 How you doing, Pete? Go ahead. Okay. I'll start recording. Okay. I welcome all to the town of Williston Development Review Board for Tuesday, November 10th, 2020. Tonight, we have three items on the agenda. DP 21-04, design signs, a master sign plan, DP 18-02.1, SB signs for a master sign plan, and then DP 21-05, stop me show for a 20-unit subdivision on Offer Mountain View Road. We'll start tonight's meeting with a remote public meeting notice. I, Peter Kelly, as chair of the Williston Development Review Board, find that due to the state of emergency declared by Governor Scott as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and pursuant to Addendum 6 to Executive Order 01-20 and Act 92, this public body is authorized to meet electronically. In accordance with Act 92, there is no physical location to observe and listen simultaneously to this meeting. However, in accordance with the Temporary Amendment to the Open Meeting Law, I confirm that we are, A, providing public access to the meeting by videoconference and telephone through Zoom. All members of the DRB and the public have the ability to communicate and participate simultaneously during this meeting through Zoom. Planning staff will provide instructions for public participation using Zoom before the hearings are opened. B, providing public notice of instructions for accessing the meeting. We previously gave notice of the public of the necessary information for accessing the meeting, including how to access the meeting on Zoom with a computer, smartphone, or regular telephone in our posted meeting agenda. Instructions have also been provided on the town website at www.town.williston.vt.us. Click on public records and documents, then agendas in minutes, and navigate to the desired meeting date. C, providing a mechanism for the public to alert the public body through the meeting if there are problems with access. If anyone has a problem, please use the chat feature within Zoom. Email or call Emily at 802-878-6704 extension three. Continuing D, continuing the meeting, if necessary, in the event the public is unable to access this meeting, it will be continued to November 24th. Please note that all votes taken during the meeting that are not unanimous will be done by roll call in accordance with the law. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating. Paul Christensen, are you present? Present. John Hemmelgarn? Present. Steve Lampreck? Present. Scott Riley? Here. David Saladino? Here. David Turner? Present. Okay, before we dive into the agenda and the public, I would like to thank you for joining us on the agenda and the program. I will turn it over to Emily for a little briefing on how to get to Zoom. All right, hi everybody. So tonight with Zoom, it's an option to keep your camera on or off. Please keep your microphone on mute when it's not your turn to speak. For members of the public, you will have an opportunity to speak during the hearing items. If you hear an echo when you're talking, lower the volume. Use the chat box for Zoom technical questions. The chat does become public record. On your toolbar, you'll see a raise hand button under participants. Use that raise hand button or the chat to indicate that you would like to speak. If you're calling in on telephone, press star six to mute or unmute and star nine to raise hand. Throughout the meeting tonight, staff will be sharing screen. You can adjust your screen view to look at the video feeds and the document by clicking view options on the green toolbar and then side by side to optimize your screen view. If you run into bad internet connection, try turning off your video, closing other computer programs or tabs. There's also an option by clicking the arrow next to the microphone symbol to join via your telephone audio using your telephone as your computer speaker microphone. Thank you. Okay, thanks, Emily. First on the agenda is a public forum. This is an opportunity for people in the audience who would like to make a comment or a statement about anything that is not on tonight's agenda. So is there anybody out there in the public that would like to make a comment about something at this time? Okay. Seeing no raised hands. No raised hands, great. Okay, thank you. Okay, right into the public hearing DP 21-04, design signs, request for a discretionary permit to establish a master sign plan for detailed works and Dave's Williston AutoCare located at 22 Avenue C in the Industrial Zoning West District. Who is here for that application? This is Tom Jufri with design signs. Hi, Tom. Gail and Blage, what do you think that works? Hold on one second. I neglected my duties. When you introduced yourself, if you would give your address, please, as well, either your business address or your home address for the record. Thank you. Okay. Tom, back to you, please. Okay, Tom with design signs and it's for Andrew Avenue, S6 Junction and that's 05452. And Gail and Blage with Detail Works, 22 Avenue C, Williston, Vermont, 05495. Okay. Who's got this one for staff? I've got this one, Pete. I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen briefly so they can bring the staff report up for everyone. And so this is a request for a master sign plan at 22 Avenue C in the Industrial Zoning District West. The occasion for requesting a master sign plan is this previously single tenant property is becoming multi-tenant. And so Williston's bylaws do require a master sign plan when there will be signs for multiple tenants on a site. The applicants are proposing to remove some existing signs and primarily to place a new freestanding sign on the site out on the corner of Avenue C and Industrial Avenue where that red arrow is on the graphic I'm showing right now. The recommended action from the staff tonight is that the DRB take testimony and close the public hearing on this item. The item should be ready for deliberation tonight and the recommended staff decision is that the DRB approve this application with findings in fact and conclusions of law as drafted. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing a master sign plan for this site. We did circulate this for comment from our other departments in town and did receive a comment letter from the fire department. That memo essentially informs the applicant of the fire department's requirement for key box addressing and utility shut off labeling on buildings in Williston. We did not receive any public comment letters at the time of the mail out nor since then. And as I said, we are recommending approval of this master sign plan. So again, the reason for doing this is because we do have multiple tenants under a master sign plan in Williston, sites may have a theoretical maximum of 8% of the street-facing facade of the building and total site-wide signage. So in this case, we have a calculation of 1,710 square feet of street-facing building elevation. 