 one is actually going to be act as our enforcer plate of commissioners so the first item on our agenda is normally or at this point time of year is a discussion on election of officers and normally hold that until we have a full group as the commission president agree with that approach right now to wait until we have a full commission yep yeah I'm gonna move on to the next item we have members of the public tonight and I am not sure I think I saw Paula in the audience do we have other members with us I'm gonna I'm gonna try to do the you know ask for everybody who's might be participating this evening to just take the oath at this point try to wing it and do you swear that it the public sorry definitely go ahead excellent and it looks like one online and two in the in the audience so any testimony you present this evening will be truthful to the best of your abilities the second item on our agenda is public comments this is an opportunity for folks to offer comments of the Commission for items that are not on our agenda I'll ask if there are any requests to speak if not we're gonna move on to the next item on the agenda which is a continued public hearing for the flurry lands on center road and towers road this includes boundary line adjustment and a sketch plan prepare to speak about this yes I am dusty so you can take that off the spot if you're comfortable and can you guys hear me in the mic okay yeah it looks better on so that's actually two boundary line adjustments and a sketch plan for a six lot subdivision at the main parcel is at 108 center road in the center district we just a second to get our plans up here so I'm gonna go to the location map here so we can see roughly where this is so this is this out of the way route 15 is here along the bottom of the location map powers road is on the top right and flurry road is in the middle of here so we're talking about this parcel which includes several existing structures we are also talking about a couple of the neighboring parcels and actually let me go to a larger view of this which is turned sideways so I want the orientation for you so what we are looking at here is a proposal to first we have a number of things going on here so I'm gonna run through each one and then stop and ask if there are any questions so first we will have a boundary line adjustment between the main parcel which is outlined in black and then this parcel here which is 110 center road you'll see that this is the current boundary line to be dissolved and what's shown here with the red and the black is the conveyance from the main parcel at one of my center road to this parcel this is which is owned by sxq property and the dones so that's step one but it's actually going to be the last thing that happens in sequence of approvals step two we are going to have some boundary adjustments between 18 towers road which is owned by Sally revocable trust and is a single unit dwelling with some accessory buildings currently has some frontage on this flurry road which is a town road but we'll get to that in a sec holidays for the highlighting here so that will have to do some boundary adjustments with the main parcel 108 center road in order to create allow for the next step which is the last one once all that's done we'll have six new lots one here one here number two lot three will be this existing single unit home at 108 center road which is the physical address of that building that's lot three lot four is the podvin auto and classic bike motorcycle shop will be a commercial site lot five is vacant and planned for residential development lot six is also going to be planned as vacant at the moment but could accommodate additional development in the future only within this area here outside of the wetland which are outlined in pink ours magenta but the buffer is noted in blue I'm gonna stop there and ask if anyone has any questions about what's going on because that's a lot of information okay so excuse me for a moment I think that the chair has not opened public hearing yet sorry so they'll call on you when when I'm just asking if you understands what's being proposed for boundary adjustments and subdivisions and if not we can address that right so because there are several different boundary adjustments happening those should be completed before the subdivision is approved however because they are one step we're not reviewing those formally tonight we're just considering them as part of the sketch plan proposal those will have their own separate approvals when this reaches final approval final review and so in terms of the subdivision itself and I'm gonna switch over to the flat which shows this a little more clearly so we've got each lot out there in a different color and we also have the boundary adjustments shown in gray the other element of this and the reason this was continued from approximately a year ago was that Flurry Road is a town road and it's been listed on our road maps for many years however we did not have an actual survey showing the boundaries and limits of it we understood it was a three rod right-of-way that had a looped configuration around the existing train station which is now a residence but we did not have the formal boundaries delineated the town contracted with a surveyor to make sure that that was laid out properly and as part of the final layout we will have to do some boundary adjustments with both 108 center road the large parcel and 18 towers road the existing house at the end of Flurry Road so that's all part of the proposal for the subdivision and we'll create new frontage or rather established formally established frontage along all of these lots off Flurry Road and also established access in addition there this will establish access to parcel proposed lot five for future development and we'll also look at another potential access directly off of center road so this is a six lot subdivision three of the lots one two four of the lots lot one lot two lot six and lot three may only accommodate limited residential development and back lot three already has a single unit dwelling the parcel is large enough to accommodate duplexes for all of them and actually lot six but have technically up to four units but maybe limited by site conditions lot four is currently has some commercial buildings on it could accommodate mixed use development or all commercial development or all residential development but the proposal is for the applicant to sell this off