 Yeah, everyone from the LB is here. Okay, so they're already with TV. Okay. Uh, welcome everyone to the Wilson development review board meeting of May 10. 22 on pink Kelly, the R. B. Chair, if you're a zoom participant, please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant toolbar. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in town hall and virtually on zoom. All members of the board and the public and communicate in real time planning staff will provide zoom instructions for public participation before we begin all votes taken in in this meeting will be done by rule call vote in accordance with the law. If zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to May 24th. 2022, let's start the meeting by taking the roll call attendance of all the members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen present John Hemmelgarn here, Scott Riley here, Dave Turner here, Nate Andrews here, the chair is present, not present tonight is Dave Saladino. So we do have a forum at this point, I will turn it over to Simon to walk us through zoom instructions. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. For those of you on zoom, I think everyone's got the appropriate name. Um, but if not, please do take a moment just to rename yourself. You can do this by. Clicking the participants button on the bottom toolbar, hovering over your name, clicking rename and then typing it in alternatively, you can just shoot me a message in the chat and I will change your name. For those people here today, please make sure you keep any laptops or mobile devices switched off microphone, camera and speaker to avoid any feedback. Um, for those of you on zoom, uh, we have a number of features on the toolbar on the left hand side. There we have the microphone that mutes and unmutes your mic. Please keep it muted when you're not speaking. We have the stop, start video button. Video is optional. We have the chat button, which you can use to ask for technical help. We also have the reactions button. What you can do there is if you click on it. Um, it will open up a menu and then you can use the raise hand, which you can use to signal that you'd like to speak during public testimony. You can also send me a message in the chat if you'd like to speak during public testimony. Please make sure you do speak and don't give your testimony in the chat. And lastly, if there are any telephone participants, you can use star nine to raise your hand or star six to mute and unmute. Um, we're going to be using screen share this evening so that everyone can look at the same documents. Uh, zoom should generally default to the side by side mode, which is what we recommend. Um, but if it does not, uh, you can access it by clicking the view options tab. Uh, next to this sort of green rectangle at the top of your screen, scroll down and clicking side by side mode. Um, you can also adjust that vertical slider there, written in red, uh, to, uh, make the video bigger or smaller as you like. Um, if you've got a bad internet connection, you can try a number of things. You can try turning off your video. Uh, you can try closing browser tabs, computer programs or phone apps you're not using. Uh, and then lastly, you can try using your telephone, uh, for your speaker and mic. Uh, you do this by clicking the up arrow, uh, clicking leave computer audio, uh, and then dialing back into the meeting, uh, details available on the website. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Simon. Next up on the agenda is the public forum. This is an opportunity for, uh, anyone to address the board or make public comments on things that are not on tonight's agenda. Uh, if you would, if you're interested in participating in the public forum, please raise your virtual hand, uh, uh, in zoom, please. Uh, so we have no, no raised hands, uh, and no one's, uh, send me a message in the chat. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. And now we set way into the public hearing portion. We have three items on it on the agenda tonight. Uh, APP 22 dash 0 2, uh, which is an appeal of the zoning administrator decision. Uh, that's for a renovation to, uh, to a building in town and then DP 21 dash 12, uh, which is a discretionary permit, uh, for a conversion of an existing commercial unit into residential. Uh, first up is the appeal 22 dash 0 2, uh, before I turn it over to Melinda for staff report. Uh, we are going to continue this tonight. We are not going to close it. Uh, I would like to schedule a site visit at this time. Uh, what I propose to the D. R. B. and to members of the public interested in attending and to staff is that we do a site tour on May 24, which is the next D. R. B. scheduled D. R. B. meeting. So that's in 2 weeks. Uh, we do the site visit from by 30 to 6 30. Uh, and that gives us a half an hour buffer to get back here for the start of the 7 o'clock regularly scheduled D. R. B. meeting. Um, with this sequence, um, we would, uh, we would not close that night. We would, um, or not necessarily close that night. Let me rephrase. We would not close that night and we would close the following meeting of the D. R. B. which would be June 14. And the reason for that is that it would give staff an opportunity to summarize the findings at the site walk. Uh, and have that for the D. R. B. Uh, for our consideration at the June 14th meeting, at which point we would close the hearing. Uh, and we would deliberate and render a decision. So with that being said, uh, D. R. B. members, are you able to support a 5 30 to 6 30 meeting on site visit on May 24? Uh, Paul Christensen, can you support that? Yeah, I guess so. Is that a yes or no? Paul. Uh, wait a minute. I had to check my calendar. Yeah, I can do that. Okay. Thank you. John Hemelgarn. Yes. Uh, Scott Riley is going to recuse himself on this. I'm going to butter, so I'm going to recuse myself. Uh, Dave Turner. Yes. Nate Andrews. Yes. And the chair can support that as well. Staff. Can you support that? Okay. So, um, so that's the sequence with that. I will turn it over to Melinda and I would ask the public please to listen carefully as Melinda talks about what the D. R. B. can rule on and what we can't rule on. Because I'd like to limit conversation and tonight's discussions to things that the D. R. B. can influence. So thank you to all of those in the public participation. Um, when you, uh, when you have an opportunity to address the board, which we welcome, um, please keep your comments focused to things that we can influence with that Melinda. Um, okay. Yeah, I just want to make a note. I'm going to move to the audience as well. Um, as this was a decision I made as zoning administrator and just state for the record that, um, I've not supervised staffing this appeal, but asked Melinda to work independent of any intervention for me to come to, um, the staff report that you're reviewing tonight. That said, if there's a need to call me up to the table to answer questions, I will be available. Right. Thank you, Matt. All right, Melinda, the floor is yours. Sure. Um, I'll give an overview first and then I will address the matter of what the D. R. B. is looking at tonight and what decisions they will be making and what the public comment should address accordingly. Um, so this is an appeal of the zoning administrators issuance of a zoning violation warning and administrators and administrator opinion letter dated at March 18, 2022. The letter relates to various parcels addressed to center street, day lane, Madison have Jake's way, Seymour street and Zephyr road, all of which are part of the Hamlet mixed use development. Um, her WDB 5.4 and as provided by 