 Okay, thanks Scott. Good evening and welcome to the Williston Development Review Board tonight is January 22nd, 2024. My name is Pete Kelly. I'm chair of the DRB. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in Williston Town Hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. Assuming there's anybody online. There's nobody online. Okay, so we are not going to provide Zoom instructions tonight. 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 February 13th, 2024. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members participating. Nate Andrews. Here. Paul Christensen. Present. Lisa is out six. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Turner. Here. John Hamelgarn is absent and the chair is present. We have five in attendance, so we do have a quorum. Next up is the public forum. This is an opportunity for people here present to address the board on matters not warned on tonight's agenda. Is there anything that members of the audience would like to bring forward? Hearing none, we'll go into the public hearing segment of tonight's meeting. We have two items on the agenda, DP 21-19.1, which is a discretionary permit review to amend building elevations, site access, an end-of-trip facility location, and other minor changes for a project at 4840 Williston Road. And then we have DP 23-04, which is a discretionary permit of a proposed boundary line adjustment and a two-lot subdivision. So first up is DP 21-19.1, where the applicant come forth. Thank you very much. Nick, if you would state your name and address for the record, please. Yes, this is Nick Smith, SDI Ireland Companies at 193 Industrial Ave. Williston Road. Thank you. Staff goes next. Next. So this is a request to amend the discretionary permit for the VOS subdivision. There was a permit previously approved for three commercial and industrial buildings there. The applicant, as you're probably aware, was cleared and graded to the site and is currently progressing Building A in the Associated Site Workers Phase 1. They're proposing a number of changes, revision sort of window locations on Building A, revised access onto Route 2, some knock-on minor impacts on the site layout, a change to the end-of-trip facilities, and new output storage. So staff's recommending that the DRB take testimony and approve the application. The amended design continues to apply with the dimensional stance of the bylaw. The outdoor storage is located at the loading dot to the rear or front of each building. That is acceptable as they're all within the site or rear yards. And as they were all well buffered from adjoining properties by the landscaping or some distance from Route 2, we're not recommending any additional screening. As you can see there, the access to Route 2 is very slightly shifted over, has been approved by VTRANS and continues and therefore complies with the bylaw. DRB may not recall that they required the provision of marked sidewalk crossings for the interior drive aisles and sidewalks, and those have been retained, which will maintain safe pedestrian access. And then that image just shows you the very small additional changes to the layout, which basically we summarized as shifting everything across very slightly to the east. Vehicular parking and bike parking remains unchanged. It does result in some changes to the end-of-trip facilities. In the approved final plans, there was a total of two end-of-trips, one in Building A, which was shared with Building B and one in Building C. The applicant is still keeping two end-of-trip facilities, but they're now going to be relocated, so they're all in the southeast corner of Building A. In that location, they're accessible to all employees on site, no matter which building they're employed with, and they're all within easy walking distance and accessible via an external door. And then lastly, the last change is changes to the elevation. For Building A, they're proposing amendments to the front and side elevations. So on the front there, you can see the two existing and quite well approved and proposed, so top is approved. They're amending some of the windows to suit interior columns, but we do find that the overall window rhythm is maintained in line with our design after the by-law. And then secondly, on the side elevations, you can see the approved one, again, top there, and then east in the middle and west on the bottom. So likewise, there are some interior columns necessary amendments to the window at the front. And then on the east side, which is the one that faces the joining vegetation, they've removed some windows there, and they've also changed it on the west side where it faces the interior dry vile to provide access to the end-of-trip and mechanical rooms. But these changes are towards the back of the building, so they don't affect the streetscape or the context. And then lastly, might just be an oversight from the applicant, but we did require the inclusion of airlocks who are in principal entrances. So we're just recommending that's clarified final plans, and we've proposed a condition for that effect. So what follows is a recommendation to approve with findings, conclusions, and conditions. Great. Thank you, Simon. Nick, what, if anything, do you have to add to the staff report? I guess I would just probably add the entrance we would like to have had aligned with one some way, but that was a lot of back and forth with V-trans, so this is, it looks a little funky, but that's kind of what we ended on. And the window removals, those are where columns are going. So we didn't want to have either glazed windows that were blank or anything like that. So, and we didn't want them visible from Wilson Road. So, and I think Simon did a pretty good job with everything else and the airlocks are included in the design plans. They're just not probably shown on any of the plans that we submitted. Okay. DRB members, questions? Yeah, one question. So the traffic that would have been a nice traffic light alignment was caused by V-trans to move it, not you guys. What would end up happening was we proposed to extend the culvert. They had agreed initially, we came back with a hydraulic summary on the culvert. They didn't like that it wasn't meeting their standard, which was in due, in fact, to the culvert that's already existing and us just extending it. They didn't want an up-size extension. They wanted either a full replacement or for us to put a head wall in and adjust the driveway. So, okay. We didn't feel like spending a million dollars to fix V-trans