separately to anybody who wants to own it or develop it or so on similarly for lot five there could be up to 19 units with the current proposal but again there may be some limitations due to wetlands and well this would be reviewed separately if development were proposed and the applicant is looking to sell this parcel to another developer and we have also tried to describe all of the different condenses that are happening to make sure that all the acre just come out properly and the surveyors and a great job of doing that so from a staff perspective the substance of issues that sketch are to determine one that all these lots have a sufficient frontage area and access for these smaller dwelling lots or limited development and then to look at the potential development of lot five and lot four so things we would want to consider our access which may be provided by flurry road or again by this news road off of center road the town has an right of way shown as F here on the pomegranate only partnership property aka price chopper shopping center it is 30 feet wide in the rear but only 15 feet wide in the front so if access were to come through here it would need to be widened and there would need to be a right of way dedication as part of this subdivision the other thing we want to think about is sewer allocation this whole parcel has and let me just get to the staff or I can double check the numbers here total of 40 equivalent units or EUs these are approximately these are 200 gallons per day of capacity so the applicant and staff have been working on how to distribute all of those 40 EUs among the subdivided parcels to ensure that there's maximum development potential for each and not too little for what is anticipated the last thing we want to note is that at some point there if resident development does take place on lot five we would want to have some sort of recreation or civic space one idea for this that has been discussed informally by the applicant and we would want to support this is a recreational trail along the multi-use path along the old railroad bed which goes roughly from the end of flurry road to this corner of the property and that would provide access to the back of the price chopper parking lot eventually if that was agreed upon by a price chopper it could connect to this other road that may be established here and would connect out to towers road which has a new sidewalk and would provide access to the rest of the town center this is wholly consistent with the town center master plan but we want to make sure that all of the structural elements for the subdivision are in place so i'm going to stop talking and let other folks turn in questions for staff at this point pick it so darin i've got one okay maybe that maybe we can hit it later talked about the road roadfront can you put the map back up for a minute sorry did that prematurely yep no it's it's all about road yeah when i was looking at this i was questioning on you know the road frontage would be for if there's future development in lot oppose lot five mm-hmm so it looks like there's sufficient road frontage on flurry road and i'm missing the numbers right now because i'm on the small screen but it looks like there's sufficient road frontage for lot five off the flurry road but what happens when it gets subdivided so we would expect that there would be an expansion of a public road either flurry road or the other road here from bordering with the price chopper plaza that would create additional frontage it would have to be a public road and we would expect nothing else in this situation because it would be providing a significant amount of access for in terms of the number of dwellings or buildings served as well as providing connectivity through the back of these lots and a second access out to towers road okay i'm good for now thank you mm-hmm missioners any other questions chime in since we can't see anybody hearing none darin do you have more on this or do you want we want to go to the applicant at this point i do have a couple of small corrections they're mostly grammatical or technical so i can talk about those now or i can bring it up later the one thing you want to actually uh don't write different applications i'm good okay okay um so let's go to the applicant on this who's presenting uh go flay and lancer here with oliri burk and brian courier civil engineer with oliri burk will be representing towers trust and sally flurry trust uh this this evening um so i appreciate the overview darin well done um there is a lot going on with this parcel and a lot to review but i just want to reiterate first to make sure that the commission has a full semblance of what we're looking at here there's a lot of elements and if they need any verification again i'll ask one more time uh while the plot is busy i think we did pretty good job at depicting everything that's going on but if we want to double check to make sure that it's clear what we're what we're proposing here today is there any other questions or need a more definitive answer do you have anything that you would want to add to or change or re-emphasize from what darin presented the only thing i think i should reiterate that is uh the flurry road depicted here has um gone through quite a bit of preliminary review with um public works uh the butters and planning and planning and zoning staff so we're very close to having a good handle on what's going to happen with flurry road and the select board hearing scheduled for october 5th hopefully we'll solidify what we have so again flurry road is we're on a really good track to to have that so what you see is hopefully what we're going to have finalized because i know it's a condition or a requirement public works that they will not accept the subdivision until flurry road is the fine so i just want to make sure that's clear and we got a full understanding of that okay uh we do have um we do have a couple things a couple comments i'd like to put um in regards to uh staff comments so the first one is is um staff is as uh classified this as a major subdivision and i'm you know we look through the regs quite a bit and we didn't see anything definitive in regards to number lots or why it was classified as a major and while i know there's quite a bit going on we are just looking at a simple subdivision uh we are not planning any buildings we are not planning any development we're just dividing land so if possible we'd like to go with a minor so