24 BSA 44 65, any decision of the administrator may be appealed to the D. R. B. The D. R. B. must hold the public hearing following the hearing. The D. R. B. must may uphold modify or overturn the decision of the administrator. In every case, the D. R. B. shall adopt written findings and conclusions supporting its action. The D. R. B.'s decision on an appeal can be appealed to the Vermont environmental court as provided by 24 BSA 44 71. Um, so this, uh, this appeal is really focused on administrators letter. Um, and, and there are two very specific issues with this letter. So, um, public comment should really be directed to issues that are relevant to the administrator's opinion letter and, uh, and not related to decisions that were made in the past. Um, by former D. R. B. and or staff, uh, as those students were issued without appeal and they stand today as basically law of the land. So this D. R. B. cannot, uh, undo those decisions. Um, those decisions can't be re litigated. Um, also not relevant to this appeal are matters related to public streets and the department of public works. Um, as well as, uh, you know, matters that are not, uh, directly related to the landscaping issues that are related that are, um, raised in this appeal. Um, so anyway, uh, so the Hamlet subdivision. So the, so I think if you could, if you could, the two that you were about, I think to go into the two points, I think that's very relevant. Okay. Is it okay to do that now? Yeah. Okay. Sure. Um, okay. Okay. So the, uh, the appellate statement, um, it was included in the D. R. B. packet. Um, and the appellate is appealing the decision of the administrator requiring regarding the required landscaping elements within the Hamlet. Uh, specific statements being appealed, um, are excerpted from the zoning administrators letter as follows. Landscaping on private land directly adjacent to a unit that had previously received a final certificate of compliance. No further action will be taken by the zoning administrator. It is understood that after a unit receives a certificate, landscaping was accepted as complete landscaping may have been removed, added or re-engaged by current or prior owner of said unit. So that's one issue, uh, that is being, um, uh, contested or appealed. In this field, um, the, the second statement is landscaping within mid block common land, um, located between Setter Street, Day Lane, Seymour Street and Madison Drive landscaping adjacent to units 65, 66, 69 and 70 was assumed by the D. R. B. To be not required when those units were shifted to building Z under the July 12th, 2011 approval of DP 0813 amendment. Um, so the appellate, uh, Brett Grubowski, uh, to, well, actually he did submit a response to the appeal that was after the mail out. So that response was uploaded to the website, um, uh, as far as the bylaw requirements, the Hamlet received its final approval by the D. R. B. as S. U. B. 0403 on January 23rd, 2007 and the signed final plans and conditions of approval are binding unless amended. Um, and there, and there's, I've included some provisions related to subdivision amendments. Um, the final plans approved on January 23rd, 2007 contain landscaping plan sheets. Um, condition approval number 10 states in concept, the landscaping plans approved. However, modifications to this plan may be allowed pending future joint review by planning staff and landscape architect prior to the installation of plant material. Landscape planning shall constitute at least and may exceed 3% of the total project cost. All landscaping shall be regularly maintained every year. Dead or dying landscape plans shall be replaced with similar species. So, um, there were many subsequent amendments to S. U. B. 0403 only 1, um, included proposed changes to landscaping specifically around the gazebo. Um, but the landscaping around the gazebo isn't relevant to this appeal. Um, one comment letter was received at the time of the mail out from Ron Boehmer dated May 4th, 2022. Um, the comment letter was accompanied by several appendices, which staff have uploaded onto the website. A legal opinion hasn't been obtained as part of this review. So, um, staff comment is. That's the January 23rd, 2007 final plans and conditions of approval control the landscaping for this development, except for the landscaping around the gazebo controlled by an amendment DPO 813. Um, final plans that were signed in 2011. And this appeal again, the appeal is not relevant to the landscaping around the gazebo, nor street trees within the public right of way. So, uh, regarding the, um, appellants contesting of, uh, the administrators 1st point, which is referred to in the appellants letter is decision 1. Um, the landscaping on private land directly adjacent to a unit previously received a final certificate of compliance. Uh, no further action will be taken. Because it's understood that after a unit receives their certificate that landscaping was accepted as complete. Um, landscape escaping may have been removed, added or relocated by the current prior owners of said unit. Um, so the appellants objections are summarized as follows. That the Hamlet declarations state the trees and shrubs are common elements to be maintained by the association. There's no record of any homeowner removing any landscaping element. Um, the property lines are not adequately monument and therefore it's not possible to determine whether landscaping is on a particular lot. Um, uh, staff agrees with the appellants on these points. Theory and disagrees with the zoning administrator's opinion about, uh, after a unit receives a certificate landscaping is accepted as complete that in other words, the landscaping goes along with the unit. Um, it's staff's opinion that the landscaping. Uh, adjacent to the units is outside the scope of certificate of compliance issued for the units and. Rather, all the landscaping is controlled by. The SCB 403 final plans and subsequent amendments and is permitted under. ZP 07 221. Um, that ZP permit was issued on on April 12, 2007. The administrator's note on the permit, um. Basically says that it's for a site improvements. Um, as depicted on SCB 403 final plans. Um, so landscaping is considered a required site improvement. Um, therefore, it would be reasonable. To make a finding that ZP 07 221 is applicable to the developments lands landscaping. Um, there isn't any explicit statement on the permit that an inspection and certificate of compliance is required. But the issuance of a CC was a requirement under the Wilson zoning ordinance. In fact, at that time. Um, staff is recommending the DRB find that a certificate of compliance is required for site improvements, including landscaping. Under ZP 07 221. Um, uh, staff notes, um, after writing this, this staff report that it. Um, there are practical limitations to, um. Going back 15 years later and, and looking at all the landscaping on the entire site, including landscaping around the units. So practically speaking. Um, it may not be possible to do, um. You know, to do an assessment of the landscaping because it may have been modified since the certificate of compliance has been issued. Um, but that's something the DRB should think about and consider. Um, so the 2nd point of contention. Uh, referred to as decision 2. Um, in the Z a letter has to do with landscaping within the mid block common land located in center street daily and Seymour street Madison. Um, so the zoning administrator straighter states that the DRB assumed that. The landscaping wasn't required for, for the units that were eliminated and shifted to building Z. It left a big open space in the common land and the