 Okay, so as soon as you give me the nod, I will start. Okay. Hey, Chris. Chris. Okay, thank you. Hello. Welcome to the Development Review Board meeting for October 11, 2022. My name is Pete Kelly. I'm the chair of the DRB. If you are a Zoom participant, please make sure your name and your Zoom sign-in reflects your name. If you, on your participant toolbar, change it, if not, currently showing your name. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in town hall 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 October 25, 2022. Let's start the meeting by taking roll call attendance of the DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Present. John Hemmelgarn. Here. Scott Riley is recusing himself consistent with the previous hearing. This is the one application that we are hearing tonight. Dave Turner is absent. Nate Andrews. Here. And the chair is present. That's four in attendance. There is a quorum. Let me find tonight's agenda. Recording in progress. Okay. So we will tonight we've got a public forum. That's an opportunity for people to address the board on topics not on the agenda. Then we have one public hearing tonight. That's a continuation of DP 21-18, the annex. Then we've got communication, final plans and other business review and approval of the minutes of September 27th, 2022, followed by adjournment. At this point, I will turn it over to Williston staff to walk us through Zoom instructions. Thanks, Pete. So just a reminder for Zoom participants to rename yourself on the toolbar or by messaging us in the chat. There's several folks in the meeting room tonight. Please keep your speakers and microphone off if you're joined on Zoom. Several features on your toolbar. You can adjust the microphone and video settings. Please keep yourself on mute when you're not speaking. You can message us in the chat for technical questions. Testimony will be taken verbally tonight. You also have the option to pull up captions on the toolbar and telephone participants. None are present this evening, but instructions there as well. We'll be using screen share tonight to share the development review documents. Normally, this is optimized by side by side view. You can toggle to prioritize the screen share or the videos based on your preference. And lastly, if you have a bad internet connection, you can try turning off your microphone or camera. You can also join by phone audio by clicking the up arrow by the microphone and following the prompts on your screen. And you can message me or Andrew anytime during the meeting if you have any Zoom questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Emily. Okay, first up is the public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone either in the room or participating by Zoom or off the board on topics not on tonight's agenda. He raised hands? No. Okay. Anyone from the room? Okay. Hearing none, we'll transition to the public hearing. This is DP 21-18, who is here representing the applicant? I'm Dan Heil with TrueGal Consulting Engineers. Chris Snyder with Snyder Homes. Welcome, gentlemen. Staff goes next. This is a request for discretionary permit to construct phase one of the annex. This is the third time the DRB is holding a hearing on this application. Several revisions were made since the July 27th hearing. And tonight's staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and close the hearing, deliberate, and issue a decision on this application. We're recommending approval with findings of facts, conclusions of law, and conditions of approval as drafted. I do have some edits to those items to discuss tonight. And particularly the DRB should confirm the number of benches and picnic tables they would like to see in the public park. Here is the hearing history for the application tonight. Conservation Commission and the HAC both commented on this application, and their recommendations are included as conditions. The Public Works Department has commented and has conducted interdepartmental review. They did not provide an updated comment memo on the revisions. They basically told me they took a quick glance and referred to their original comment memo and are looking for responses to that at final plans. The fire department also reviewed the application. They did provide a revised memo that's referenced in the conditions of approval. However, our condition of approval notes that several of their recommendations fall beyond the jurisdiction of the zoning bylaws and public workspecs, particularly related to the placement of street trees, curb to curb widths, etc. Those are dictated by the bylaw and can't be superseded. 