8% of that is 136.8 square feet and total proposed sign area, including the window, which is actually a door decal in this case is 73 square feet. So well under the theoretical maximum. And I identified that window sign with a maximum 20% coverage. I put it in the table as a five square foot sign. That may be a little bigger than what the applicant had, but I was just rounding up to a whole number. And the frontage of the building facing industrial avenue was the frontage used to calculate the maximum. Due to the size of the proposed signs, which I'll bring up in the table in a moment, no spec findings are required from the DRB in order to approve this master sign plan. It's only a master sign plan because there are multiple tenants. I'll show you the table of signs recommended for approval. We have proposed wall signs, some larger ones and a couple of way finding signs, the proposed door vinyl on the window and a proposed freestanding sign at the corner. And I'll bring up the graphics so we can see those. You can see the corner freestanding sign proposed. You guys wanna play Minecraft? Answer me, dude. You can also see the location if I can get down there of the wall signs. As I get through these photographs that are going to be removed from the site. Sorry, we've got every possible angle, the freestanding sign. There we go. So these are the existing banners on the site. These are proposed to go away. The only big signs on the site will be the freestanding sign on the corner. Matt, just real quick, that sandwich board sign that's showing up in the image that you scrolled past, that's going away, right? Correct, that's right in the spot where the freestanding sign would go. Yeah, okay. Sorry, I'll leave it here for a moment. The wall signs called sign two and sign three on the plan are here with the way finding sign to point the way to the service entrance. Way finding sign for the customer entrance there. And this is where I've proposed a maximum five square feet window coverage for the door decal. So that's the total plan. I'm going to drop out of screen sharing for discussion purposes, but can pop back in if anybody needs me to bring something back up. And that's what I've got. Okay, great. So, so Tom, before we turn it over to the board for questions, do you have anything to add to Matt's finding in his report, his staff report? I don't believe so, I think he's covered it all. Okay, great, thank you. At this point, I'll ask board members to offer any questions or comments that they have. I have a question on the, will there be two tenants or three tenants in this building? There are two tenants. So the sign says made possible by healthy living, how is the, are they? They're a donor, they've given some money towards the sign. And so below, we're going to have a small vinyl graphic indicating that they've made a donation. And then the other question is, what's, I didn't notice the setback from the corner on the prints. It may be in there, but I just didn't notice it. No, and you know what? I actually have it on my desk at the office. I believe I can quote, I can give you this for fact in the morning, but I believe it's nine foot six from industrial and nine foot from Avenue C. Okay, thank you. Yes. And question for staff, what do the unified bylaws say in terms of setbacks for signs in that corner? So this is the industrial zoning district, where we have a five foot setback from road right of way in this zoning district. Okay, so compliant. Yeah. Okay. Well, is that right? I mean, so nine feet from, you're saying nine feet from the edge of pavement? Correct. It's probably a three rod, right? Like 50 foot right of way there. Nine feet might not be enough. Do you know where the property line is? It was in one of these graphics, hold on one sec. Yeah, so Matt, read that requirement again. Is that from the setback? It was, it's gotta be five feet. It's five feet from the edge of the right of way. So all of our setbacks are from right of way. Yeah, you're right. That's, yeah, that right of way probably extends further than the applicant's thanks. It's probably about roughly 25 feet from the centerline to the right of way. Probably a 50 foot right of way, right? Yeah. Yep. So I'm not sure I understand that are we okay or all the signs on industrial have are within the same scope? Yeah, but you don't get to use that argument. No, I'm not saying that. But so are we saying it needs to be 35 feet from the edge of the road? No, what we're saying is that it needs to be a minimum of five feet beyond the right of way. And the right of way we're speculating on what the right of way is. If it's a 50 foot right of way, then it'd be 25 feet from the centerline of the road. And we're just Dave Saladino, who's a traffic engineer is taking a guess at what that right of way might be. But this is something that they have to be compliant with. We can certainly make a condition that basically provides language that it has to be within the regulations. And this is not gonna hold things up, but we do ask the UB compliant. Sure. Yeah, and to the applicant board, I have good information on the location of the right of way here because there was a quarter study on Industrial Avenue in the last 10 years. I was just trying to Google it to see if I could bring it up quick enough to look at. But I have it and we can help you field locate so that you make sure the sign meets the five foot setback. Great. But the way it works is when you come in front of this body, you then have to be compliant. And that's the reason why I said it really doesn't matter what the neighbors are doing because we don't have a bite at that apple, but we do have a bite at your application, apple. Yes. That's kind of the way it works. True. Are there any other questions from the board? Are there any questions from the public that are participating? Okay, hearing none. So last call for comments, questions. Okay, I'm going to 719. I'm going to close DP 18-02.1 and thank you for coming. Thank you. I think I read the wrong one. 2104, I think. I'm going to close DP 21-04. I had the wrong packet in front of me at 720. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up is DP 18-02.1. SB signs request a discretionary permit to amend the master sign plan for Walmart located at 863 Harvest Lane in the mixed use commercial zoning district who is present representing the applicant. That's me, Courtney Butan for SB signs. And we're at 466 Shun Pike Road in Williston. Hey, Courtney, nice to see you. Are you solo? I am, yep. Okay, staff, who's up on this one? I've got this one as well. So I'll jump right in. This is a request to amend an existing master sign plan. So the Walmart store already had a master sign plan under DP 18-02. This is the first amendment proposed to that sign plan. And it is to add a single additional exterior sign to the Walmart building. There's a new restaurant tenant going inside the building and this side would be for them. It's Dickie's barbecue. You can see here on the north facing side of the building where my cursor is in the large label that says Dickie's sign. That's the location of that wall sign on the elevation. Matt, you are not screen sharing. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Scott. Now you can see me pointing to the thing that says Dickie's sign on the north facing elevation of the Walmart building. So the staff recommended action tonight is that the DRB tech testimony and close the hearing deliberate on this application. The staff recommendation is for approval with conditions. I'll note up front, we're gonna seek a little bit of clarification on the ultimate proposed maximum size of the sign as I had a little bit of conflicting information in the application, but I'll get to that. So we did also ask for comment from our commenting departments on this application, received a memo from the fire department, very similar to the last project. Again, reflecting the fire department plan review guideline adopted by the select board and its requirements for utility shut off signage, entrance and exit signage and key box locations. We have not received any public comment related to this application at the time of our mail out or since. And again, we are recommending approval with conditions of approval. I am suggesting that there's a condition required and drafted below to clarify the proposed sign, size of the new sign. The table and the applicant's narrative states 37.8 square feet, but the statement about increasing site-wide signage gives me a difference of 44.6 square feet and the submitted detail shows a 63 by 36 inch sign, which is a little under 20 square feet. Any of those sizes would be acceptable under the 8% maximum rule and may