landscaping. Under that permanent amendment was not modified. It perhaps should have been, but it wasn't. Um, so the original landscaping plan. The original landscaping plan still applies. Um, so the, basically the, the final plans. Or the DP 08 13 amendment provide landscaping plans for landscaping around proposed buildings in the gazebo, but don't provide revised plans for landscaping within the common land. Um, so, S, you be a 403 final plans control the landscaping in theory. Uh, but that condition of approval that I mentioned earlier does provide for some modification without the requirement for a DRB amendment. Um, so it would require the zoning administrators approval. Um, the DRB can recommend, but not require the appellee. To modify the landscaping plan for the development and if no modifications are proposed. Uh, the landscaping must be planted in accordance with the SCB 0403 final plan. So. Uh, given the lengthy project history. Um, and several locations where landscaping is is a concern. Um, that's why staff is recommending. Uh, the staff, the site visit prior to drafting conditions. Conclusions of law and proposed motions. Um, and continuing the hearing. Um, thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, the sequence that I'd like to do is. Uh, 1st, uh, well, I, I, I actually didn't. Didn't ask who was, uh, who was representing. Um, who was being represented at this hearing. So, if you would identify yourself, please in your address for the record. Uh, that would be appreciated. Just whoever's on, just go ahead and chime in. And this is a breakfast for village associates. And it's 32 more street. Wilson. Thank you. Hi, this is read car. I'm the appellant and, uh, the, the address of my home is 21 center street. Wilson in the Hamlet. Thank you. I'm Ron Bomer. I live at Nani Madison. In the hamlet. Thank you. Can I, can I make a clarification? I don't believe read actually lives at 21 center street. Yeah, that's, that's the reason that I'm on the board. My, uh, residential address is 77 Penny Lane and Wilson. Although I don't see how that makes a difference. Is there anyone else? Elizabeth Logan owner resident of 107 Madison drive. Okay, thank you. Welcome. Okay, uh, 1st, I'd like to open it up for D. R. B. members to. Uh, ask, uh, ask staff questions. Uh, and if anyone participating by zoom, if you've got questions for them, um, I think that's fair game as well. Are there any questions from the D. R. B. members? Um, I guess my only question is what initiated the. The investigation into all the missing trees. So, I kind of read a little bit into this, but I would like to know more detail around. How it got initiated. Yeah, so, um, last fall. Um, Isabelle Doris on behalf of the homeowners association. No, the planning office submitting a copy of the final. Uh, S. U. B. Oh, 403 landscaping plan with some notes identifying. Um, planted and missing landscaping as well as desired additional landscaping and recommended removals. I guess a portion of the landscaping. Uh, was deemed too dense and and other parts. Of the, um, of the common area were. Uh, deemed, uh, would not enough landscaping planted and there were, um, there, there was a zoning complaint form submitted from read car, um, in December of 2021. Basically saying that, um, about half the trees and the shrubs on the landscaping plan are missing. And others are the wrong species are in the wrong place. Um, so, you know, there's. And that many homes don't have any landscaping between or behind resulting in no wind block or privacy. So that's what initiated this whole. Set of events and, uh, this was followed by the zoning administrator issuing a warning letter in March. Meeting with, um, Brett Burbowski to review the statements in the letter. Reissuing or vice letter and then meeting with. Uh, staff met with read car and Ron Boomer via zoom to review the revised letter and then read car submitted an appeal. Of this, the March 18th letter on April 1st, 2022. Yes. Okay. Here members, um, any other questions. I'm going to hold for now. I'm going to listen some more. Okay. Certainly we'll have an opportunity to. Ask questions, John. After so on, I would open it up to. I would open it up to those that identified themselves with their name and address. Oh, Brett, you're on mute. There we go. How's that? That's good. I think I might be able to make this really simple and pretty straightforward. So, so obviously from the comments from staff, the issues of the issues that are being brought for because the original. The original appeal that was issued by read. Basically included a lot of complaints about. They basically were unaware that permits have been amended. So they were complaining about missing sidewalks are complaining about a lot about a lot of trees and shrubs that were subsequently be were removed sidewalks included by the subsequent amendments and staff can can certainly butt in here and and tell me if I'm wrong at any of my. Summary on this. So, so really the issues that since staff just made a comment about the area that was amended from the plan, which is around the gazebo area around the homes that back up to the gazebo that is not part of this. Appeal, if I understand that correctly, and neither is that also the other area that was amended on that one air plan, which was the area around building Z because that was amended on that approval and receive the C of O. But it appears and then obviously, there are two lots that are currently under construction so the, the last two lots so those areas are haven't been completed yet. So their, their landscaping is not done, and certainly will be planted very soon because those houses are about completed and that would include the common area directly behind those lots as well so that is. So what I'm getting is that I believe this is just narrowed down to two issues and one is the landscaping behind in that common area that is encircled by Madison Day, Seymour and Center Street. I think the issue here at hand is that there is some discrepancy or vagueness here that I agree with because in the amendment that that was the last amendment of this project where the sidewalks were removed and the three of the home footprints were enlarged. There was no amended landscaping plan was ever submitted. I have no, no, that's just a record and I think staff would obviously agree with that or me appointed that already. So there is, there was reference in there to the applicant or myself, basically submitting a revised landscaping plan. Well, I have no problem doing that. I would say if that's if that's the decision of the board that they would like to see some additional landscaping in there to replace the missing or not missing or the or the removed units, then I have no issue. I have no issue with that there's really, we are not talking about a lot of landscaping. And so I have no problem basically submitting a plan to staff or revised plan to staff that as staff pointed out can approve administrative. So there's, we, I have no issue with that. And that certainly doesn't certainly the DB DRB can order but I'm actually offering it up right now and that can be done and submitted to you. I think that's already quickly to staff for review even before two weeks from now and then the board is basically determined that they want to do a site. So, so hopefully that's already resolving one issue. The other issue is the discussion about landscaping being replaced or removed or whatever since this is a 15 year old project. The staff has actually just subsequently made a comment that. Yes, there's a reason why certificates of compliance are not issued overall