 Welcome to the Williston Development Review Board for October 24th, 2022. My name is Pete Kelly, I'm the chair of the DRB. If you are a Zoom participant, please make sure that your name, designation, reflects accurately on the participant toolbar. This is a hybrid meeting, taking place in town hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken at this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to November 8th, 2022. Let's start the meeting by taking roll call attendance of DRB members participating tonight. Paul Christensen. He's not on. He's not on, okay. John Hammelgarn. Here. Scott Riley. Dave Turner. Here. Nate Andrews. Here. And the chair is present. Five in attendance, we do have a quorum. Okay, next up is staff to walk us through Zoom instructions. Okay, Andrew's going to take this one. Zoom and no one in the room either request and speak. Okay. Great. We'll go on to public hearing portion. Tonight there's two items on the agenda. There's DP 22-01 and there's DP 23-02. Both are pre-apps associated with Trinity Baptist Church. They are both strictly for growth management. So we will not be reviewing the project in any additional detail. It is solely to advance the project into the next phase of growth management. So first up is DP 22-01. Staff goes next. Applicant, thank you. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. David Burke, go Larry Burke. And Randy Boardman, 115 Webster Road, Shelburne. Great, welcome. Simon. Okay. So this is a request for pre-application review for DP 22-01 to participate in March 2023 growth management. The sole purpose of this application that we're hearing tonight is to meet the requirement of WDB 11.4.1. This bylaw standard requires a project to have pre-application review from the DRB before it can move forward to growth management review in the subsequent year. Now just by way of background, the project was reviewed at pre-application stage by the DRB in November 2021 and allowed to proceed to growth management in 2022 with recommendations. At that growth management meeting, it was allocated 14 dwelling units. So it does need a further 43. There are no changes to the previous pre-application recommendations requested and the site plan remains essentially what was previously seen. So just to summarise matters relating to the other chapters of the bylaw such as traffic access and so on were previously discussed by the DRB at that meeting and the recommendations made to the applicant. What follows here is a recommendation to move the application onto growth management in March 2023. Right. Thank you. OK. To the applicant, anything to add to that summary? I can just give a quick overview. A little bit may repeat what Simon said, but I'm sure you all know where this is. The Trinity Baptist Church is on the north side of Mountain View Road. It's a 47 acre parcel of which 19.9 acres is to the east of the red line again, plan hasn't changed from when you saw it last year. So out of the 47 acres, 19.9 acres is looked at for residential development. The main purpose is to support the Trinity Baptist desire to add a gym addition and also add a few staff housing units. The since your hearing last year, the staff did reach out to the town attorney. The town attorney clarified a couple of things, clarified that the faculty housing is commercial and accessory to that use, so that's not part of the growth management. Also, there was a question on is the density based on the 19.9 acres or the 47. It was clarified that it's based on the overall parcel. So nothing there. At growth management, we did, from the time you saw it, we did add the small parking lot and the trail had off the end of the cul-de-sac. During that process, the cul-de-sac was changed to your standard teardrop feature. And as Simon said, it did score 35 points in March and was granted 14 units of which six are affordable units out of the 14. The reason to come back is solely for growth management to hopefully get a little bit more growth management. There's a fair amount of infrastructure to get going. So really just hear if you have questions. OK, great. Thank you. DRP members. Any questions? I mean, this is strictly for growth management, so that's right. We'll see you at DP later. OK. You're good, Scott? Paul, any questions? OK, members of the public, any? Can you hear me? No. Any members of the public? Any comments or questions? Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. Yes, Paul. Yes. OK. OK, let me repeat the question then. So to the public, any questions? Please raise your hand if you do have a question. So there's no questions in the room and there's no raised hands on Zoom. OK. DRP, are we comfortable making a motion or approving this at this point? Yeah. OK, Scott. Do I have a motion for DP 22-01? 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 the accompanying material, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development by-law. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of October 25, 2022, authorized DP 22-01 to proceed to residential growth management or to proceed to residential growth management allocation in 2023. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? I'll second it. Second. Dave Turner beat you, Paul. So Dave Turner seconds it. Any further discussion? No. Hearing none, I'm going to go individually. Please indicate yay or nay, please. Paul Christensen. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. Scott Riley. OK. Dave Turner. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. The Chair is a yay. Six in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. OK, next up is DP 23-02. This is also for Trinity Baptist Church. It's the smaller two-lot subdivision. Staff goes next. So this is a request for a pre-application review at 425 Mountain View Road for a two-lot subdivision. The parcel's already occupied by mobile homes, so this would result in one additional dwelling. Staff is recommending that this is a new pre-application, although it is very similar to one you heard earlier last year. Staff is recommending that the DRB close the hearing and allow the project to proceed to growth management with recommendations as drafted. So we didn't get any public comment on this application. The pre-app layout does show two lots, both of which meet the minimum lot size of 1.84 acres, and we guarantee them being able to comply with the dimensional standards because the subject parcel is less than 10 and a half acres. It's not an open-space development and is not required to set aside open space, and there will be limited to a half-acre building envelope on their new property. So the project would be heard at growth management in 2023, where it would need to score a minimum of 30 points to compete for allocation, or it would need to be granted a minor exemption by the DRB. By way of background, a three-lot subdivision that the parcel did compete this year and scored 20 points, but it wasn't granted an exemption by the DRB. The new lot will share the existing drive with the existing property. It will have on-site wastewater. At the moment, the existing property is served by municipal water as a non-conformity, and the sort of ultimate connection to that for the new dwelling will be at the discretion of DPW. Bit about density there. They are two units, which is less than the three units that are allowed under density. We do have a requirement for landscaping. So it's anticipated that the north and west boundaries would be formed by existing vegetation, perhaps supplemented by some additional planting on the west, and then we'd have new landscape buffers on the east and the west side of the access drive. It is within significant wildlife habitat area, and the Conservation Commission have requested a habitat disturbance assessment, which is included as your recommendations. And then lastly, the applicant will be completing a wetlands delineation for this, and the adjoining property, which will define those wetlands. And they will be required to keep out of them and their buffers. So we do have a recommendation for you to allow it to proceed to growth management. The recommendations are very similar to what you decided to apply on the previous application. We've only some minor changes. What are the changes? So the previous pre-apperts for the three-lot subdivision showed some lot sizes that didn't meet the minimum requirement. So now both lots do meet that minimum requirement, so I've simply deleted one of the recommendations that was previously included. If that makes sense, we had a recommendation on the previous one. I don't see the point of making a recommendation that someone should comply with the bylaw. If that's fairly standard. Anything else? No. OK. OK. To the applicant, what else do you have to add to that? Not a whole lot. It's an 8.7 acre parcel in the ARZD district. It's a separate parcel from the other parcel. And as Simon mentioned, has on-site septic served by water. The change from when you saw it last year was it was three lots last year, now it's two lots, one new lot. The existing unit that's on the parcel is occupied by faculty currently. And that would be retained on lot one. Lot two would be the new lot. There's a building envelope shown on lot two. Last year, we had estimated the wetlands for the density at 2.5 acres, which resulted in three units. We have had the delineation completed on that side. Our estimate was a little bit conservative. There's 2.3 acres. Still rounds down to three units. But two units fits this parcel better. So that's what's being shown is two units. I don't know whether it's appropriate for tonight or not. But last year when this got to growth management, we were a bit surprised. Staff was supportive. Staff continues to be supportive of the exemption. Section 11.2.2.2 minor subdivisions includes why is there a minor subdivision exemption. Basically, there's one set of rules. And the set of rules were set up for large projects. They were not set up for these small projects. This exception is not a waiver. This exception is needed to allow the town to adopt evaluation standards that are stringent enough to encourage positive performance by larger subdivisions without penalizing landowners who wish to create only one or two lots from a relatively small parcel. So it was always considered that it would be difficult for small projects of less than 10 and a half acres to conform. And that's why the exemption is in the rules or the exception, I should say. I guess I just wanted to get that on the record. I don't even know if that's appropriate tonight or that's more for the growth management part. But the change is that the access would still be upgraded to serve one additional home. And that's about it. OK. Now, I appreciate those comments. And I'm aware of them as is the board. What I would encourage you to do is when you complete your growth management application, is to meet with staff and try to maximize the number of points that are applicable to this project. And I will be, because it's not germane to tonight's meeting, I will disclose that I don't recall why it only scored, why this project only scored 20 points. That's not relevant to tonight's agenda. But I would encourage you to meet with staff. And what we are really looking for is a good faith effort to maximize the number of points for applications that are looking for exemptions. And staff will be happy to have that conversation with you. They're very accommodating. And I encourage you to do that. That's also in the staff report, and you will certainly do so. Right, yeah. Right, OK. So, DRB members, any questions? I just have one question. Your property that you're, your other property that you're against, you've given the town a easement along the road for sidewalk, trail, or whatever. Is there, could you possibly give an easement at the end of this driveway so it's continuous? It wouldn't be a continuance because there's a property between us, but we can absolutely give an easement on this property. That will actually help with your points too. Yeah, yeah, that would. You're right. Any other questions, DRB members? I've had that in there before. Don't lose the ball. OK. Members of the public, any questions or comments? So if you'd like to ask a question or make a comment on the two lots subdivision, please do raise your hand. So there's no raised hands in the room or on the scene. All right, DRB members, is there Mr. Riley? Would you please make a motion? As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Scott Riley, move 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 application by the Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented for public hearing of October 25, 2022, accept the recommendations for DT23-02 and authorize this application to move forward to growth management. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. John Hemmelgarn seconds. Any further discussion? Hearing none, yay or nay? Paul Christensen. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. Chair of the yay, six in favor, none opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. OK, next up is a discussion about the specific plan. Can you speak to that? We're just going to do this entire meeting and open session. Might as well. So can you speak to that plan? And there's a request for a DRB volunteer to participate with the Planning Commission, correct? Correct. So the Planning Commission has received a specific plan application for the, what is known as the Glaser Parcel, which is 97 acres at Old Stage Road and Mountain View Road for a 100 unit subdivision. So as part of that, they are proposing that there will be 53 acres of open space, which will be their substantial benefit. That includes 11 acres by Mountain View Road, which is in the view shed. And then the rest is wetlands, which is sort of centrally located, and then also down near the horse farm. So I'll just share the image. I don't know if you can see that, but. Oh, thank you. Yeah, so up here is the view shed. That's 11 acres. And then down here is sort of the wetland. And there's some area of wetland in here as well. Everyone probably knows that's the windswept farm. So it will be two sets of residential homes. At this stage, this plan is sort of a starting point. So it needs to be developed. So on October the 4th, the Planning Commission did vote to hold a community meeting to discuss the post-substantial development and the substantial benefit and the development and decide whether to move it forward to appointing a citizen advisory committee. That meeting is scheduled to take place on November the 15th. But as notices have gone out, along with a newspaper legal adversement and site notices, this information solicits sort of initial opinions from residents and also seeks whether anyone would be interested in serving on that advisory committee from a residential. So we're looking at the neighbouring communities and probably one from the community at large. So at that meeting, if the Planning Commission does decide to form a citizen advisory committee, staff would like to establish it as quickly as possible. I'm sure you know what Emily's like. So we would want to get a board member in advance so we can progress it swiftly. So the purpose of that advisory committee essentially is to work with town staff, the applicant, to define the substantial benefit, to define the development itself and then write the textual changes to the bylaws and any updates to the town plan that are necessary to implement that development. It would then be subject to a discretionary permit. So the citizen advisory committee is broadly representative of local interests. We do anticipate it being sort of seven to 10 people and we would like a member of the DRB to be on that advisory committee. At the moment, if the Planning Commission decide to move it on, we anticipate them defining their charge for the advisory committee at their December the 6th meeting. I'll provide guidance on what's expected of everyone and I think from a DRB point of view, we'll be looking for the member to provide guidance on sort of how it might be administratively determined, how the development will comply with the bylaws using your expertise there and the town plan and then probably also what's important to remember is that this development in order to be approved as a substantial benefit sort of needs to go above and beyond what we would normally secure as a discretionary permit. So I think your expertise in sort of knowing what we normally get out of applicants would be really helpful from that. So in terms of time commitment, it would be between one and two meetings per month. We're provisionally thinking they'd be on a Thursday between five and 6.30 p.m. And that would last for between two and three months. Okay, great summary, Simon. Okay, DRB members, is there a DRB board member who has interest in serving on this advisory committee? I'm happy to do it. Are there any other volunteers or do we just, are we happy with Mr. Riley? Thank you for doing that. I think probably. My schedule doesn't do that one, it's like it. I did the last one. Yes, he did. Okay. Okay. Did you? Yeah. I did do the last one and I have a potential conflict on this one too, so I was willing to do it. I'm curious about the process, which is why. It's an interesting process. I would be willing to just, I don't know if this is even an option, but to shadow, I wouldn't want to be the primary because they don't have the experience to do that, but if there is. There'll be public meetings. So anyone can attend. Right, just show off as public. Yeah. Yeah, show of course. We'll get some real points for them like when you bring two board members out. I thought it was like a safer bet. That's great, and yeah, I would encourage that. And I may zoom in as a member of the public as well. But Mr. Riley, you are nominated. Yes. Thank you. I will almost certainly be zooming in to those meetings. Okay. Great. That was easy. Next up on the agenda tonight are the meeting minutes of October 11th, 2022. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Yes, I'd like to, I moved to approve the minutes for the meeting of October 11th as written. Thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, Scott seconds it and a discussion. Hearing none, individually, yeah, or nay, Paul Christensen. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. The chair is a yay. Six in favor, none opposed. The minutes are approved. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. John, makes a motion to adjourn. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it. Any discussion? All those in favor to adjourn, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion's adjourned. Thank you.