48 comment letters were received at the time of mail-out, October 6th, and I did receive two additional comment letters over the weekends that I forwarded to you today. What follows is a list of the items that were discussed at July 26, the applicant's responses. Tonight I am being very brief because we had two extensive hearings on this application, so if the Board has any particular questions about the staff report, let me know. One major change that was made was related to the parking layout, so there was discussion about ADA parking for the community building. Originally it was proposed to be parallel parking spaces along Alpine Drive. They're now going to be angled parking spaces in order to provide the ADA space, and this has been okayed with public works. They'll provide an additional right of way in that area. And how was that change communicated to staff? That was communicated to us by email. So that will be reflected in the final plans? That is correct. This is the earlier version. I'm trying to find the one that Dan emailed to me. Can I say one thing, Emily? So that was a concept we had with the angled parking spaces, but we actually reverted back to parallel, and it was that email I sent you last Thursday, October 6. Yeah, that's the one I'm looking for. Yeah, I attached a PDF showing the parallel spaces, including one ADA space. So that was something we were throwing around, but we actually ended up reverting back to the parallel spaces with the ADA space. I'm going to take your time and find that seeing that we're on that topic. Here we go. And I believe this is the one that's in your packets as well. Okay. So as Dan said, they will be parallel parking spaces towards the eastern side. There's additional pavement space to provide the ADA access, and public works is okay with this. Great. Okay. Thank you. The applicant also will provide a sidewalk along Unit 87 from Baudry Lane to the multi-use path or the primitive trail. That revision is also included in your packets. In terms of the findings of fact, one important change to make is finding the fact number 20, number two, it should say two 66-unit buildings, not two 60-unit buildings for the apartment buildings. And then the DRB should confirm how many benches and picnic tables they would like in the public park. Okay. On proposed conditions of approval number one, I'm sorry, number two, B, is the Williston Fire Department memo. Is that dated? I have that dated as October 5th. And it's listed as a condition of approval to B and it's referenced as October 11th. Good catch. That should say October 5th as well. Okay. Emily, can you clarify one more time which is the findings of fact that have the change in the number of units? Correct. Any other edits? That's it. Okay. Okay. For the Williston Fire Department memo. What does not apply? Let me pull that up. So most everything related to access, the streets are designed to public work specifications and what other applicable roadway design standards for streets and parking access. The roadway, their comment, the roadway width on Bodry Lane and Alpine should be widened if street parking is allowed. The street parking takes into account the appropriate travel lanes, which I believe are 11 or 13 feet depending. Along Bodry. Bodry is 27 feet between Route 2A and Alpine and 30 feet between Alpine and Dunmore. There are comments that trees next to the roadway should be placed far enough from the roadway. The zoning bylaws and public work specs determine the street tree placement. And then several things about fencing for the retention ponds, the senior living elevators, that kind of stuff, is beyond the scope of the bylaw. Okay. And two provides a disclaimer that only to the effect that it complies with the bylaws. That was what I was most concerned about. Okay. Any comments on the fire department's memo? That's really the, that's really the only new item for tonight. I mean, I think the, by the language that's in the conditions of approval help address some of our concerns related to items that are seen to be above and beyond what we had planned on for using land amendment regulations. But in specific, and I think it's just, there's a couple of items that I think are important to, like for the DRV to be thinking about. And if this is a question, the roof access for apartment and senior living is requested to be via stairs. That changes the dynamic of how you, you may end up having a stair tower up on these roofs to accommodate that, that requirement. And so I just think that that's going to be something, it could affect the height of a building because, and then you also have to heat that. And it leads to lots of different things. And so I think it's something for the DRV to potentially talk to the fire department about if that's going to be something they're going to continue to ask for. The other. So, if that architectural feature were not incorporated into the design, how would roof access be obtained? So there's a roof hatch. So a set of stairs to a roof hatch that opens. So it's like those metal stairs in an access area and then you pop the hatch. Yeah. Basically it's what, six inches above the roof section. Yeah, with a curb. With a curb. Yeah. But that's. And it's accessible via stairs or via a ladder? So usually we have two. One which would be by stairs and the second would be by a ladder. So there'd be two different hatches. Yeah. But Emily, is this one of the items that is not enforceable by the DRV? Right, yeah. And that's why we've worded that condition of approval very carefully. It can be a wish list, but at the end of the day we can't enforce it through zoning. This is typically done by building? Correct. And