certificate of compliance are not issued for 15 year old projects with 110 units is that it becomes extremely difficult to do something like that and really the all the individual certificate of appliances basically fall underneath the recently saying that areas of the project that are receiving a certificate of appliance for that individual house or individual obviously comply with the overall current. So, the, the houses all sit on their own lots and yes they are there are monuments that have been in the ground. It is very easy to determine through the site through the, the file plat that it mentions around these houses. So, I'm not talking about the landscaping in the common areas I'm talking about the landscaping, as staff as the administrator was directly adjacent to these homes because it is on individual lots. And so, as you can see from my, my pictures that I sent in. There's been modifications made everywhere throughout the project. There's been dex added landscaping added landscaping removed areas where a tree may have once been but now somebody created a garden. So, there's a lot of discrepancy here and yeah, thank you Emily. And as you go through all these pictures. It's, it's significant to the extent that even in front of read zone house there's been land there's landscaping there that was not part of the original landscaping plan. So, as well as in front of Ron's house who was also here this evening. I think that there, there's additional landscaping that's been planted and and a deck in the back. So, it's, you know, I think the biggest issue here this evening is the middle lot that is there. And what represents basically common area that I think was a was a mistake that a revised landscape can landscaping plan was not created at the time. And but at this point I'm offering to basically create one and work with staff for their approval. So that we can bring this to resolution as quickly and painlessly as possible. The one thing that has not been done throughout the project. To do it because it is actually part of the approved landscaping plans is that it is shown that the power boxes utility boxes need to be landscaped around a majority of them, a lot of them throughout the project are some of them are not the intention. And I think that was before we were completed with these last two houses that those that those power boxes would be landscaped and I actually hope to have them completed before this site visit that you have scheduled in a couple weeks. So, so that is certainly was not mentioned in staff comments or in the, or in the zoning administrators determination, but it certainly was discussed at the meeting. And I have never intention to follow through on that and hopefully we can get that completed before before the site visit. But so I really just wanted to point out those items because lots of changes have been made. I think staff has alluded to that. There is some landscaping that was in close proximity to homes, certainly sitting on that was in reference certainly sitting on individual homeowners lots. That were not quite in appropriate places. And at the time of the certificate of compliance it was determined through the representative from the town at the time that that location or that species was not appropriate and should be modified and basically move say closer to the home. And that was allowed per the permit. Basically through the original, the original permit that staff made a reference to that there was a caveat in there basically saying that modifications could be made administrative. As far as a 3% role there's way more than 3% in this project that I don't think anybody can argue against that. So that's certainly the value is not there and was referenced in in the flexibility of the permit itself. So, yeah, you're seeing electrical boxes, correct. So, so that will be certainly was every intention to be completed, and hopefully we can get that all wrapped up before for the site visit that you're looking for. I hope I have, you know, hopefully simple, simplified this whole process, and we're looking to be as accommodative as possible, and to basically, you know, to basically bring this to fruition, or to bring it to conclusion. Great. Thank you. Does that conclude your comments. Yeah, for now. Yes. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, next person I would like to address the DRB. Read houses. And I so read. Go ahead. Hi, thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to give some context to why I filed the violation report in the first place and appealed. And that is that a lot of homeowners association members and residents are fed up with the current state of the subdivision. And so there's been a lot of attention paid to what's going on as we near the closure of the subdivision permit which seems like we're headed toward that later this year. And there has, there's been an apparent lack of notice and transparency, especially from the declarant as folks purchased their homes, but also during the process of, for instance, the, the acceptance of the roads by public works. I noticed to homeowners that a review was being done. And many of those trees are not in appropriate places as well. And we were saddened to see the landscaping in the right of ways be accepted as they were. With all that happening, the board decided that we couldn't risk just expect expecting the remaining deficiencies to be addressed in the normal course of action and we wanted to be more proactive than that. And that's why Isabelle's map that she, she and many other members of the association spent a lot of time compiling. She showed not just what was wrong but also what residents found was appropriate and not appropriate. And for that reason wanting to be more proactive I submitted the violation complaint in the landscaping just isn't right and isn't complete and we did not have confidence that it was going to be completed based on prior actions. So that's why we're calling landscaping and maintaining landscaping. It probably does need to be updated the landscaping plan. I do agree with with Brett and with staff about that, especially for that common area between day Madison, Seymour and Center Street. There should be some rework of the plan because if we're implemented as it is on paper. I don't think it would have the desired effect of making it an enjoyable space. I do agree that a site visit, as well as potentially other actions to clarify the subdivision file and the lot boundaries is called for. I'm sure that residents and neighbors in the Hamlet are made whole and have a livable space, and you can see from the comments during the original subdivision approval that there were concerns that the way that these homes were spaced the way that the homes and their neighbors and the windows and the overall layout was that it was going to cause problems. And one of the important ways to mitigate that is appropriate landscaping. We have trash that blows to the neighborhood because there's not any wind block. And as you can see, there are many homes on the map that from the aerial photos you can see there's no landscaping and many of those have been there for the better part of a decade. So we just look out their back windows at a neighbor there's no landscaping to provide any privacy. And so we as an association are prepared to take an active role in trying to find a good resolution to trying to to get a state of landscaping at the closure of this subdivision permit that creates a wonderful neighborhood the neighborhood does have promise but it's been left in a tough way as we've taken over from the declarant and we'd like the DRB to ensure