we can skip actually plenary and go straight to file for the next one that was the first thing um the other thing was in the proposed conditions yeah uh conditions of approval we have 3a depiction of a parcel to be dedicated ton of Essex sufficient for a 60 foot wide right away along the western brownries a lot four and five um we have some concerns about that reading through the public works comments um while they do mention that it'd be nice to um have some continuity there there isn't anything that alludes to a actual right of way um the information provided that i that we've interpreted is more of an easement type um again i understand looking at some town plans there's um some information that may show a multi-use path there um but we did not see anything that showed a right of way um and there's definitely some concerns in regards to deeding a right away to the town especially since um again we're just subdividing we don't we don't know what's going to happen with these lots um there there are there are restrictions on it in regards to wetlands at check on density and again that some of the town plans show a higher density that can be achieved so we would definitely like that removed or or look at a different aspect than giving up a right away for for especially across lot four and five that was one the other questions i have or other comments i have in regards to the easement for a path running from towers road um to the back of the parcel along flurry road to connecting to all the Burlington Memorial Railroad grade and we definitely concur that staff has worked with with the client in regards to providing that there's just some reservations about bringing that path along the residents of sally flurry trust uh we would definitely prefer any kind of easement to be located within the flurry road right away on the southerly side um crossing lot five and then connecting after the trust parcel which would give some great connection to the 30 foot right away across the shopping center um so we have those two items and also there's there's some other items uh in regards to staff comments that um while i appreciate Darren's foresight in looking at the development of this and the efforts that they put in making reservations or allocations right now in regards to civic open space and rec rec pass and so on is we just find a little premature based upon we're again we're coming in for a subdivision we have no idea what the possible new tenants or owners will be proposing here um so having some kind of plan kind of collars the the use of these parcels until we know what's coming in and the applicant fully understands that whoever purchases these lots will be subject to site plan review and further further permitting process so those are the those are the biggest items um that we have reservations and would like to the board consider so for that last one i'm looking for the under the conditions we're we're looking at i get the i got 3a and 3b i'm looking for the other one okay so that's going to be in your staff comments for the rec in line number he's looking i'm still believe this oh it'd be b section 2.7 fourth page mass under master plan open space recreation must still be addressed at current subdivision proposal so that's one area of it and i know there's another line line 239 we don't have a current we don't have a condition of approval right no you don't i i agree there's no condition but the evaluation of that is again we perceive as being a little premature because you know we just don't know what's going to happen here starts again in two sections section that line 219 recreational facilities thanks Dave you're welcome and uh best of you i would be happy to respond to some of the concerns raised by the applicants engineer just not happy to respond okay let's say hang on a second here let's just um those are any anything else you'd like to call out in the staff report other than the items that you've touched on so far the only thing is you know again efforts in regards to the eu's for sewer we've got a preliminary value values again we're at sketch we're missing one and there's some discussion whether we can do an eu for the rest current residential lot of flurry trust again we'll address that at the hopefully the next final level so but other than that i think i think those are the concerns of okay yeah okay all right thank you um before we get daren on board uh commissioners any questions or applicant at this point nope daren take a swing thanks uh so to go to go through some of those um items in turn uh we classified this as a major subdivision because uh under the definition in the subdivision ranks on page 62 it reads major subdivision is a subdivision consisting of six or more lots or any subdivision requiring a new street or extension of public water or sewage facilities this is a bit of a technicality because this came in originally as a minor subdivision because there were fewer lots uh we understand that the plans have sort of morphed as this has progressed and we have no objection to combining preliminary and final review um if everything is in order but under the right we had to classify it as a major subdivision we're still at sketch so we can address any of those concerns um and we also understand that at this point no new streets are being proposed by the applicant um in terms of that right of way on the forduring the pommelow property uh this is a strong suggestion by both public works and community development staff to help maintain that connectivity and we understand if perhaps premature to understand put that in there not knowing what will happen with the development of lots four and five but because this is the subdivision process that is typically when uh right of ways right of ways and easements are established and it prevents the situation down the road where one of the uh landowners of lot four or five is not cooperative with establishing that right of way um it doesn't mean that it has to be constructed as a road or has to be constructed to a certain spec and it doesn't mean that it can't be changed in the future if we determine that that's not actually where the roadway should go but it does give uh some assurance that there will be access through there um so we'd like to continue that discussion through the preliminary and final review of the project not necessarily a deal breaker or a something that the town has to have but we just wanted to make sure it was in the um in the