be acceptable to the DRB. I would just note that if we go over 24 square feet, the DRB would need to make the special findings related to the approval of a master sign plan. I have drafted those conditions, rather those findings for you. And I've penciled in the middle size of the three I calculated the 38 square foot size, but would have no objection to going larger in the context of this very large building and wall and this site. So master sign plan amendment is required in part because we already have a master sign plan, also because we have multiple commercial tenants and because we have a wall sign in excess of 24 square feet, which requires the DRB to make those findings if it wishes to approve it. The street facing elevation of the building was used to calculate the theoretical maximum amount of signage on the site. That frontage is 10,725 square feet. 8% of that is 858 square feet. The maximum proposed sign area from the applicant's application tonight is 381 square feet and fits well below the 8% threshold. If we go with a wall sign in excess of 24 square feet, those special findings are required. These are findings that the DRB has looked at the proposed sign in the context of the building, the layout with other signs and the site and determined that allowing a larger sign is in keeping with language in the comprehensive plan in the bylaw, which I would summarize as saying, signs ought to fit with the sites they're placed on, they ought to be placed carefully and they ought to make sense in terms of the design of the sites and buildings on which they are placed. And I'm gonna go down into the conditions to bring up my table of proposed and existing signs, which may be hard to read if you're on a small screen. So I'll zoom it in. All of these are existing. I didn't have an error in my table here. This one next to Dickie's barbecue should say proposed. That's the proposed sign. You can see where I've used the 38 square foot size and come out to a total of 346. And then adding in the freestanding sign on the site, I get to a total site-wide sign at 377 square feet. But as I said, that could be adjusted pending discussion with the applicant about the size of the sign. And I'll just bring up the master sign plan for a moment and I'm just gonna go right through, I hope to the detail sheet I can get to it. I'll pause here for a moment on the elevations. And I think I need to go up one page. Sorry, see if I can get, it's so small on the elevations, it's difficult to see. Sorry, if you can see my cursor, this is the Dickie's barbecue sign that is occasioning the amendment to this master sign plan. Again, on that north-facing elevation, this is the entrance to the building. And if I bring up the narrative, I think this is where I have, yep. The sign design, this is externally illuminated. It is not internally illuminated. And there's the rendering on the side of the building and the smaller size dimensions where I got the smaller number that I was referencing. So I'm gonna stop there, I'll stop sharing my screen but can bring it back up if needed and welcome a conversation with the DRB and the applicant as you discuss this application. Okay, thank you, Matt. So Courtney, can you shed some light on the size of that proposed sign? I don't know where the 37.8 came from, to be honest with you. It is supposed to be 19 square feet. I apologize, Matt. Okay, we can do that. Okay, so that would change the conditions of approval, correct, Matt? You would not need to make the special findings if it's under 24. The special findings are also required when there's multiple wall signs. There are already multiple wall signs on the site so you could keep the findings in just under the theory that this additional sign is still okay in terms of having more wall signs but you don't need them as it pertains to the size if you're below 24 square feet. Okay, great. Okay, Courtney, is there anything else in the staff report that you would like to comment on? I don't think so, it's pretty straightforward. We, Matt, you had asked us to go with the external elimination with the Goosenex instead of the facelift, like we had talked about originally. So, and we moved it to be a little bit of an easier access overall. So from our end, no, aside from correcting the overall square footage, I think we're all set. Okay, great. DRB members, any questions for the applicant? Yes, this is John Hemmelgarn. Is this the only sign that's being added as part of this application? Yes, they are doing an interior sign, but that's not part of the application. This is the only exterior sign that Walmart has allowed them to do. Okay, and that sheet that Matt put up at the end showed it to be 63 inches by 36 inches? Yep. So my calculation say that that's less than 16 square feet. I think. Five and a quarter by three. Yeah, I honestly, I was going off there with the provided specs that have the 17 square feet. But yeah, 63 by 36 is what they gave us. So that's the size sign that you're going to put up? Yeah. Okay. Nothing makes a difference. It just, I think we just need to document what's there so that the next time we get one of these, we've got an accurate record of what's been approved and what hasn't. Yes, sorry, my apologies on that calculation, John. I get 15.75. That's what I got. Okay. Okay, other DRP members, other questions from the DRP rather? Okay, are there any questions or comments from the public? Anne's raised, Emily? Okay. Courtney, do you have anything else to add before we close this hearing? I do not. Thank you for your time. Pete, Pete, I'm sorry. I lied before. I did have another question, probably as much for staff as anything. The fire department had a memo in there that was saying that for buildings over 15,000 square feet, we need to put signs on the doors that identify, they have to be marked with a combination of letter, numerical sign. Are those signs that need to go on and do those need to be included in a sign permit? They do not need to be included in a sign permit because they're generally below the size for which we would require one. Okay. Good, that's all. Thank you for that clarification. Is that something, so are you saying that they would want the dickies, the name of the restaurant in there on the exterior windows of the building or? No. I think what it is, is it allows the fire department to identify which door the alarm is coming from or that they need to access the building. Okay, so there's nothing to do with our clients. Nope, I just wanted to make sure that that signage that the fire department was asking for of the owner isn't one that needs to be accounted for in this permit. No, and in fact, I believe those signs are already in place at Walmart. It was one of the examples the fire department gave me in drafting this, is they said, you know, when there's an emergency and someone's calling 911, if they say, I'm at door B1 at the Walmart, it helps the fire department and rescue get there faster. So that's great. So they just put this on here whether the signs are already on the doors or not. That's correct. Great. Okay, anything else from anyone? Okay, we're gonna close DP 18-02.1 at 733. Thank you for coming. Okay, next up is DP 21-05, Scott Micho, care of O'Leary Burke request pre-application review of a proposed 20 dwelling unit residential subdivision on a 10 plus or minus acre parcel located at 230 Mountain View Road in the residential zoning district. Who is here for the applicant? I saw Mr. O'Leary, if you could announce yourself in your address, please. Yes, Paul O'Leary, 13 corporate drive as extension of a mock. And then Scott is here and Tom Leeward's here. I'm sorry, we were speaking over each other. Can you announce yourself again, please? Hi, my name is, okay, go ahead, Scott, I'm set. Okay, I'm Scott Micho