that we're not left with with incorrect landscaping and and everything that comes with that. That's all. Thank you. Can I just make one quick comment on that is that I'm in agreement with with with read on this but the original complaint that came forward that he's referencing. The wrong plans. I mean they they use the original plans that had been amended. Quite a few times and I think that really needs to be taking into account and I think it has by staff because we're really only talking about this evening or about this complaint now is really that one area and amending the landscaping plan for that center block. The areas basically are either on private property at this point now, or basically we're part of C of O's that allowed for modifications of species and location per the actual for the actual original approval itself. Okay, thank you. Other members of the audience that would like to comment please raise your hand please. There are no more raised hands unless read is that your raised hand from when you spoke previously was that a new raised knows a new raise but if if others would like to speak they should have a turn first. Shall I proceed. Yes. I just, I'm not satisfied that the only thing we're talking about is the block at the south end there. The association. The common land which has not been accepted by the association yet still owned by village associates and there's plenty of landscaping that is not within what would appear to be a lot boundaries on drawings and which on the ground is hard to identify where that line is. In fact, just tomorrow, the association is incurring expenses to remove overgrown trees that are not the appropriate species and work, causing problem with drainage and flooding of homes. So this is an ongoing problem not just in the space that Brett's talking about. I'm not going to get into this read. This is the wrong place, especially on that that it's fit that that area you're just referred to as 15 years old, and you need to maintain and remove trees and shrubs that have become overgrown, and that's what exactly was going on there. But that area was basically planted for the plan at the time. So, you're, you know, like I said, this is not a, not a, not a, not a, not a place to have, have this discussion. But that's just called general meetings. Okay, other members of the audience that would like to speak at this point. So we have no more raised hands, although I guess that's that's an old hand there read is it. No, I said one more thing to say regarding Brett's comment. I agree. Go ahead. Go ahead. Just briefly, I agree that maintenance is important and there was a lack of maintenance during the declarant period of control of the association. And that that period of control ended late. The association had to force taking over control of the association, because meetings were not being held records being weren't being kept, and budgets weren't being proposed so we took over control and the state of landscaping was in disrepair. Okay, any other hands. Yes, but you want to unmute yourself and speak. Yeah, actually read just brought up the point that I wanted to share. Okay, thank you. Before I turn it, turn it over to DRB members for any supplemental questions. One last chance for the general audience to ask questions please. No more raised hands. Okay DRB members questions. I have one. I'm wondering if the appellant has any specific examples of trees that were specified or on the original landscaping plan that were not put in. There may be, as Brett mentioned I don't think we were aware of the, was it SK one or whatever the change was that controls the area around the gazebo, john. But if you look at the map in on the website that is about Doris compiled. It shows in color coded trees and shrubs that were missing completely. The original plan. Some of those admittedly are, you know, are near the two units that are still being constructed over on Jake's way. And some of those are near the gazebo which can be ignored but all those other orange circles you see our landscaping that either was not installed, or is not in the right location. John. Yeah, I heard at the beginning Pete that we're not, but that the trees that are in the public road right away are not in question here. Correct. So, and I'm thinking that most a lot of those trees I see there. Not a lot. Again, the plank he's changing somehow but there's a number of those that are in this in the right away. And the other pieces that if you put a mark on the ones that are within the within the property lines of each individual unit. Again, those I also understood to be not in play there. Is that correct. Because those are the responsibility of the individual landowner. I guess that's maybe a question as much for Melinda as anybody that's for that's for staff. Yeah. I think that's something the DRB needs to discuss and decide whether the certificates issued for those homes covered the landscaping around the homes. Right, right. And I guess my question then for read is, what evidence do you have that these were never planted, as opposed to having been planted and died or removed. So, and how and how would the DRB ever begin to know that. Yeah, and I'm not. I actually don't want the original landscaping plan to be implemented as it was mapped because there's been so many changes that it may not still be appropriate as it was originally planned. But you can look at the photos that are available over time. I purchased my home in 2016. And so I don't have a view before that but in speaking with and interacting with members of the community who own their homes far longer than that. There has not been any reports by any homeowners of changes in landscaping in terms of removing shrubs and trees. Certainly in the front and rear there are small gardens directly up against the sides of the unit. And in the case for instance of my unit on 21 Center Street, the landscaping contractor that was hired by village associates is the one that replaced landscaping there because most of it had died away. And so it was replaced just as part of normal maintenance. So if you look at some of these aerial photos here. Over time you'll see that there's no, there's no, you know, sets of trees, especially behind the homes where you saw the orange circles on the previous layout that appeared and then all of a sudden disappeared. They just never were installed, according to everything that we're able to find run bombers done a lot of research on this and he may have more to add about the evolution of the neighborhood. So this is the oldest map you have the shows where all the planting done. You're talking from me. Yeah, I mean, again, the DRB can only judge in my opinion, based on the original permit documents and whether those were put in. And in fact, this board has, there's really no way for us to decide that we have to rely on the inspections that were done at In my opinion, we have to rely on that and so I'm asking you for evidence that shows that at that time there was an incorrect decision made. Yeah, and unfortunately, you know, we don't we can't go back in time and see that. So what I'm arguing is that it wasn't appropriate for the landscaping that was near those those homes I'm not talking about the flowers and the small shrubs planted out front of the I'm not talking about major trees and shrubs planted not adjacent but you know 1015 20 feet from these units that that was not part of that lot is on the common land which is still owned by village associates today. And are you asserting that those were planted, not according to the plan. I'm not asserting that there's no evidence that the ones