conversation uh have no objection we have no objections to relocating or uh better locating the multi-use path extending off of flurry road uh along the old rail bed um if it would certainly be better to keep it off of the established single-family residence property to avoid any conflicts and again it may contend on where the right of way where any right of way along uh the common low property eventually ends up and the comments about recreation and civic space are simply to state that those should be addressed when the future lots four and five come in for a review of any plan site plan or subdivision we're not suggesting that has to be established right now we're just uh adding in there that it should be a consideration in those reviews and if there is a need to establish a civic space lots one two or six this would be a good time to consider that clarification um Darren so the use of the word especially to me is a survey right away at easement are two different things okay right away typically are fee simple conveyed in the town's full ownership or an easement is just a reservation for a certain right so is planning staff looking at a right-of-way or an easement across lot four and five I think in this case with that clarification thank you we'd probably be looking for an easement at this point with the understanding that it's meant for a future right-of-way not necessarily in that location so yeah we wouldn't be looking to obtain the fee simple ownership of any land at this point but ensuring that there is a right of access for the town to potentially put a road through at some point understood and that's merely to serve the development of these parcels in the future landowners and ensure that there isn't any conflict as they get developed okay any other questions at this point for from commissioners any other questions for staff or applicant I got questions so that we're talking about the making it so that flurry road is uh defined what does that entail what it would involve and Joe you'll probably know a little more of this than I do but essentially flurry road is listed on our um road maps that we provide to the state and we get assistance for it uh maintaining it but as far as we can tell it was never formally conveyed over to the town in any right-of-way easement or legal manner but by the fact that we've been uh maintaining it and calling it since you know at least the 30s I believe I came up 43 43 um it's assumed that you know we should continue doing that and the applicants and landowners and the butters are completely uh supportive of that and I do want to note that currently it's defined as a three-rod right-of-way um on the state maps this proposal would narrow that to a two-rod right-of-way so 30 33 33 feet thank you Jeff and and it would loop around the uh former train station uh which is shown as parcels or parcel c on this so a little bit of a change to it so that definition so creating that definition of that road that is that under our purview here or is it just an agreement that's going to be so the the purview of roads uh for all roads town roads come under the select board yep so it's a statutory process to change classification of a road or with or whatever that the town overseas and those that's up to the select board the support is a guiding factor on how this is done now again you mentioned we've we've worked with public works and with uh planning staff to and the butters to come to an agreement on what to do so hopefully seeing how the old parties are involved we were in participating the select board will hopefully just move forward with it and uh agree or sign up in the survey that's been prepared for it doesn't sound like there's a wrinkle there nope not from the planning commission's perspective that is a recondition to your final action on this subdivision but you're certainly able to review the preliminary stages it would not be part of your of um conditions of approval to require that other than to make sure thank you anyone else i have one follow-up on the road um is flurry road in it's and i'm going through the looking at the staff report now i've got public works notes in front of me is flurry road in it in its current condition um acceptable for as a feeder road for future development of lot five it's more of a question to darin yeah i have not looked at the i don't think the staff have looked at the details of what flurry roads um conditions are today it is sufficient for the lots one two 18 towers road and all the existing properties i believe if lot five were developed there might need to be some upgrades to the road itself so is there sufficient space and this would be for either you or the applicant is there sufficient space you know we're talking about 60 foot right away and i'm again i'm looking at the map it's it's small enough on the computer screen i can't read it do we have the sufficient space to bring that road to full public workspecs if or is it at public workspecs i mean i'm looking to make sure we don't handicap ourselves or that the you know applicants or future future owners by having something that's substandard so all of a sudden you know they can't put what they'd like on it yep i'd have to defer to public works on whether it meets the specs or not based on what future development might be proposed but i'm assuming that because they've worked very closely with the applicant the surveyor to determine what that right-of-way should look like it's they are okay with it one of the discussions we've had informally is again that access off the center road and there's a possibility that this could connect to flurry road and provide one-way access in and out through that so it might not need to be a full 60 foot right-of-way in any case even if it doesn't meet our full specs the town engineer has the discretion to modify requirements for public roads based on conditions and this would be certainly an exceptional one and we'll defer the town engineer on that there's no preliminary and final review yeah so simply put right now they're they're not throwing up any flags on at at this point okay if there are no further questions this is a continuation so the public hearing is still open but look to members of the audience if anybody would like to offer comment either anybody online or anybody in the room itself and i can't see the people in the room so good paula leave if you do speak just uh state your name please for the record my name is Fernando Cook and