culvert though, undersized culvert. That's all. More or less. So in other words, 20 years from now when V-trans comes back, it says we got to realign it so we have a traffic light there. We'll talk about this again. If that happens, I'm sure we will. Yeah. Okay. Just curious. Yes. We did give them an easement and the ability to shift that the entry so it could be aligned. So, good. Nate, any questions? Nope. Good. Dave, are you good? I'm good. Got it. All set. Any questions from the audience? Okay. I think we're all set. I'm going to close the hearing at 7.09. Thank you, Nick. Thank you. Have a good evening. You too. Okay. Brian, come on up. Next up is DP 23-04. So, if you would, good evening. Both of you would state your name and address for the record, please. Yeah. Ryan Morse, Hallery Burke, Civil Associates. Brian Currier, Hallery Burke. Welcome. Staff, go next. It's me. This is a request for a discretionary permit review of a two-lot subdivision and boundary line adjustment at 607 North Williston Road and 55 Keystone Drive in the residential zoning district. The two-lot subdivision seeks to divide the parcel at 607 North Williston Road and create separate parcel for the existing ADU and garage at 35 Keystone Drive and also convey .22 acres to 55 Keystone Drive. The BLA is administrative level based on acreage but is included as an integral part of this project. Staff is recommending approval with findings, inclusions, and conditions as drafted. The project history since you last saw it in growth management, the ADU did receive a certificate of occupancy in November of 2023. You may remember that during growth management, this project was given an exemption and therefore was provided allocation needed. Yeah. We did not receive comment from public works or fire. I stated that they did provide comment but there are comments for that. They were all set. No public comments as well. Going to the recommendations from the pre-application. There were two options. The applicant chose option 1B. The pre-application showed the access drive for 55 Keystone Drive within setbacks. The applicant has fixed those problems and the proposal now complies with the setbacks required. Once again, the certificate of occupancy was issued for the ADU. For the dimensional standards, the dimensional standards for the existing ADU that will become a single family home comply as proposed. 55 Keystone Drive now has 61 feet of frontage on Keystone Drive. This is part of the question of access and setbacks that we would discuss at pre-application phase. The 61 foot frontage complies as proposed. Lastly for dimensional standards, both 607 North Williston Road and 55 Keystone Drive have existing structures within the setbacks. None of these are near the lines that are being adjusted. Given the scale of development, staff is recommending that adjusting these is not proportionate to the scale of development. For the density calculations, both 35 Keystone Drive and 607 North Williston Road are proposing one DUE. Therefore, they just need to meet the minimum lot size for infill development in the RZD. Both of them meet that 0.33 acre per dwelling. There's no landscaping required. Pre-trees already exist along Keystone Drive. What follows is a recommendation for approval with findings and conditions as drafted. Great. Thank you, Andrew. Okay. So what, if anything, do you have to bring up to supplement Andrew's staff report? Is question number one, and question number two, is have you read the proposed conditions of approval and do you have any exceptions? Yep. No. Andrew's overview is good. I did want to take a look at condition 19 of the approval conditions. Just it states that no occupancy or use of any proposed buildings shall take place until a certificate of compliance has been issued. I just wanted to clarify that there is no proposed buildings or proposed construction. It is just the existing ADU. So I was wondering if we could maybe tweak that a bit to not have the no occupancy language as far as the ADU is currently occupied. What do you think if we struck proposed and just put new and then it wouldn't be applicable? That would work. That would work. I think that's the intent, but yeah. Yes. Okay. Anything else? Nothing else. DRB members, questions? I just thought we'd already approved this and that they were just figuring out the lines that are supposed to be handled by the administrative people. Didn't know it was going to come back to us. I mean, this is sort of what I remember as approving. It was a two-step process too. Yeah. Okay. Al, any comments? Okay. Okay. Very good. I'm going to close DP 23-04 as 717. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Emily, need your guidance. We have a closed hearing. Which is why I suspect Mr. Seneca is here. And I was about to go into deliberative session. And before doing that, I wanted to get your guidance on what we can and can't do in terms of engagement with the applicant on a closed application. Yes. Thanks, Pete. So, the DRB can take public comment. Traditionally, it doesn't at the beginning of the meeting could do another round of public comment now. It would not be considered, you know, testimony as evidence, presentation as part of the hearing because the hearing has been closed. I mean, new information presented could be taken into inspiration. Okay. Thank you. So, we're going to open up the public forum again. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to address the board? I'm not sure. I'm not sure I have anything to say. I don't know that I can say anything. I'm here to listen to the deliberation if I could. I'm here to answer any questions if I need to. And I guess I could make some statements if you wanted me to. The deliberations are closed door. So, I can't listen to that. You cannot. And when we come out of a deliberative session, you're welcome to rejoin the meeting. That's an open public forum. Okay. And at that point, our decision will have been made. So, all I will be able to do at that point is to hear what the decision is. Correct. Okay. And I'll wait up. Yeah. I'll wait. Any anticipation on how long of deliberation this is going to be? Or is it? I don't know. Is it already decided? Depending on how long you're waiting outside that door. Yeah. I've been known to wait a long time, Scott. The first two applications that we heard tonight, I anticipate, will be very short discussions. And then the application that you're interested in, I can't gauge how long we're going to talk about that. Because I just can't