and my address is 270 Sutton Farm Drive, Shelburne, Vermont. Thank you, Scott. Others representing the applicant? I'm Tom Weaver. And my address is 26 Corderoy Road, F-Extruction, Vermont. Okay, the three of you? Yes. Okay, great. A little bit of audio lag makes it difficult sometimes. So thanks for bearing with me on that. Okay, before we go into the staff report, which Emily, you are leading that, correct? I've asked staff to put a couple of graphics up that we're gonna talk through briefly here. So it really has to do with the... I'm gonna spend about one minute on this. Yeah, that's the page I want first. Thank you, Emily. And it's really the process. And the reason why I'm going over this is because there are certain things that the DRB controls and there are certain things that we don't have any say in. And I just wanted to go over these charts briefly to calibrate those that are not familiar with the process. So up on top of this page, the Planning Commission proposes changes and updates to the unified bylaw. And what we do is we consider those to be proposing the rules and they propose the rules in which the DRB judges projects as to whether they're compliant or not. And so the Planning Commission proposes rules. The Select Board votes and ratifies those rules. And then ultimately they go to us, the DRB. And that's what we and our rule is to administer the rules. So when an application comes in front of us, our rule is, and you can see that little box in the corner on the right, that's our process right here. If you could pull that over to the left just a touch, Emily, at least on my screen, the faces of individuals is, there you go, that's perfect. So the Authority of the Development Review Board is limited by the bylaw. So we're judging compliance with what's written in the bylaw, those are the rules. The DRB judges projects for compliance at a public hearing, that's what we're doing tonight. And the planning staff are gatekeepers. And so what they do is they meet with applicants, and Paul is very familiar with this, to have a discussion about compliance of an application well in advance of it reaching this public process. So they're the gatekeepers to really ensure that a compliant or very close to compliant project is advanced to the DRB for consideration. If you could go to the next page, please. And here's the page two of a two-page documents. So there's a couple of advisory committees or commissions, the Conservation Commission and the HAC, which is an acronym for the Historic Architectural Advisory Committee. Both of those are advisory entities, and they weigh in on some applications. They don't apply to all applications. Like for instance, this is outside of a district in which the HAC weighs in on, but we did receive some comments from the Conservation Commission. And we'll be going though over those and the staff report that Emily will be reading. So tonight, now I'm looking at the middle box, the public hearing process, and tonight we're at the pre-application stage. And if this application advances through the pre-application stage, then it will go forward to the growth management process where actual residential units are allocated to be able to build as some, to be able to be built as some point in the future. That growth management meeting takes place annually. I think it's the second meeting in March. Is that right, Emily? That's correct. Okay. I knew it was March, I didn't know if it was the first or the second meeting. So that would be the fourth Tuesday of March in 2021. And then if there is allocation granted at the growth management, then it would go forward to the discretionary permit stage. Tonight's hearing is on the pre-application stage. So in Emily's report talks a little bit about what we are looking for there. It's not detailed engineering site plan of the proposed development. In this case, it is really more of a conceptual plan. And then the last thing that I'll say before I turn it over to Emily for her staff report is the bottom box on this page. There are factors that are outside of the DRP. There's Act 250, there's sewer allocation. There's a host of other, of Velco gets into play on some properties with right away and what can and can't be built underneath the transmission lines. There's transportation considerations that VTrans sometimes weighs in on. So there's some other things that are outside of the purview of the DRP as well. And so the reason why I'm going over this is because some of the comment letters that we've received that we were all Willis-Stonians here. And everyone on the DRB is looking to hear from the public and give people an opportunity to weigh in. But I just wanted to calibrate all those that are participating tonight that there are some things that we can consider as a board and there are some things that we can't consider as a board. And so with that, I will I'll turn it over to Emily for your staff report. Well, thank you, Pete. So this is pre-application review for a subdivision of 20 units on a 10.42 acre parcel located at 230 Mountain View Road in the residential zoning district. This property is currently developed with a single household dwelling. It is subject to conservation review by the Conservation Commission but not design review by the HAC. Staff is recommending approval of pre-application but only if the DRB discusses connectivity access, sidewalks, density, open space pattern, watershed health and wetlands and scenic viewshed. We're recommending you take testimony tonight and close, deliberate and make a recommendation. I will note that in our attachments tonight there was a revised site plan that was sent over today. I'll go over that later on. Project history, this is the first time the DRB is reviewing this request. Prior approvals include 1978 was the approximate year this house was built and this parcel was created in 1975 and a six lot subdivision that includes the lands now that are today Trinity Baptist Church in Cane Lane. Conservation Commission review took place on November 4th. This was reviewed by our other departments, Public Works and Fire commented and their recommendations are included. Public comment, we received three letters before mail out and a fourth letter was received after the mail out. These letters are from Donna Lee, Patty Griffin, Burkhart Morrison and Demmel and Devorca Gusto. Staff comment, we emphasize that this is pre-application review. This is a conceptual time to review complex plans in informal way that invites comment and discussion. So the applicant did provide a revised site plan based on this report. Project elements, this property is located in the residential zoning district where residential uses are allowed. The discretionary permit must demonstrate compliance with the setbacks 25 feet from public and private roads. The site and real landscape setbacks are determined by landscaping. There are open space development standards in this zoning district and discretionary permit must demonstrate compliance with those. We discussed this further on with the conservation recommendations as well as some other components. Pedestrian friendly development, this discretionary permit must demonstrate compliance with these standards as well. All principal entrances must face the street and have a pedestrian connection to the sidewalk. There's no focal point within a quarter mile of this property. So a new one must be provided such as a park or a community garden which is shown on the plan. And this section also calls for connectivity between neighborhoods which is discussed below. There is also standards for housing choice and diversity of housing types. It's not a straight requirement but it is incentivized by growth management. As we reviewed in the process beforehand, growth management happens every