i live right on the corner of tower road and flurry road what's your address sir i'm not 22 hours i'm going to be connected to the flurry now as it is already connected right here no one is talking about teachers if you talk teachers make a roundabout here there's going to be a lot of traffic on that road especially in the morning so traffic's backed up here you know people are going to be stuck to it i'm not sure if it's worth the two-way road or one-way like you said it's determined with that right away the grass is tough a little bit i have you know my plan my father did like keep grass roads as narrow as possible so we can turn it up to a thoroughfare craft one thing that has the best way to pass but i'll have it ready let me interrupt for a second please is there any way this guy we have an extra mic we could we could put in front of this gentleman because it's really not coming through very clear i want to make sure we did we get your questions or we don't want to lose it hang on getting them set up the intermission you tell when your chicken yolks it looks like we've had somebody else just sign on all right sir yes i live on my name is finanda cook and i live right in the beginning of flurry road and soon acquire legal right to linda's house the next one down and i'm concerned about traffic coming through there um in both our yards and i have a grandson that's living there now um i mean a town right away for public access for a trail is one thing but it concerns over either a one-way road or a thoroughfare um i realize it's down the road but um i mean i'm not gonna be around that long but i know my daughter is and my grandson too and i'm concerned about how much traffic that's going to put on that road and like you said that's not a i mean it's all right for the traffic that's here now but i do do building and that road would need some serious update to accommodate the kind of traffic that might be coming later depending on what happens with these locks and 19 locks here and 19 proposed locks here or buildings is a lot i have no problems about this i understand what you're trying to do but i'm concerned about the access over time like if you go 66 feet you're about gonna you know it says on this plan 33 feet too raw the last wrong i got i'm kind of surprised sally didn't show me this map earlier um and it just showed a hammer head down here and 33 feet wide um like i said uh that's my concern is too wide a road and too much traffic compared to what we already have with metal's edge right there that's a dangerous spot already the traffic traffic volume is the biggest is is this sounds like that's the main concern you've got right now with the apple because we still have i mean this is very busy and it's getting busier and um like i said that's a tricky intersection there's there's been some accidents and some pretty calls and even more people in and out of here just gonna make it even worse and if you're new i think that 40 mile an hour speed chime should be way up the road i believe that's an accident that's waiting to happen like what's an under what happened in underhill next to the cafe there we got basically we got kids and we got people starting at the stop light thinking it's a quarter inch you know quarter mile track and uh it's going to be a lot there i'm not comfortable with that thank you you're welcome thank you so darin is this i mean obviously that usually traffic would be part of the actual development application correct at this point as as as was we were reminded of at the beginning this is a subdivision um not not at the development app itself yet yeah um just before i also uh you're correct mr coop that this is a two proposed now is a two rod wide right away 33 feet so there shouldn't be any impacts to the property that you and your daughter might own um at this stage and if uh for lots four and five if future development happens there would be a full traffic review for that level of development and there would be most likely the developer would have to upgrade blurry road if that were used as the access um so it certainly gets them um uh benefits there and then it might again become one way out to powers road to avoid the pass through traffic um or vice versa whatever makes the most sense from the traffic configuration and again there may be additional controls needed like a stop sign or um unlikely to need a light but that would be reviewed when the new developments come in and it may again to clarify also on lot five um under the current zoning it could accommodate up to 19 units just based on the 10 000 square foot per unit um density however as the applicant uh engineer has noted there are some wetland restrictions there are some way out uh issues they might not actually achieve that full density plus there's only uh as they propose I believe 15 uh EU use um for sewer allocation so that would be um potentially limiting development as well there's a lot of uncertainty as to how those lots would be developed and that's part of the reason the applicant wants to subdivide them off so that um they can finish the other lots that they want to use for their personal um purposes let me ask you do you know what that right-of-way could be increased to for asphalt down the road it's I think it would be unlikely that the right-of-way width would increase given the um the how close the buildings are I think that's why we're going to two rods now I'd have to confirm that with the town engineer um but because we currently have a three rod right-of-way I wouldn't make sense for us to give that up now if we anticipate future development so under our current um state highway maps it's listed as a three-rod right-of-way but again it hasn't been formally established so what we're doing now is formally establishing it and we're actually reducing the width on paper okay actually they will be just a quick comment that um parcels a and b will be getting uh eight and a quarter feet and property because we're we're narrowing it by a rod so that's um a and b I believe that's the addresses but that's um your current property mr. fifth and I believe Linna's property so Darren is that something we can just add a under our findings just add a note that we would be looking for traffic studies for development of you know future lots or a lot five yep it's not a requirement but it's just putting a note that we recognize it as a as a concern absolutely um quick comment on that just make sure that we that recommendation