so. Are you satisfied that you're properly covered? Covered on with the way condition of approval number two is written? The language reads correctly so that we can say we follow the bylaw. But we also have to go and meet with the fire department and work through their questions and concerns. And it's always good to understand how to be able to say that the DRVs say follow the bylaws which don't have that roof structure. You can absolutely say that with confidence and this is recorded. Yes. And one of the hallmarks of the Wilson DRV is that we follow the rules. And so if that's not in the bylaws, then it's not something that we feel we can mandate. Yes. And the only, there's two other items that I think are important retention ponds in terms of fencing. There's something that's basically guided by state permitting process, slopes and grades. And the state does require that in certain circumstances. But that we've designed the ponds so that we don't have to have fencing around the ponds for a number of different reasons. Okay. Point me to where that is. In the fire department. That's in the fire department. Thank you. It's three down from the roof access one. Thank you. Anything else? The only other item is the distance requirement. The building shall not be built less than 30 feet apart unless they have sprinklers or clad in cement support. And there are going to be houses and townhouses that will be built closer than feet apart. And we do not want to install sprinkler systems. As under code construction code, we're not required to put sprinklers in when they're 20, basically 20 feet apart. So in this case, they're requesting that it be 30. I understand. Okay. So correct me, Emily, if I'm wrong on this, but thank you for pointing those out. I had just one or two more. And it kind of goes along with what Emily was saying under access. It was talking about all turn, all turns must allow for the Williston fire aerial to turn and maintain their individual lane without needing to go into oncoming traffic lanes. So as Emily stated, the roads are built to the public work specifications along with the turn radii. So that may be hard to achieve given the Williston public work specifications. Okay. And then the one other one I had was the 10 foot recreational path shall be constructed to allow for fire department apparatus to drive on. We're constructing direct path to the public work specifications. Okay. So is that different than having allowing for fire department apparatus to drive on it? I don't know what public work specifications allow. Take that into account as far as the gravel base underneath that that's structurally sound for fire department apparatus to drive on that. What is the depth of the gravel underneath that? Okay. While you're looking for that, which is no problem. Take your time. I'm inclined to just go with the blanket statement that is proposed by staff because you've pointed out several. But if we start to cite them one by one and we miss one, then you're on the hook for it. And that's not the intent. Right. The intent is, is that you are responsible to be compliant with our bylaws and with general code. And if a department of the town of Wilson goes outside of those bounds, I think that, I think that what is written in number two covers all of us. And this is, this is, you know, I'm going to be, I'm going to be frank here and say that this, this is a, something that we've, we've had to address. And we probably on our side, the town side needs, we need to clean this up where there's requirements in, by, by departments of Williston that are nice to have, but are not, are not supported by the bylaws. And so that's on our end. And, and not for you to be burdened with. Are you, are you comfortable with the way conditions of approval number two is written in regard to the, to the overreach topic that we've been talking about? Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. So at this point for, for DRV members, we've, we've had a quite, quite an extensive past hearings on this application. Tonight we are, we were waiting for the, a couple of town departments to weigh in. They have. We've gone over that those department memos. The applicant has provided clarification on topics relative to those memos. Is, is there anything, anything new that you'd like to bring forth at this time, DRV members? Yeah. I'd like to close a little one, one thing. I was in Dan's memo about the height of the townhomes. There's a, there is, I know a discussion in here. I guess I'd like to hear you kind of describe the, your height calculations and make sure that we all understand exactly what that roof profile is and how high it is above the ground. Yep. So from the finished grade around the building to the peak we're showing 36 feet maximum, but that's actually only 34 feet from the finished floor elevation. So that allows for two feet of flexibility around the building or the finished grade to be two feet below the finished floor elevation and given the grades on the site. You know, we believe that's achievable or that will be achievable to have the finished grade within two feet of the finished floor