that are circled in orange here if you especially look at the what's up on the screen right now and you look at that block in the lower right hand corner. Those orange circles behind all those units, none of those on any map or photo I have ever seen have been planted. And if a certificate of compliance was issued for those units, I don't believe it would have included the landscaping, because it was on common land. I'm going to interject because you made a comment read about stuff that was 1015 feet away, a lot of those circles are within the property lines of those houses I'm not arguing about the ones out the middle which we just discussed and said I will revise that landscaping plan. But a lot of the other circles that you are showing there are within the property lines of the individual houses. Those are the issue that's what's of contention. There's no contention about the stuff out in the middle of the common land from that. But as you can see, many of those circles are part of the certificates from clients that were received for those individual homes, or they're actually on a outdated plan, because the conditions had changed and changed in size, lots of changes in size. So, what I am basically buying for what I'm discussing here is that the plans that are being shown here specifically are majority of the landscaping plant, the plantings that are being included in the footprints of the original houses that received zoning compliance certificates. The stuff out in the middle, there's no argument there and we can submit a revised landscaping plan to do that. And also part of Reed's comment is he's making comments to say that it is his personal opinion that some of the landscaping wasn't adequate. Well, that is, okay, that's, you know, the landscaping plan was the landscaping plan what was approved back to 15 years ago. So, that's, that's, that's important. Thank you. Thank you. So, I have sufficient clarity for us to move ahead to the site visit schedule. So thank you. So, here's what I would like to do. Ron, Ron just does his hand up. You're still taking public comment. Okay, go ahead, Ron. I was with what we were looking at my argument is that a lot of the common area is outside of the 12 plants that were taken out of the common area and moved to building Z. And then others are in easements to where a homeowner couldn't move them without breath or the HOA approving it and there's no record of any of that ever occurring. So, some of the lock behind my house, there is a, I think it's a Korean maple that's supposed to be planted. There are some utility console equipment, and it's right in the corner of my flat. And then is about skipped off to the north of that property near the utility consoles are some crab apple trees that were never planted. And it's within my flat as it got redrawn. I believe that was in 2008 2009. The other one is outside in the common area. So that I just wanted to add that to in the same situation happens between each house. It's an easement. And so homeowners never. I know ever attempted to put something that's easy. Ron, there's no. I'm sorry, Brett, you need to address to somebody else not me. Thank you. Okay, so, so here's where I was going. The next the next meeting is May 24th. Brett, you've generously offered that you would provide a landscaping plan for consideration by staff or an administrative permit. When can you have that plan ready? I'd have to talk with my resources, but I mean, we more than happy to try to provide something by the middle of next week. Okay, I would I would like you to do your best to be expeditious in that. And I know you will be. And but you're not the person drawing. So you only have so much control over that. I understand that. Thanks. Thanks for the understanding. And so I would I would like that I would like that discussion with staff to happen prior to the site visit, if possible. And and if staff is comfortable, I would like that proposed landscaping shared with read to distribute to whoever he feels is appropriate as well. So that we can have a conversation at the site visit with a plan that's being proposed and has been vetted by staff and has been shared with the homeowners association. I would also like staff to take the plan, the, the, the common, the common area plan that has the circles with the different colors and, and whatnot and analyze that, analyze that for is that plan consistent with the final amended landscaping plan. Or was that the original plan that has since been superseded. I would also like staff to draw on the property lines onto that plan. So we can see which, which landscaping it falls within individual homeowner lots and which falls into common areas. So you somehow are going to have to superimpose from the plot and I know you guys know how to do that. And, and, and that will be, I don't know how to do it, but I know you do. And that's all going to be helpful when we do the site visit. And, you know, I, I'm, I'm going to be, I'm going to be real straightforward here with my next comment. And that is that that it seems like we should be able to solve this at the site visit in a way where all parties are satisfied. And that's, that's my hope. So with that, getting off from my little pedestal here. I'm sorry if I did that. I hope that we can all, we can all rally and get through this. Okay. Sounds great. Okay. Are there any other comments? No more comments. Okay. So that concludes tonight's discussion on this topic. We're going to continue this. We've got the site visit on May 24. Then we will hear an updated staff report on June 20 on June 14, where the DRP will render a decision that evening. And thank you. Thank you all. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Okay. Next up. Dp 22 dash zero nine not all those holdings LLC. Come on up. Doug and James, if you would individually identify yourself and your address for the record, please. James Unsworth. One of the owners of Nautilus holdings LLC. 28 Howard Street, Burlington, Vermont, sweet three zero two. That's who let Lamarone Dickinson engineering. I live 240 Southridge road wills. For the record, Doug and I are neighbors. I do not see a conflict, but I did want to read that into the record. That's me, Pete. So this, I'm going to try and be brief because the staff report will go in the record. This is a discretionary permit application at 115 wellness drive industrial zoning district west. It comprises excavations to create a load load loading dock in the parking lot site work including a new access onto wellness drive utilities and elevational changes to the building. All of which are to facilitate the change of use from a fitness center to a warehouse. We didn't receive any public comments. So I should have said staff recommends that the DRB take public testimony, close the hearing and deliberate tonight and we do recommend approval of the application. So no public comment letters. The fire department and Department of Public Works did provide comment memos which were attached to the staff report and included as conditions. In terms of the uses. Warehousing and manufacturing are both admitted in this district. And in terms of dimensional standards, there are no changes to the proposed building height, not dimensions or setbacks. As you can see here, it's got a large existing parking lot. The application does result in a reduction of 41 parking spaces through line striping to facilitate track access to the loading dock here. And to remove some impervious area to keep the balance appropriate. That does leave 151 parking spaces. The applicant believes that they'll need between 21 and 25 for their employees