is for a lot uh five and it doesn't include lot one two and six for sure so the recommendation the recommendation would not be in a necessary condition it's just a discussion point that we don't lose the the idea so I think we can narrow it down but I think we recognize that if there's if it's a if it's a recommendation or a finding that helps us for continuity going forward when we look back and say why did we do this or why didn't we do this we have a note that you know that finding just as references future planning commissions gives them a reference point as to why we want something or not so we can we can fine tune that and drop it down to what makes sense but it's not it's not critical that it's any particular lot is excluded yeah dusty I would recommend that the planning commission um require whatever or anticipate whatever requirements are would be based on the level of development it's possible after all is said and done there could be only a couple new houses or lots wouldn't necessarily require a full traffic ready agreed we wouldn't want to make a requirement on there unless it was well I'm not even looking to have a condition in this it's really just a matter of recommendation so having that that language be reflective of the level of development is probably the better a better approach yeah um any commissioners any questions anybody in the audience have any questions if you're on the we had a couple folks join us I saw if you have any questions raise your hands if you weren't here when we saw you and I'll saw you in before you speak nobody seems to have any comment specific then I then I would look for a motion to close the public hearing I move we close the public hearing by Josh seconded by I'll second it seconded by shoe all those in favor aye aye opposed motion carries was there five of us five motion carries five zero public hearing public public comment section is closed so we have and I don't see really a lot of questions on here I do think Darren you brought up that you might this might be worth moving from you know combining preliminary and final yes we're certainly open to that and since there seems to be a lot of the engineering work has already been done the survey some of the work on fewer capacity we certainly see that still out of possibility but we would want to look at the next application to make sure that it needs both preliminary and final requirements and that everything is ready to go before we would warn it as want to combine or separate but absolutely willing wouldn't be opposed to it and and we can warn it that way it doesn't mean you have to approve it that way you feel you need to pull it apart I was actually looking at it from the other other point of view do you want us you want I think we should pull the commission now to see if we support going that direction and then allow you staff to pull it apart if you feel that that it's not ready to go to final sounds good so commission this is a straw hole in this sufficient for you Darren or do you want an actual motion um you can do a straw hole but I do I think um the engineer has the comment perhaps the only comment I have is again this can't be heard to at least after October 5th right so we we have that that we have to work with it has to occur after that so they want that okay all polls find us so commissioners let's just I want to do a straw poll that would give staff the question is is do you support this application being a combined preliminary and final with staff having the option to to separate them at the next hearing if they deem their uh sufficient cause if they deem the sufficient cost to separate them find by me I'm going to go down the list because it's it's hard for me tonight uh shoe yep find by me uh John Mangan I'm good with it David yes gosh fine with me okay so Darren you've got a a straw poll that's in favor of combining preliminary and final with staff you can determine if it needs to be separated at the time of uh that it comes with a forest excellent okay um but also we need to talk about 60 foot easement I'm sick with that yep so you would probably want to modify those conditions for preliminary to include a easement rather than right of way but um that's something we can also talk about with the applicant behind the scenes and work out as for what they actually want to put in there and location of the path I didn't even see a condition for that so we don't we is there a condition I'm not sure that the language change although actually sorry I would need to um eliminate the phrase through the sally flurry revocable trust um property parcel but you can stay with power stress so I can put that up on the screen if that's easier so we would want to make sure that track changes on here that's how that would change okay and then in the additional findings is just I think we don't put an add a note that dependent upon Plenty Commission would look for traffic studies but dependent upon the level of development proposed for future with future development something like that wishes had what else we what else do we need to put in here and you mentioned you had some typos and stuff do you want to cover them real quick sure uh run through them very quickly um miss let's see um after line 59 the table and misspelled uh don't it's d o a n e not d o n a i n a uh this uh line 104 uh said minor subdivision that was from the previous review so I should say major and then uh there was a typo in transposing public works memo on line 213 I should say along the western boundary lines for lots four and five rather than four and four and that was it for my changes um commissioner Raphael had a comment I don't know if you want to speak to that but um about the landscaping and open space um scroll to that okay I'll leave that up to you no are you referring to the waiver or it wasn't landscaping open space yeah sorry it's uh the waiver for street trees yeah I had just suggested to staff that um that the process be staff recommends the waiver based on uh the you know the reasons they cited for the scenic and that uh we in our findings uh either support or or not support that waiver so I think Justin at some point you know in our deliberations or motion we should note in our additional findings either support or not support for that waiver and that's lines 183 to 185 we'll change that in the staff report at the next review so maybe that should just be your staff recommends yeah waiver and then we can put it in that