anticipate that. I don't think it's not going to be a half an hour. It's probably going to be 15 minutes. Okay. So, let me say something that I won't be able to say afterwards. It may help with your decision. I want to remind the board that we're in a little bit more, how should I say, grugal part of town where the rents that we charge at the Plaza are between $7 a square foot and $11 a square foot. We're not in the Maple Tree Place. We're not in the Finney Crossing. And I know there's, I mean, this must be a decision to either not have a dumpster pad there, or to have a dumpster pad there, or to somehow enhance this dumpster pad. I just want to remind everybody, I know that maybe the tenant that I had here the last time influenced the board quite heavily. And I want you to know that that's a tenant that can walk out tomorrow with no financial responsibilities. However, I'm left paying the loan at the bank and trying to build things in a the most economical way that I can. I think the pictures that we showed on that dumpster were very, very high end. And I just want you guys to know that I really would appreciate a vote for that dumpster pad and fencing as we got it. It's down low in the behind the, you know, 10 or 12 foot high bank. There's plenty of big trees that have grown for years on that bank. And it's pretty well hidden, not perfectly hidden. But so I can say at that point. Thank you. I will leave it at that. I'm just going to say that the proposed tenant didn't have any influence on me personally. And because one of the things that this board really tries to do is to judge compliance of something that's being proposed with the regulations. And that's really all I can ask for. And so the proposed tenant didn't influence me, and I don't believe it influenced anybody here. Good. We still plan to keep the outside of the property as nice as we can. And we think that this tenant is not going to be as bad as everybody thinks it could be. But anyway, thank you for going tonight. Thank you. Okay. It is 722. The DRP is going to go into deliberations. Recording stopped. We got on line. Okay. You got somebody up on line? Thank you, Scott. The Wilson DRP is back out of deliberative session. It is 754. I would like to note that there were two DRP members that were not present for the January 8th public testimony on DP 24-13. Those two individuals, board members are Nate Andrews and Paul Christensen, both have watched the video replay of the meeting and therefore are eligible in our vote on DP 24-13. With that, is there a motion for DP 21-19.1? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Scott Riley, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board, required to comment on this application by the Williston Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of January 22, 2024, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 21-19.1 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? I'll second it. Thank you, Dave. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, yay or nay? Nate Andrews. Yay. Paul Christensen. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. The Chair is a yay. Five in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. Third motion for DP 23-04. Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, move the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards, required to comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at public hearing of June 22nd, 2024, accept the findings of fact conclusions of law for DP 23-04 and approve the discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in a strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. We are going to modify condition 19 to strike the word proposed and change it to new, so the first sentence will read, no occupancy or use of any new building shall take place until certificate of compliance has been issued signifying that all conditions of any required permits for the town have been satisfied. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds. Any discussion? Yay or nay? Nate? Yay. Paul? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. The Chair is a yay, five in favor, none opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 24-13? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Nate Andrews, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted into all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of January 8th, 2024, accept the finding of fact and conclusions of law as listed above and hereby deny DP 23-14. Thank you, Nate. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds. Any discussion? Okay, so there's been a motion to deny, and when I go around for the yay or nay, a yay is concurring with the denial. Paul, whoops, I'm sorry, nay, yay or nay? Yay. Paul? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. The Chair is a yay as well. Five in favor of denial, none opposed, and so DP 23-14 is hereby denied. Next up is the approval of the minutes. The minutes of January 8th. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? I'm making motion to approve the minutes as written. January 8th, 2020. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? All second. Nate seconds. Any discussion? Hearing none, a yay or nay to approve the minutes as written. Nate? Yay. Paul? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. Chair is a yay. Five in favor, none opposed. The meeting minutes of January 8th are hereby approved. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? I do have one question for staff on the Tower of the State Police Building. Do we remember if they requested lighting on top of that tower? Because driving down the interstate, you see a big red glow up there, and I was like, interesting. And towers usually less than 200 feet don't require lighting. I don't recall. I don't need those as well. Yeah. Is it in the flight path? It is in the flight path. Definitely. It wouldn't matter. You're saying that was brought up at this point. There was discussion about that. I think it would be beyond our authority because of the federal regulations and they can 44-13. It's an FAA. Yeah. It's interesting when you're driving down the interstate now, you see the big black area and a big red glow. My inspection was in the daytime and I don't know if it was fully operational yet. Okay. I was just curious. Any other matters to bring forth? Okay. No. Never mind. No. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Is there a second? All second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. We are