and visitors. Chapter 14 of the development bylaws do state the industry uses a very diverse and gives the DRB a lot of flexibility and determining parking provision. They are providing to ADA spaces, which are located up top here. That does well, it actually exceeds the requirement in table 14 B for one space. I did note that one of the main entrances to one of the units on the east side here is on the other side of the loading dock. So we may want to look at either relocating one of these spaces here to be near that or just providing another one to avoid people with disabilities having to detour around the loading dock. I believe the applicant may already be aware of that. In terms of bike parking, there are two proposed, but there's a minimum of four spaces in this zoning district. And there's also requirement for three long term parking spaces. And that generates a need for an end of trip facility. So that is set out in the table here. It's going to become a sort of multi-tenant lot. So solid waste, which is not on the joints at the moment, does need to be shown up. Final plans to make sure they can accommodate that. We also, they are removing one light pole next to the loading dock to facilitate construction. There wasn't a lighting plan with the application, but that can be addressed at the administrative permit stage. And we have recommended a condition to that effect. So that's it. It's been recommended for approval with findings of facts, conclusions, law and conditions as per the staff reports. Okay. Thank you, Simon. Okay. Doug and James, I'd like you to add anything that you feel is relevant to supplement staff's report. And I would like you to identify any proposed conditions of approval that you have concern with. Sure. I mean, just kind of broad stroke here. This project entails a greatly diminished impact on the land on the building going from a health club to any other use is going to reduce the number of trips per day for vehicles. It's going to be, well, we're not, it's not part of the permit. We're not trying to give up any of our sewer allocation. There's not going to be nearly as much water going down the drain. I didn't really have anything of major concern with any of the staff's comments. We're working with the fire department to alleviate their concerns. Our architect who Doug Beaman, who I believe is on the call here has already opened that conversation with them. The DPW comments or it was public works, right? With the clean out. Yeah, they're fine. Yeah, that's fine. So, yeah, I think just for clarity on the plans. There are two existing handicap, ADA spots that weren't shown at basically the main entrance of the building to the right of the front door. There are two. Isolated spaces that you see at the. It would be the south east corner. So we basically have 4 handicapped spots that exist now for the future 10. The spaces that are currently along the south side in the area of the loading docks will be gone. Eliminated. So we'll end up with 4. ADA spaces. It's just a. CAD issue on that. That's all I have for now. Okay. DRB members questions. I have one. I think the site plan, I think it's quite clear, Doug, I appreciate you pointing out the issue with the ADA spaces. I think that resolves that issue pretty nicely. A couple of general comments. One is that this site is, am I right? This site is going to be grossly over part when we're finished here for the new use. Yes. Yes. All right. We'll have to talk about that. I guess the staff about how that is dealt with. But the other, the other thing I was confused then when I looked at the floor plans and the building elevations, because they seem to be from like 2015. The floor plan. And it doesn't really line up with the site plan. Is that, is there something there that I'm missing? There are two plans, John, but. I think that discussion with her with proposed tenants is ongoing. And correct me if I'm wrong, Doug, even that there may be a few minor disparities between the architectural plans and the site plan. The floor plan says that there's an existing entrance to the right of the loading dock and yet the site plan says there's new upgrade overhead door. Right, Doug. V, do you want to comment on that? Three shots. I took it on mute. Sorry. Yes. The plan that I see up on the screen now. Are the, on the far right, just to the right of the cursor cursor move. There's we're showing a future loading dock, and then there's an existing correct the door to the rights and existing overhead door. If that's where you were talking about. Now I'm looking at the loading dock with the two trucks on the south side of the building there. And that says existing entrance and when you look at the elevation, it looks like a nice little entrance there yet on the site plan, it says new overhead door, which I don't see on the elevation so it's a little confusing. Right, well, this, this has been a moving target as of last Thursday that new overhead door disappeared again. And so we're keeping the for half of the canopy. And so the, but the existing entrance is going to be modified, instead of having a foot wide automatic door, you know, to let hundreds of people in and out of the health club, there'll be a single three foot swing door to get into that new tenant space. So, yes, correct. So that that site plan is is correct about that new man door, but the new add great at grade overhead door is now gone. And is that a concrete pad out in front of it that was there that will that still be built. Pretty much all existing as drawn on this plan now that concrete entry is there. It will be interrupted by the new depressed loading docs to the left. And then pick up again. Once the parking is, you know, the parking to the left will still have its existing sidewalk. Okay. That's all people. Okay. Thank you john. Any other questions from the DRB. Yes. Tenant 102. There appears to be no handicap parking access to him because I'm assuming that that depressed loading doc is going to block a person from parking in the two handicapped spaces in front of tenant 101. We'll be able to get over to tenant 102 through the parking lot because of the fact that that depressed ramp is going to basically sort of block that block the through traffic from south brown now over to wellness. Is that correct. James you want to take that but the new, there's a revised plan as of last week. So the plan that Doug and I are looking at right now, there are two ADA spots on. What would that be west west side. That'll be easy access into a new door that I don't is it on. These plans I can't see long story short, there's other accessible parking spaces on the west side of the building. They won't have to use the ones that will be interrupted by that depressed loading doc. So that the new entrance to 102 was actually on the west face of the building. And somebody put an X on the plan that shows where is west to the left. Yeah, yeah. West is left. You're going up the floor plan you see the door on it. Well, I think I'm thinking final plans are going to need to have a site plan a floor plan that agreed. And showing all the ADA spots. Agreed. So the new door is about action. Yeah, there you go. Okay, I see what that is. Okay. Any other questions ball. Yeah, the other thing is, is there going to be definitive blockade on either side of these two depressed ramps in front of the building. So people do not try to drive through memory, you know, the old memory drive of coming into South Brown L and trying to drive down across the front of the building pick up wellness. Because will there be actually be a physical barricade telling people that they cannot