sounds that sounds real again that that that shows a review and a and an agreement and so forth that's a good I think it's a good catch yep nothing else from my perspective somebody just woke up if somebody wants to offer a motion this is Franklin by the way they're looking at you too I know I'm trying to try to get there um I'm just a long one does recommend yeah um but we can we can also just say we approve it as or offer it as as we've been discussing with the corrections that say that I moved it uh we approve this application staff report as written changes as noted in the findings and in the um in the conditions um I'll give the address I guess at 108 center road and 18 towers road in the center and business design control overlay a tax map 58 parcels one and three as well as the sketch plan for tower stressed in location um Raphael I'll second that can I with just one comment oh come on I know I'm sorry it's because you took your mask off um when you look so good um I just I don't know if other commissioners agree but I want to agree with um a sentiment that uh mr flinn express which is on the parcels that have potential for future development I think it's good to call out what maybe required down the road but to remember and into memorialize that again this is a subdivision app and that we're going to see it again so I I wouldn't on preliminary find the final one to get too specific on those larger parcels because those are likely to be potentially high density development and they're we're going to get a really big swing at that down the road anyways so that's my second with just a caveat should that caveat go in the pc findings that's what I think I don't know how other other people feel I just wanted to I didn't get a chance to weigh in on I agree with Joe's comment on that I don't know if other commissioners feel the same way that sounds like a legitimate entry into our finding section yeah that's between David and shoe you guys agree with that and then I'm fine with that set add that as a finding Dave do you want to add some language to it that put some little flourish on that or what well I this is what I captured the planning commission agrees with the sentiment for parcels for future development to memorialize this is a subdivision on preliminary final don't get too specific as site plan review will capture fame or something like that I can massage that a little bit but that's what I got yeah good with that it sounds like Dave's typing no I'm not typing I'm just trying to think how specific we want to get I mean the general 10,000 foot view is we all acknowledge that the two larger lots that have the potential for high density or additional development will come before this body again and we will have an opportunity to put in the necessary conditions that are needed at that time we don't need to figure it all out right now and that's that's really on a similar line to the traffic study as well yeah it's all we're expecting to see this yeah we're expecting to see more detail and and dependent upon the level of development offered roger good take it to a vote okay we have a motion we have a we have a second we have some modifications I'm getting nibbled on all those in favor of the motion I think if I'm saying aye aye aye any opposed motion carries five zero thank you gentlemen thank you guys thank you thank you belly thank you I'm gonna have to clean something up in a little bit I bet that's the way it works so the next item is the site plan public hearing four stale heights uh proposal to construct two warehouse buildings at 22 corporate drive Darren are you presenting on this yes Sam thank you destiny let me pull up the site plans here and this is 22 corporate drive for reference we're talking about um this area which is off of allen martin drive off of roof 15 sandhill road it's the very westernmost arm of the resource preservation district industrial zone on corporate drive and we're all the way at the left all the way at the end on the left so here's a overview of that in relation to the other lots this is a project you have a parcel you have reviewed before but the proposed development that was going in did not materialize so you're seeing something different now this was formerly going to be a fitness sports fitness facility and outdoor recreation now it's proposed there's two warehouses and let me pull up the detailed site plan we have a 4 000 square foot building on the uh west to the right as you enter the property and towards the back you have a 7200 square foot building both warehouses four bays each um each with their own overhead doors we have um four parking spaces along the left as you enter um and loading bays for everything uh let's see i'll get to my uh staff notes here um there this is a generally straightforward project another uh conventional or commercial subdivision on corporate drive we have no substantial objections but we do want to ensure um there are some stipulations regarding relocation of snow storage for emergency access particularly to the rear building and verification of utility crossing separation distances and capacity of domestic water supply and fire flow um so i'll get into some of those details uh we'll note that the snow storage areas that they've proposed are towards the rear of the property along the parking areas and we're a little concerned that those have block access for our fire department to rescue to get around the edge of the building if needed so we're just asking those to be relocated or rearranged slightly to allow for i believe uh 15 feet of separation i want to check that because it's an s staff member on the conditions sorry 12 feet conditions three eight uh number two we want to make sure that there is a crossing of sewer and storm water and water lines all roughly in the same location here near the front of the property so we would like the applicant to verify that all the public work specs will be met in terms of separation heights there below grade and then we also need them to verify that there is adequate fire flow we suspect that's not a problem but just want to be sure before a permit is issued um and then there's a note that this tree that's south of the first four thousand four foot building isn't labeled we'd suggest that that be a smaller tree like a shrub such as witch hazel or um godwood because it's a relatively small planting site otherwise no objections no issues um and we'll take it away commissioners question for