year in March, 2021. If this project is approved this year it would go to growth management and it would be scored competitively based on these nine criteria listed below. Access connectivity traffic studies. Here's where we want the DRB to make some recommendations. We've included one about requiring a traffic study. The applicant is currently proposing a cul-de-sac and this is the time to discuss alternatives in order to comply with the connectivity standards of chapter 13 and 39. The new road must connect to Meadow Run Whitewater Circle as well as provide an easement for future connectivity to the lot to the west. We have drafted a recommendation and in response the applicant has provided a revised site plan showing that future connectivity to the west as well as the connection to Meadow Run Road. We did do some research on the abutting property Meadow Run and confirmed that the town's right of way for Meadow Run Road extends to the property line on the site plan and on the Lister's tax map. It is shown as common land where we confirmed the plat and warranty deed in the land records. There is a wetland buffer and our bylaw does allow for crossings in wetlands and wetland buffers and there's about 100 to 160 feet between that buffer and approximate buffer line and the property line where the right of way could fit for the road. Off-shoot parking and loading for recommending a standard recommendation. On-site infrastructure, a standard recommendation that the plans must include water sewer connections, underground utility connections. The DRB will need to make a decision about circulation. So the discretionary permit must show roads, sidewalks and crosswalks in compliance with chapter 15. We're not looking for a recreation path or primitive trail here based on the town plan maps but sidewalks are usually required. The DRB can make a decision if one side of the road should have sidewalks or if both sides using the principles of 15.2.4 which are excerpted below. If the DRB decides only one sidewalk should be provided, we recommend it should be on the west side so it aligns with the other sidewalks in Meadow Run. Neighborhood parks where a neighborhood park is not required for 15 or fewer dwellings and it is also encouraged in growth management. So where a neighborhood park is provided, the discretionary permit must include information about the development and maintenance of the parks based by the owner's association. There a standard recommendation is provided. Following on that with maintenance, the discretionary permit must include draft covenants, articles of incorporation and bylaws that specify how landscaping parks and open space will be maintained. Specifically that the bylaws and covenants specify that mowing is prohibited in Watershed Protection Buffers. The standard recommendation is including landscaping. We're recommending a specific recommendation. The landscaping plan must be in compliance with chapter 23. The applicant showed a 50 foot type one buffer to the north, south and east. This buffer is not appropriate to the north and south because those areas are not forested. Street trees to the north and a type three or four buffer to the south would be most appropriate. The conservation commission is also recommending a type three buffer on the eastern boundary to enhance the wildlife corridor and screen the development from the abutting property. Three 74 Mountain View Road. Two recommendations are included and I will note that the comment letter that was received yesterday specifically talked about this buffer area and that there be enhanced landscaping which is also recommended by the conservation commission. Street trees, a standard recommendation is included. They must be provided along the new road as well as Mountain View Road. There is an option for a waiver for street trees to preserve a specific vista. However, the view of Camelshump is very brief from the far northeastern corner and the project doesn't qualify for the street tree exemption. Conservation areas, a specific recommendation is included. There is a significant wildlife habitat area located on the property on the eastern side and it overlaps with the wetlands. Therefore, a habitat disturbance assessment is not recommended because that land will be protected. The conservation commission is recommending that enhanced buffer on the eastern boundary to help enhance that wildlife corridor. And there are no other applicable conservation areas on this property. Watershed health and erosion and runoff control plan must be provided with a discretionary permit that demonstrates compliance both for construction as well as the continuing use of the site. Recommendation is included. Wetlands, there are extensive wetlands on the parcel. The state confirmation of the wetlands delineation is pending. All class two wetlands and their associated 50 foot buffers must be contained within the open space. The applicant is proposing a fence to delineate the buffer. The DRB has more discretion over class three wetlands and may require a significant functional values assessment for class three wetlands. A draft recommendation is included. That if they do find class three, they provide that functional assessment at discretionary permit. Furthermore, with wetlands, we ask that the discretionary permit show adequate space for a small backyard between the houses and the wetland buffer to discourage mowing. Right now, some of the houses are shown with their decks right up on that wetland buffer, which is not feasible. And there are no named or unnamed streams near this property. Phoenix Viewshed and Visual Impact, we have some specific recommendations included. This property is located in the primary foreground as identified on the visual assessment map. From the northwestern corner of the property, you can see in the background knob hill, partridge hill, and then a brief view of the top of Camel's Hump in the distance. The view of Mount Mansfield is not impacted by this project. That's to the north of Mountain View Road. So the DRB can make a determination on the Viewshed Impact and recommendations nine through 11 are included. There are some things that can be done to minimize visual impact. Chapter 39 references the mitigating measures of chapter 31, though people should expect to have views that include residential neighborhoods in the ZD. There are some things that we can do to help minimize like building height limit, vegetation or screening berms, limiting reflective surface area or glass, specifying exterior color, limiting the bulk and massive buildings, and grading or stepping a structure into the slope so it blends with the landscape. The DRB should discuss these various measures with the applicant. Recommendations nine and 10 are included. The DRB could modify or expand these recommendations. And there's also a recommendation for a site visit as part of discretionary permit number 11 included below. Lastly, we have a standard recommendation for outdoor lighting that a lighting plan be shown at discretionary permit and impact fees. A recommendation is not included, but we do note that when an administrative permit is submitted, fees are collected. There are about 8,000 for a new single family house and 4,000 for a new multifamily dwelling unit. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Emily. So I'm gonna start with the applicant and ask if there's any clarifications or comments that you would like to make to staff report and also ask that you address any proposed conditions of approval that you have concern with. All right, thank you, Pete. So I'm gonna make some general comments and I'll tick down through the staff report in order so it's a little bit easier to follow. So we're looking at a 10.42 acre parcel off of Mountain B Road in Williston. The parcel as you can see by the staff report is primarily open, it's open meadow. There's an existing single family house that's on it. The eastern side of the parcel has a class two wetland. We had a preliminary delineation done by Gilman and Briggs but it has not yet been verified by the state. We expect that's probably gonna be next spring or next summer before we know definitively just where that wetland boundary is. We pretty sure it'll be a class two. It'll be a 50 foot buffer that will be associated with it. It's likely that there are some small class three pocketed wetlands behind the house that were identified. We'll show those on the map and we will label those as, we'll label those as to what the appropriate class of the wetland is. We did quite a few different site plans on the site and actually our original plan showed the road which lines up opposite the Trinity Baptist Church entrance showed it connecting to Meadow Run Road. Although when we reviewed the tax map and some illicit information, it didn't appear that the town had reserved a right-of-way to connect. And we actually had a conversation with the Homeowners Association of Meadow Run. And they were fairly clear that they weren't willing to allow us to connect or to give us a right-of-way to connect. So we moved on to the revised plan that you have in front of you that shows the cul-de-sac. We are aware now that the staff did a little more research than what we did and has discovered that there is indeed a right-of-way that would allow us to connect to Meadow Run Road and that the town owns it. So the revised plan that Emily showed you earlier was basically one of our earliest plans that we had done that showed the road going through and connecting. The plan essentially shows the same number of units. I believe it shows 20 new units of mix of carriage-style homes and duplexes. And then it shows the existing house remaining. So I'm gonna tick down through some of the comments in the staff report. So Paul, are you giving the DRB the option to weigh in on both plans? Or are you favoring one plan over the other? Well, we believe that your bylaws require us to connect to Meadow Run. So we believe that that's most likely the plan that we will be going forward with. We certainly welcome any comments from the board as to which plan they may prefer. Understanding that if we go to the cul-de-sac plan we need to figure out how we're gonna meet the requirements of the bylaws to connect to the adjacent property. Pete, I would think that we would wanna hear from staff on that exact question. I don't think we have any choice on that matter. I don't think we have any choice on this either. I just wanted to understand what your position was, Paul, on that. Well, that's kind of my position that that's the way we have to go. But obviously it's at the board's discretion. Got it. Okay, continue, please. Okay. So we did review the three public comment letters. We did review the information we got from the public works and fire department. That's all pretty straightforward stuff. Nothing new there. Under pedestrian friendly development, 39.9. It discusses establishing a focal point. We do show community gardens up by the Mountain View Road. I think we need to do some a little bit further work to come up with a little bit better focal point than just those gardens. So we would expect that when we are coming forward, we'll try to provide a little nicer feature than maybe what those community gardens have by themselves. Housing choice, as shown on the plan, we do expect to provide most likely carriage family and duplexes. We do expect to provide a number of homes that meet your affordability housing. We haven't decided yet just what percentage that will be. Obviously as we go forward towards growth management, we'll decide and we will let you know what, how those numbers work out. Moving to access connectivity and traffic studies. We talked about that somewhat. We will be proposing to connect through the Meadow Run Road. In terms of sidewalks, currently show a single sidewalk on the eastern side of the road. No problems moving it to the western side. We'll leave it to the board's discretion as to whether we need a sidewalk on one side of the road or both sides of the road. We would note however, that Meadow Run Force Run has a single sidewalk on one side of the road throughout the development. No objections to providing a traffic study for the proposed project. Off street parking obviously will have garage units with each proposed building and we'll also have parking areas in the driveway. We will be connecting to municipal water and sewer. We'll actually provide for a looped waterline connection from Mountain View Road to Meadow Run. Obviously the big advantage of the connection is it provides a second access for the Meadow One folks. I think there's a total of 94 units in Meadow Run Slash Force Run that essentially are accessed by a single road off of Route 2A. Let's see what else. Landscaping, we did review the staff's comments on the landscaping buffer. We will be making those changes as they recommend in their report. No issues with that. Street trees again, no problem providing street trees along Mountain View and along the proposed new streets. There is a significant wildlife habitat area that's on the very eastern side of the parcel that is within the wetland area. As staff noted, Conservation Committee was not recommending a habitat disturbance assessment on that portion of the property. Erosion runoff control plan, we will be providing that in detail when we get to the next step. Wetlands protection were acquired by state to protect the class two wetlands provide a 50 foot buffer, which we will do. We're in agreement with the Conservation Committees will quest that if we have class three wetlands that we also provide a functional assessment of those wetlands. Again, no issue with doing that. The scenic view shed minimized visual impact, 27.9, 39.8, we're agreeable to work with staff on those issues. We really think there's not a lot of view shed impact there as you come down that portion of meadow view or mountain view road, you're kind of down the low dip as you look towards that existing house you're basically looking at that tree line and you only get peaks of the mountains over the top but we will look at that a little bit further to try to work out any details there. Outdoor lighting certainly will provide a lighting plan in compliance with WDB 24. We have reviewed the recommendation and motion and we have no issues with it as written. And I'm glad to entertain any questions you might have. All right. Thank you, Paul. At this point, I'll turn it over to the DRP. Are there any members that have any questions of the applicant? Dave Turner here, I have just one question. Is there plans for a sidewalk along the frontage of mountain view? Not currently, no. For the width of the property? Okay, thank you. We're certainly willing to provide easements or anything like that along that frontage if the town has any plans for a future sidewalk or a future bike path through there. Okay, thank you. This may be a more of a question for staff but the comment about the right of way that's going off to the abiding parcel to the West what was the purpose of that? Because it comes in an odd angle. So there just has to be some right of way. I mean, it just seems not necessarily oriented in the right direction for connectivity because it points towards Meadow Run Road. It would create a really odd kind of triangular shaped parcel if that were ever to be connected through to the West. So I don't know Paul, if that right of way could be swapped, move north a little bit more to be more centered. Yeah, we've actually had some conversations already with the neighborhood parcel