of the building. Therefore not exceeding that 36 foot maximum. I think two feet's the max. We've talked about eight inches, the finished grade around those townhomes may be as little as eight inches. So that were the case. We would have the, you know, one foot four inches. We'd be one feet four inches below that 36 foot maximum. But you're saying that maximum distance between the grade and that floor elevation would be two feet and that there are places where it's likely to be close to that. Yes. So therefore you're not interested in flirting with that infraction by increasing the slope of the roof. But if you made that with pallor then you would be in danger of not complying. Right. The two feet is our fluff for grade variation along the width of the six unit building. It's really the six unit building that is the most concerning because of the overall length of that. So we have to use that two feet over the six unit building. So that's why we've capped the slab from the slab elevation to the roof line at 34 feet to give us that. It's the, will you read the bylaw excerpt about this again for us, Emily? Yes. So the definition of height is based on average finished grade and then structured parking. The statement is where there's a commensurate reduction of surface parking and loading areas. So my interpretation of that, correct me if you view this differently, Emily. But in that, I think you're slightly short changing yourself because if you've got a two foot grade change over the course of a six unit width, then the average is going to be a foot. Hopefully. Hopefully. And so I think you're safe with your methodology. Yeah. I mean, the question is whether there's an envelope to be pushed here to try to get a little bit steeper roof on, which you were concerned about at the last meeting. Right. The difference is I'm not sure how our bylaw requires that to be measured. Sometimes you take the low and the high and you take the half or sometimes you have to go every so many feet along there. So it keeps you from keeping it down low for all this whole thing and then raising it up at the last corner. Right. Can you provide some insight on this on the intent, Emily? I can. Yeah. So on our new dwelling checklist, it provides a diagram on how to calculate the average finished grade. So you draw a box, you around the building, you look at the elevation. These are the contour lines. And then you average it to find the center point. So I think if they're feeling confident in their calculation, we would just be looking for that confirmation at the administrative permit. If later on down the road, they find out it's not going to be feasible, they could come back to amend. So I don't think there's anything, there's any harm in the DRB approving this tonight with the information that's provided. And so just for clarity sake, the roof that we're looking at on these townhouses and from the front face, the Eve, that's about six, a little over six feet tall. What is the slope on that shingle roof? This. Three and four, two? No, it's a five, five-twelve in that particular location. Okay. It was just over the limit for changing the roof materials. Because if you're four-twelve, you have to either do a different material, our preferences, if it's four-twelve or under, you have to change the product. Okay. So once you hit the ridge there, and it goes slopes back down on the backside, what is the slope there? And what is the material? That's a good question, and I would need to get that. I'm just concerned it's going to be a very shallow pitch. Yes. Right? I think you said that last time. Yes. Yes. I'm not sure to what extent we have control of that, but I think it's something I want to be careful about approving. These materials, I think, are inappropriate if that's the case. We would not be able to install asphalt shingles in a four and 12. No. I understand. I wouldn't do it, certainly in two or even three. Four I might consider. Yeah. But again, so I'm just wondering what the material is on the backside where it's much shallower. We can work on that. Or is it a flat roof to an internal drain to go off the backside of the building? We may end up having to do that on the six unit buildings. How deep are those buildings from front to back? They're like 40 feet deep. Because it's a garage plus room. So all good questions and things that I don't have off the top of my head. So what we could do is condition or add something that says, hey, be cognizant. Maintain that. We'll talk about that. Yeah. I mean, typically we don't get into. We don't. We don't get into design elements. In this particular case, you know, it's right at the height limit. Yeah. And so that's the reason why we're having this conversation. Yeah. Oh. I mean, it's not on that beautiful picture and that beautiful rendering you've shown us. We don't get to see kind of what that is doing. It's probably not an accident. It's a small gable and then it's like a man-sert roof along the back and then, well, I can't remember exactly how we're dealing with the center of the core of it. I almost need like the drone view from above. A little roof plan. All right. That's all