drive in drive up to that depressed area. Some type of railing system. Yes, there's going to be a curve and I think we're required to put a railing on top of it as well. So I'm assuming with reflect side, right? I'm assuming with reflectors since they'll be potentially cars driving at night. It'll just be warehouse use, but so the, and the other aspect of the vision to retaining walls parallel to each other to make up the difference to get to negative four feet long building. And that retaining wall will likely have a six inch reveal acting as the visible curve along with a potential rail so. Okay, and then the last aspect is the three existing trees that are on the east side of the building. They're the ones that you're going to remove so you can put in another depressed. Loading back, correct? That is not part of this application right now. We're just focusing on the front of the building right now. Okay. Thank you. That's all I need Ben. Okay. DRP members any other questions. Okay members of the public. Any questions. There's no no raise hands and no messages in the chat. Okay. Last call for questions. Okay, I'm going to close DP 22 dash zero nine at 817. Thank you gentlemen for coming. Thank you. Thank you guys. Okay, next up DP 21 dash 12. Which is great. Investments, LLC. Who is here for the applicants? Curtis Trusdale. Curtis. Welcome by your address for the record. My home address is 41 country club drive South Burlington, Vermont. Okay. Got this one. That's me. I'll keep it brief. This is a request for discretionary permit to convert an existing commercial unit to a one bedroom part apartment and an existing building. The property is a little less than one acre. It's currently mixed use with apartments and offices. And it will be mixed use located in the top corner zoning district. Staff is recommending approval with findings, conclusions and conditions as drafted. This property went through pre application and growth management. I'll receive the score of 33 points and allocation for half of willing unit equivalent. Public works did not have comment, but the fire department did. Mainly about how the units are addressed and numbered for ease of access. I do want to include a note here on form based code. So this project is vested under the current bylaws, but changes in the form based code. And I've linked to the section of the proposed code about non conformity. So if a project on site were to come to the DRB in the future, some level of change can be approved under the non conformity standards of form based code, but a more major redevelopment, you know, if they were to totally de-debate, and build something new, they probably would be subject to the form based code in the future. And with that, I conclude. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Emily. Curtis. Anything to add to Emily's staff report. Is question number one and question number two. Is do you have any issues with any of the proposed conditions of approval? I do not. I did read through it. And Emily clarified some of my questions last week. So I feel good about it. Okay. DRB members questions, please. I'm good. I'm fine. I just to thank you, Curtis, for, for going through this process on this project. I know it's not a huge lift. To make the changes that you're doing and that there was a lot of process with it, but I appreciate your patience. Thank you. Paul, any questions? I'm good. Okay. Any members of the public that would like to weigh in on this? Are we got none members of the public? Okay. All right. Hearing none. None. I'm going to close DP 21 dash 12 at 821. Thank you, Curtis. Thank you. Okay. 821. We're going to go into deliberative session. This is Williston Development Review Board. Or Tuesday 22. APP 22 dash 0 2 has been continued. Is there a motion for DP 22 dash 0 9. Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3. I Scott Riley moved that the meeting room is muted word. Having reviewed the application submitted and all members of the public. The meeting room is muted word. 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 by law. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of May 10th, 2022, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 22 dash 0 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. We are making one adjustment to the conditions of approval under number eight. A final plans shall include an additional ADA space on the site plan close to the entrance of unit 101. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? A second. Eight seconds. Any further discussion? One, one minor note. I would think that on the condition number 21, we should fix that typo there that sounds funny. I think it's solid instead of sold. Yeah. So, all right. That's a good point. Additionally, please fix the typo for number 21. Final plans shall show solid waste storage where he is for the building and snow storage areas. Okay. Thank you, Nate. Is your second still stand? Yep. Okay. Any other discussion? Yeah. Any other questions? I hear none. Yeah, or nay, Paul. Yeah. John Hemmelgarten. Yeah. Scott. Yeah. Dave Turner. Yeah. Hey, Andrews. Yeah. Chair is a yeah, six in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 21 as well? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. John Hemmelgarten. Move that the Wilson development review board, having reviewed the application submitted in all company materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson development bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of May 10th, 2022. Accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 21 for a hearing of May 12. ACS law, that is 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 and strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you. John is there a second. Well, second. Dave Turner. I heard Dave Turner first. John Hemmelgarner, Scott Riley, Dave Turner, Nate Andrews, chairs the yay, six in favor, none opposed, motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 2022? Yes. I make a motion to approve the minutes of April 26, 2022. And with the following change to include the, memorandum from staff for DP 20-18 to strike condition number 22. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? I'll second. Scott seconds it. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Yay or nay on the approval of the minutes. Paul. Yay. John. Yay. Scott. Yay. Dave. Yay. Nate. Yay. Chairs the yay, six in favor, none opposed. Minutes are approved. Is there anything else to bring forth to this board before adjournment? We are keeping the packet for the appeal, right? Yes. Yeah. Keep the packet for the appeal. So we're going to meet on site at 5.30 in two weeks. Where? 6.30. We'll do the site visit. We will have a site plan to review. We will have a staff analysis of the, the exhibit that was submitted. Non-compliance drawing, if you will. And then at 6.30 we'll conclude the site visit that day and come back and conduct our regular DRB meeting starting at 7. Where at the location are we going to meet? In that, in that common area. Center straight. That's a gazebo. Okay. We'll send it to the board. That's a gazebo. Okay. We'll send out a specific meeting point. I don't think it's obvious. Okay. All right. So staff will direct us with a, with a graphic. So I can somebody's backyard. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We don't want to be in the backyard. It looks like someone's backyard is for sure. But it's no one's backyard. Okay. So stat. Thank you, Paul. So staff will provide us some form of a graphic to get us all in the right place. Anything else? Nope. Okay. Meeting is adjourned at 8.39. Thank you all.