to the West, the Haynes. And so hopefully we'll be able to work out with them where the appropriate location for that right of way connection is. Okay. Yeah, I mean, this is John Hemmelgarten. This is still in that I don't have, I know what we got electronically the second site plan, but I still have in front of me only the one with the cul-de-sac on it and some pencil scratching I put on myself. But my first reaction seeing this was that that road needed to connect through to Meadow Run and then I read the staff report. So if that's the case, thank you Emily for bringing this up. This plan though, Paul, you're saying is a previous one even though it's dated a couple of days ago. Yes. All right. John, I think when he says it was a previous one, it was simply an iteration they came up with in their overall initial analyses and plans. All right, it wasn't a plan we submitted. We actually reviewed the plan, a similar plan with the Meadow Run folks initially approached them about making the connection. All right, well, I mean, we've got kind of a hybrid then set of plans and issues to talk about here. I like the, as a pre-application, we're all gonna give our thoughts to you, I think, great feedback. So I like the idea of the fence that you showed on the cul-de-sac plan that separated out the open space. Yes. I am concerned that it does not enclose all of the wetland as it's shown and I recognize that the exact mapping of that is to come. But conceptually, it seems like all the wetlands should be on the backside of that fence. And I'm also concerned about then the wetland buffer that I think as Emily mentioned it comes right up to the building envelopes here and the driveways and I found a couple of those houses. When you look at the other plan that you put up there with the through road, it actually puts the road extremely close to the wetlands themselves and does not indicate any of the wetland buffers. So I think we need to be careful about that. My thought would be that where you've got a row of houses on each side of the street that we should have a sidewalk on each side of the street. If it gets to a spot where there are no houses on one side of the road, I don't mind a crosswalk and then a single sidewalk that would connect on into to better run. But I don't like the idea of little kids who have to kind of cross the road to ride their bike on the sidewalk. I'll second that, John. Like in my neighborhood. And then my, go ahead, go ahead, Paul. I guess a further comment on the wetland. We do expect that because it's a class two wetland, it's an active 50 project that the state will acquire us to put a fence up along the wetland buffer. So yes, we showed a nice pretty picture. We don't really know where the wetland buffer is, but in the end we'll have to do that. They certainly won't allow us to build any houses within that wetland buffer. I'm going to guess that looking at the initial mapping that the through connection will likely have some buffer impact that we'll have to get a permit from the state for, but we're hoping that it will skirt the actual wetland itself. And I think as staff noted that we are allowed to impact a wetland or a wetland buffer for a road connection. So that's what likely we'll be looking at here. But I do like that fence that you have proposed there. I think that's a great way to, with fairly some natural materials to separate that out. And it really makes it a good way to separate that area that we all want to keep intact, not only for the wildlife, but to protect or to provide the buffers to the neighbors to the east. My other comment would be about the community gardens. Again, you mentioned you might be looking at something a little stronger in terms of a focal point. I guess my question is whether those community gardens, are those intended for the residents of this development or is that something that then is available to anybody in the community that wants to come and park and get a garden plot because the soil in their yard is no good or whatever. Well, that's a good question. We hadn't discussed that as to whether it was just going to be for the neighborhood itself or whether we'd open it to the public. But it's something we can look at in a little more detail. Okay, so if it is open to the public, I would recommend that you provide some place for those folks that are going to be using those gardens to park. So they're not clogging the neighborhood street here. Or if they are for the neighborhood, then I think there's a better location available that's more centrally located and not right along the busy corridor of Mountain Dew Road. Yes. That's all I got for now, so, Pete. Okay, thanks for those thoughtful remarks, John. Anyone else on the DRB? Okay, so I'm going to open it up for public comments. Before I do that, I would ask that anyone that would like to speak, please use the raise your hand and the Zoom chat feature. And when we call on you, please identify your name and your address for the record, please. And Emily, if you could emcee that, that would be appreciated. So far I'm seeing no raised hands or comments in the chat. Okay, if there's someone on the Zoom call that has their video on and they're unable to use the chat feature, but they do want to say something, please raise your hand on the video. I don't want to exclude anybody. Okay, Emily, if you could unmute Anthony, please. Anthony, you're good to go. Thanks. I may be on an older version, I'm not sure. I represent Josephine Haynes who lives to the West on that, the other 10.2 acre piece. I think it was the original Lot 1 in that 1975 sub division. Anthony, if you could please give your name and address please for the record before you share your comments, please. Sure, I'm representing Josephine Haynes. She lives at 88 Mountain View and I live at 382 Mount Phyla Road in North Ferrisburg. I'm her son-in-law. Thank you. We're very appreciative of them providing the connection to our property. We've been in discussions with them and will continue to do so. Josephine is in her mid-90s and so it's, we have to be patient with how we deal with things like this but they've been very considerate. And my only other comment was about Emily's comment about street trees on Mountain View Road. The view for the traveling public of Mansfield is to the north side across Trinity's front yard. The view of Mount Mansfield from Josephine's house and her living room is over that streetscape that you're talking about. And so we would be concerned about street trees running down Mountain View unless they're limited to shorter trees. So we just would ask for some consideration on that when we get to that stage. And that's it. Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to speak either using the chat function on Zoom or if you're unable to do that by doing what Anthony did and kind of wave us down? Are you, is that a wave, Mr. Todd? Okay. I think Diane would like to speak, Diane. Yes, thank you. My name is Diane Veracuni and I live at 371 Whitewater Circle right on the corner of Meadow Run Road and Whitewater. And I just learned of the new development plan this evening that showed the, and cut through onto Meadow Run Road. And I wasn't aware of that. So I just have a concern about that. Also, I just wanted to mention that at that junction where it comes out, it looks like it's coming out onto Meadow Run Road. There are some green mountain power, and electrical facilities there as well. So I don't know if that's, you're gonna have to take that into consideration or what, but is it possible to get an updated plan from the office so we can see the new plan? Yep, we just received that plan today. It is uploaded on the website. If you have trouble finding it, feel free to shoot me an email and I can help you out tomorrow. Okay. All right, thank you. Anyone else from the public that would like to speak or share an opinion or perspective? Emily, is there anyone raising their hand in Zoom? Nope, no raise hands, no chats. Okay. I'm not seeing anybody. Am I, does anyone on the board see anybody signifying that they would like to speak that I'm not seeing? Back to the board. Do members of the DRB have any further questions for Mr. O'Leary? All set. I'm all set. I'm good, Pete. Okay. Paul, do you have any closing remarks? Nope. I don't. Paul O'Leary, no. I'm all set. Okay. One last chance for the public to weigh in. Okay. I'm going to close this hearing at 818. It's DP 21-05. Thank you. Thank you all for coming. Thank you. Okay. DRB is going to go into deliberations at 818. So Emily, if you would do your magic, thank you. Yep, for everybody who's not on the DRB, we'll be put in waiting room. If you don't want to hang out until the end of the meeting, you can find out about the decision by giving us a call tomorrow. We good to go? Yep. Welcome back to the town of Williston Development Review Board on Tuesday, November 10th, 2020. We are out of deliberation at 9.07. Is there a motion for DP 21-04? Yes, I'll make a motion. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Scott Riley moved that the 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 at public hearing of November 10, 2020, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 21-04 and approve this discretionary permit for the master sign plan subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff and then to seek administrative sign permits, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. There are six conditions. We are going to add a seventh. The seventh condition shall state the sign shall conform to all applicable setback rules specified in the unified bylaws. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. John Hemmelgaard's second set. Is there any further discussion? Okay, we're gonna go individually, indicate yay or nay, please. Paul Christensen. Yay. John Hemmelgaard. Yay. Steve Lambreg. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. David Turner. Yay. David Saladino. Yes. Chair is yay as well. That's seven in favor. No opposed, motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 18-02.1? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, move the Wilson Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development Violent and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing. We're gonna have my drawing. That's the findings of that, the approval of the law for DP 18-02.1 and approve this discretionary commitment for master sign plan subject to conditions of approval of the approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, gain approval for these plans from staff and then see the administrative sign permits which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which the approval is based. We're gonna make a change on the finding of the fact, number one, and correct the actual size on 37.8 to 15.75 square feet. We will add a position at the final meeting minutes we'll reflect able to propose maximum sign as 24 square feet for the Dickey barbecue. Great. Thank you, David. Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay, Scott Riley seconds it. Is there a further discussion? Okay. Paul Christensen, yay or nay? Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. Steve Landbrecht. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. David Turner. Yay. David Saladino. Yes. The chair is yay as well. Seven in favor, non-opposed motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 21-05? There is. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Steve Landbrecht moved at the Wilson Developmental 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 Wilson Development By-law. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 10, 2020, accept the recommendations for DP 21-05 and authorize this application to move forward to growth management review with the following amendments to staff recommendations. Recommendation number eight, the text is stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following. Sidewalks must be provided on both sides of the proposed road. Recommendation number 11, the text is stricken in its entirety and replaced with the following. Rendering shall be provided at the discretionary hearing showing the development as viewed from Mountain View Road in the direction of Camelshump Mountain. Recommendation number 12 is added as follows. The town will be granted an easement for a multi-use path along Mountain View Road. Thank you, Steve. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it. Any further discussion? Paul Christensen, yay or nay? Yay. John Hemmigarn. Yay. Steve Lambrek. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. David Turner. Yay. David Saladino. Yes. The chair is a yay. That's seven in favor, non-opposed, motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of October 13, 2020? Sure, Pete. I move that we approve the minutes of the meeting of October 13, 2020 as written. Thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second. Steve seconds it. Any further discussion? Let's do a group approval on this. All those in favor indicate by saying yay. Yay. Yay. Any opposed? Hearing none. That motion. Seven in favor, non-opposed. So that carries. Hey, Pete, on the minutes, I just wanted to compliment whoever wrote those. Those are several kind of complicated hearings with lots of notes to be taken. And I read these fairly carefully. And I don't know if you did that Bonnie, if so, nice job. Thanks. It helps to have the recordings to look back on. I bet it does, but there's still some editing that goes on. Yeah, it's still, it's still in our form, so good job. Before we adjourn, the last thing on the agenda is final plans review for you, Hall. And I spoke with Melinda today, Zach, we've reviewed the final plans. The one thing she wants to note is about signage. You might recall the squiggly orange on the sign of the storage space. Those orange squiggles are no longer proposed. They reduce the sizes of a couple of their signs and they are below their maximum threshold for signage. Other than that, we find the final plans to comply with your conditions. Okay, so is this an actionable or item or is this just for our information purposes? I guess I'll defer to Matt. Usually the board, I think either consensus or makes a vote for us to sign them. Matt, you're muted. Sorry about that. So, you know, you left out the part of the motion that would defer the review and approval of final plans to staff, which means it falls to the board. I think typically this has been if there's consensus on the board to go forward, you don't need to vote. There's no conditions on this. You would be authorizing the chair to sign or authorizing the chair to authorize me to sign, however you'd like to do it. But we do find that they're in compliance with the conditions. As long as they're in compliance, it seems like the board should authorize the chair to authorize you to sign. I'll authorize Bonnie and Emily to use my signature sign on them. So the, for the record, the chair recused himself on this application. So the chair's not gonna weigh in on this particular one, but I would welcome your Hemmelgarn, who is vice chair to make that offer. Yeah, so I'd be glad to authorize the Matt to you to sign those plans for the acting chair here. Great, thank you, John. Is there any other business to be brought forth tonight? Is there a motion to adjourn? I so move. Is there a second? I'll second it. All in favor of adjourning? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, thank you, everyone. Appreciate it. Thank you, have a good evening. Thanks, have a good night. Good night. Good night.