up in that corner area, there might be an opportunity there to kind of, you know, fill in and put a couple more just to make it more linear and clear. But, but that's why there weren't. Yeah. We could probably put two existing. Yeah, there's an existing, it is existing wooded area so. I mean, I know that, I know that you guys at CSWD have no intentions of vacating the site for a long time. And I appreciate that. But that, but one of the reasons I think we try to demarcate that is so that anybody that's out there working knows where the wetland buffers are, and that they don't violate that at some time in the future and just start cutting trees. So, you know, it needs to be my understanding and we'll go over this deliberations I'm sure but it seems that we want to make sure that everyone knows kind of where that is. And what not so. Okay, so, so what the applicant has proposed is is a number of trees with without being specific on where they go. There's been a an explanation provided by the applicant as to what their logic is and propose to have a conversation with with staff to finalize their placement. And that's, and that's really kind of where we are, john so we're going to delegate that, unless you, unless you have concern about that we're going to be delegating that to Melinda. For final plan approval. Sure. Okay. Okay, DRB members. Any other questions, applicant any, any other further comments. So be, I just hit the red stop share button which I do that now. Because I just noticed I'm still sharing my screen so yeah. Yeah, why don't you, why don't you stop sharing. And great. Okay members of the public. Any questions, concerns, please raise your hand in your virtual hand or message Simon in the chat. Just one operational question. You're pulling the scale, the old scale right. That's correct. I'm just going to make sure that people determine the, the empty way that their trucks if everything is one in when they're loaded and they dump, and then they go and exit out down by the, by the old office building. Where do they, where do they weigh themselves empty out of curiosity. We're going to be, we're going to be using terro weights, we're going to be establishing terro weights to deal with with that. So that they won't have to go back over each time. So, so the, what happens to the newbies do they just sort of take whatever weight is offered. No, I mean, we'll, we'll, we'll have to do it and on a routine basis with them or, you know, as they're new, we will have them drive back over, you know, we'll get some data we're not just going to guess that based on the weight of their truck we will actually use some data, but we won't require that every time they come and go. Okay, just curious. Thank you. The question. Okay. Final, final opportunity for final questions. We have no request to speak from the public. Okay, thank you, Simon. Okay, we're going to close DP 10 dash 34.5 at 813. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, next up. DP 17 dash 23.1 is a discretionary permit for SD Ireland crane and portable batch plant. Who is representing the, the applicant looks like Patrick O'Brien. Welcome. And Carl, are you also doing this one. Okay. Carl, we already got your address for the record from the previous application. Patrick, if you would introduce yourself and give your address for the record, please. It's Patrick O'Brien and we're representing Ireland land holdings, the landowner, SD Ireland. 193 industrial Avenue. Okay, thank you. Staff goes next. Okay, so this is a request for discretionary permit review. This is an amendment of an existing DRB approval under DP 17 dash 23. That original approval was related to the construction of the crane enclosure batch plant and a garage on the SD Ireland site. So the amendment in question tonight is to relocate the location of the crane enclosure and batch plant as, as shown on the amended plan in front of you. That's the only change is, is where those things are going on the site. There is a little bit of landscape buffer shown with the green line there down against the road. And I'm going to stop right there and bring you back up to the zoomed insight plan. And if you need me to give up screen share so that Patrick or Carl can share. Happy to do that too. Okay, great. Thank you. Patrick Carl. Have you read the draft? I'm going to stop right there and bring you back up to the zoomed insight plan. Okay, great. Thank you. Patrick Carl. Have you read the proposed conditions of approval? Yes. Yes. Any concerns or objections? No. Okay, DRB members. Any questions? Okay. Members of the public. Any questions? There's no raise hands and no chance. Great. Thank you, Simon. Okay. Last call. Any questions on this application? Okay. Patrick Carl. I think that's might be a record. We're going to close. 17-23.1 at 816. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good night. Okay. We're going to now go into a deliberative session. It's 816. If you would stop the recording, please. Please. Recording stopped. Development review board for April 12, 2022. The DRB is out of deliberative session. Is there a motion for DP09-01.25? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner moved 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 By-law, having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of April 12, 2022, accept the findings of facts and conclusions of law for DP09-01.25, and approve the discretionary permit for master sign plan subject to conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval of these plans for staff, and then seek administrative sign permits, which must proceed in the strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Paul. Any discussion? No. Okay. Yay or nay, please. Paul Krushen. Yay. John Hammelgarn. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. Scott Riley. Okay. Dave Turner. Yay. The chair is a yay. Six in favor, none opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Is there a motion for DP22-07? So what was the vote on that one? Six in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. I don't think I was supposed to vote. That's what I was going to say. Thank you, John. I missed that. Okay, Scott. I withdraw my yay. You withdraw your yay. I should not have asked you my. Thank you. Thank you very much, John. Five in favor. None opposed. One recused. Or abstained. Well, I'd be recused. Okay. DP22-07. Yes. Pete. As authorized by WDB. 6.6. 3. Hi, John. Hemmelgarn moved at the Wilson development review board. Having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required a comment on this application. By the Wilson development bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of April 12, 2022, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP22-07. 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. Thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second. Dave Turner seconds. Any discussion? Hearing none. Paul Christensen. Yay or nay? Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Chair's EA. Six in favor. Not opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Is there a motion for DP 10-34.5. Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I Scott Riley moved that the Williston development review board. Having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this issue. The approval was approved by the Williston development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of April 12, 2022. Except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 10-34.5. And approved its 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 approve the approval of the approval of the approval for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. Was that Nate? That's me. Yeah. Okay. Great. Nate seconds it. Thank you. Any discussion? Nope. Okay. Paul Christensen. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. Nate Andrews. Okay. Scott Riley. Okay. Dave Turner. Okay. And the chairs. Yay. Six in favor. Not opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 17-23.1. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3. I, Paul D. Christensen, move that the Williston development review board having reviewed the application submitted and all the accompanying materials, including recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston development bylaw. And having heard and duly considered testimony presented at the public hearing of April 12th, 2022, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 17-23.1 and approved 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. Great. Thank you, Paul. Is there a second? Yeah, I'll second it. Thank you, Scott. Any discussion? Hearing none. Yay or nay, Paul. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. Scott Riley. Okay. Dave Turner. Yay. And the chair is a yay six in favor. Not opposed. Motion carries. Next up. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of March 22nd? 2022. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of March 22nd has written. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Thank you, Paul. Any discussion? No. I thought they were well, well written. Thank you. Whoever did that. That's a hard one. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. Okay. Yay or nay, Paul. Hey, John Hemmelgarn. Okay. Hey, Andrews. Hey. Scott Riley. Hey. Dave Turner. Hey. The chairs are you a six in favor. None opposed. I think that's one point. We are to keep our DPS 20 dash 18 for the next meeting. Correct. So we don't have to put this huge bundle again. Yes, please. We will be updating you with conservation commission recommendations, but you can, you can add that to the packet. Okay. Okay. So everybody keeps that hard copy. That's a good reminder. Thank you, Paul. Any other administrative items or notes of interest? Okay. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Second. All those in favor. Hi. Hi. Any opposed? Thank you, everybody.