the questions. OK. Thank you. DRB members, any other questions? You made an interesting statement about that. Your retention ponds don't need to be a fence because your ponds are designed that you can't ground. No. I didn't say you can't ground. How did you say it? That we designed them with slopes so that you do not have to install fencing. OK. Per some regulation? The state has a regulation. The state does have a regulation and I would need to take another look at that regulation. OK. Right now we're not showing fencing there, but if it is required, this is going to require state storm water review. We can address it with the state at that time if fencing is required. But I would need to take another look at that. And what are the materials on your homes that are only built 20 feet apart? The exteriors. Final sighting. Have you ever seen a house that's set on fire by pure radiant heat? Just out of curiosity. Have you? No. It's exciting. Let me tell you. And when you've got homes that are built that close together and it gets going, the first one is going to take the second one out. It doesn't matter how many firemen are there. It's just going to happen. Yeah. So you might want to think about the cement support, at least on the section between the two buildings. Just the thought. Yeah. I'm done. You're good? I'm good to rest. Okay. Now I'd like to open it up for any public comments. And if you do have public comments, please limit them to new information that has come forth since the last hearing. Are there any raised hands? A reminder to folks on Zoom to comment in the chat or raise your hand if you would like to speak as far as seeing no chats and no raised hands. But we'll give it a moment. Okay. One other issue I just remembered. Now that you've gone to parallel parking on your ADA, what side of the vehicle do most of the ramps come off of? So there's one ADA parallel accessible space and that's on the passenger side of the vehicle. The loading space is on the passenger side. Okay. As well as the ramp. So they're going to be facing in? Say that again? They will be, the ramp will be facing into the sidewalk. Yes. The ramp will be facing the loading space. I just want to make sure about that because I wouldn't want to see these guys have their ramp out into the street. That would be exciting. No. No. The curb cut in the ramp is right adjacent to the loading space. Okay. Thank you. Any raised hands? So far no chats and no raised hands. Okay. Okay. Any final words? One of the art, we would like to just, the concept plans have been provided for the artwork for the open space or whatever. We don't have final drawings or specifications or heights for those yet, but they do need to be of a certain scale that's representative and visual. And so what we'd like to do is submit those, you know, when we do the administrative permit for phase one. So for the site work infrastructure, we'd like to provide the drawings and scopes for the relation to what that is. And it's not very clear in the conditions to when those work will be submitted. Okay. But what condition is that? Right. We didn't really write a condition specific to that one. Yeah. The public art will be, the finding of fact number five states, the public art will be three sculptures of sufficient height, both to be visible and inviting from Alpine Drive. I think earlier in the staff report, I alluded to that they would be shown at final plans, but I think that's a condition the DRB could set if you want to see the art at final plans or administrative permit. I did do some research and it's noted in the earlier in the staff report on the art. They're about 12 feet tall and the wooden circle is about 13 feet in diameter. So if the DRB wanted to include more information, they could. So you'd like to submit it earlier than final plans? No. After final plan, the actual details of it, at administrative permit for the infrastructure. One of your art pieces could be a vertical pole with what looks like a kidney bean that happens to have a circle attached to it. Could be one of your art pieces. Yeah. Half court would be nice. Yeah. Okay. Any other final comments? Hi, is that Jim? Yes, it is Emily. My hand isn't working, so I just unmuted my mic. Hi, Jim. Hi, Jim Thornton, 44 Chelsea Place. I know you got it just recently, but is anyone going to respond to Don Mariseau's notes from, I believe it was the eighth? They really have some serious questions about which documents you're working from. Is it sub 93 six or 95 17 and which document was used for deciding how many units to be built with the streets, right of ways and so forth. I'm not going to read it, but I am asking is he going to get a response from planning and design review on that? Go ahead. Okay, sounds good Pete. So we did receive this letter and include it in the DRB's packets. One of the question was about the right of way and the connection to Finney crossing. The other connection was about a 20 foot emergency access, not a road. In my staff report, I gave a history of this property and prior development approvals that obviously didn't come to fruition because the site is currently undeveloped. So in the 1990s, there was a 55 unit concept approval. SUV 95. 17. That's loading on the screen. It showed a connection where Alpine Drive is to Essex Road as well as that road connection through Chelsea Common. So this was concept approval only. It didn't move forward further. And then in the mid-2000s, the Essex Alliance church approvals were issued. They received final plans in permitting, but they didn't act on them and start construction. I also referenced the Chelsea Commons final plan set. Chelsea Commons was approved, I think in 1994, before. The plat does not reference that 20-foot emergency access easement. And that is at the far southwestern corner of Chelsea Commons where today it intersects with Zephyr Road. So there's shown a proposed easement for 50-foot-wide for emergency access. And then it also has this would be running west to east to be dedicated to the town of Williston, part of the right-of-way that's now Zephyr Road. That 20-foot emergency access easement comes later on in the plans as part of the overall site plan for the Chelsea Commons neighborhood where it does reference a 20-foot-wide future emergency access. That's because when Chelsea Commons was originally developed, Zephyr Road did not exist. The land that was Finney Crossing was still the worst farm. So this was a dead-end neighborhood at the time. But that plat did show for the future connection both at that far southwestern corner and then at the northeastern corner, the right-of-way goes to what is today Dunmore Lane and then north to the adjoining property. So that road right-of-way always went up to the property line to where Dunmore Lane would future be constructed. The question was about why we're not taking into consideration that it was emergency access at that time. It's a moot point because this is accepted town right-of-way these are public roads and that easement connecting from Chelsea to this property, the annex property that is dedicated to the town as a future right-of-way. So it's not something that the DRB has the authority to ignore or revoke the by-law say, provide connection between neighborhoods where there's no physical barrier. And that's what the DRB is trying to do. And that's what the DRB is trying to do. It would ultimately be a decision for the select board if they wanted to abandon a public right-of-way the way roads become a class 4 road that's on maintain. It would be that same process but ultimately it would be a select board decision if they wanted to abandon any of their public right-of-way. So I'm not using 93 6 I am not using 95 17 those were provided just as historical context for the permit record. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Emily. Any other public comments? Seeing no chats and no raised hands. Thank you for your time and efforts and appreciate the focus that we've had over the multiple reviews of this project. As I said initially, I do believe all the changes that we have taken place through the town and public participation certainly has helped to allow this proposed neighborhood to be better proposed neighborhood. Thank you. I agree with all that that it's a collaborative effort and I think the end product is improved. Okay, I'm going to close DP 21-18 and is there a motion to approve the minutes? Paul has made the motion to approve the minutes as written. Is there a second? Second. John seconds it. Any discussion? Are these Andrews first run in minutes? Well done. Concise and clear, thank you. Hearing no further comments. Yay or nay? Paul Christensen. John Hemmelgarten. Nate Andrews. The chair is a yay. Four in favor, none opposed. Motion carries. Is there any further business to bring forth the DRV tonight? Any update on getting another member of the DRV? So far no. Okay. Is there something we can talk to directly or do we have to go through you guys? About knowing somebody? No about trying to get it to happen faster. Is Eric the one that's talking? Yeah, when I applied it was through the town manager. Yeah, it's through the town manager. We have it up on the website. I know Aaron Dickinson has been trying to do more outreach in terms of signage and, you know, it's right on the home page that there's volunteer opportunities. There's an opening on almost every single board in town. You know, I know there's been past comment in the DRV about the length of meetings and the time that they end and if form-based code, you know, goes through in his final shrink. Yeah, it could be more palatable agendas because there'll be fewer things on the DRV's plate and we can probably advertise that, you know, DRV ends 9.30, 10 p.m. maximum. The planning commission is really good about that. They're usually done 9, 9.15 rarely during form-based code and I think they would go to 9.30. I'm sure people probably have a perception that the DRV still goes to 11 p.m. midnight. I think in the past I've even heard of it 1 a.m. So nothing good happens after 9.30. Nothing good. It's certainly 10 o'clock. Okay, thank you. Is there a motion to adjourn? It's all moved. Second. Any discussion? All in favor of adjourning? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you, everyone.