staff none for me none for me all right who's presenting for the applicant on this brian courier representing uh wt builders llc so we have uh good job with your overview darin i don't have anything to add we have reviewed the staff report um if i could direct you to line 114 there's a district dimensional requirement table and i believe this is our mistake um under proposed we're proposing 30 foot uh for the new building we would just like to change that to uh less than the standard 45 feet we believe it will be more than 30 feet but less than the allowed 45 say that again want it you want it to be less than just slow 45 good okay okay yep got it that's it uh almost so uh going to the conditions uh number nine prior to the issuance of a zoning permit the applicants engineer shall provide documented verification that the line separation between water storm and sewer meets or exceeds the requirements of detail a 34 water and sewer crossing um if we could just change that to prior to certificate of occupancy typically those sort of things are monumented in record drawings uh we won't know exactly what that crossing dimension is until we start construction and then if you could also strike storm uh from that as well it's just water and sewer crossing details perfect and then uh condition 24 um all pavement shall be maintained in a good state of repair for the life of the project line striping shall be maintained so as to be visible at all times i just found that uh condition uh a little odd i might have missed it on previous approvals but uh having a condition specifically regarding the maintenance of the applicants uh parking lot uh you know into the future just seems a little a little odd being out of the right away and it being a private parking lot not a deal breaker obviously but uh i just haven't seen uh that type of condition before i get it for maintenance of landscaping especially in this case where we're waving the 50-foot front yard buffer on exchange for street trees um but i just haven't seen it for a private parking lot before and uh just just seemed odd to me so daren is that is that um is that based on on something request or something republic works or anybody or is that this is a standard condition we've been including in several recent approvals um we've had issues in some areas with some um developments that payment is not being maintained and it's a concern because there's public access required through these properties occasionally um as the applicants engineer said this isn't a deal breaker for this property there's not going to be a ton of traffic through here but it does raise some questions about um you know we just want to make sure that the site is accessible also for our emergency personnel um not having payment and good repair can damage our vehicles like fire trucks and rescue vehicles and so on and or prevent us from actually accessing the site i guess i'm more questioning the line striping i mean i think that's verbiage that i don't recall seeing the good repair i think it's i don't have an issue with that i don't have an issue with the other one i was just curious if the line striping was for you know um uh accessibility you know uh i forget the i forget the right term to use nowadays for accessible spots and crosswalks and so forth but is that our focus or yes so this is to ensure that um parking uh spaces remain visible so that folks can access and park there particularly for ADA accessibility making sure that that's visible to know where that is but um again this is something we've been including in several recent approvals and particularly after drives not something that necessarily um you know has to stay in there if a commission feels strongly about it but um it also is not something that staff see the the an issue for the applicant to be able to meet um before you go too far i do want i did have one more comment on the conditions that i forgot to mention earlier uh so condition five should be struck that was from a previous um approval that we carried over accidentally uh there is no need for this to be a named road through the property okay commissioners any questions at this point for staff or applicant okay uh at this point i think we need to open the public hearing correct move we open the public hearing i'll second that moved by john seconded by josh all those in favor right i i opposed motion carries five zero public hearing is open does anyone like to offer any comment on this we have only engineers in the room um we don't really want to hear any from engineers anymore no that's guys that's all right let's have a motion to close the public hearing i move we close the hearing moved by josh seconded by john yeah shoe it's yep all those in favor closing the public hearing i i opposed public hearing is closed um anybody want to take a whack at this any i haven't heard any extra questions so um and just just to confirm the copy of the report that i've got has the language that we support the waiver um in red is that everyone is on everyone's copy yes sir okay i'm not hearing discussions who's wants to take a swing at this one john mangan the mr villamere approach for old people that live in Essex oh yeah he's not picking that one up you can always say as as uh as warned and and with you know as written john you might know you i was muted sorry i moved that we approved the proposal to construct the two warehouse buildings um on 22 corporate drive and rpd one i district zone tax map 72 parcel 322 as discussed and as written who was that who did the second i wrote shoe okay and just to confirm that that includes the changes to the conditions darin mentioned that we wrote in during the discussion yep yes okay any further discussion all those in favor i i i opposed motion carries five zero that was good thanks thank you thanks guys what did you too late to discuss anything is what did you capture in condition nine the ceo instead of a going yeah okay just want to make sure okay because that was uh darin that was helpful that you were writing it in as we were going so we could see it yeah uh let's see what we're gonna do kind of get to the minutes uh whatever day we were did last 812 and i get a motion for the minutes of 812 moving the minutes from 812 21 well second second moved moved by john seconded by shoe um anyone want to offer any adjustments to the minutes as presented hearing none all those in favor of the minutes think of it by saying aye aye you're opposed minutes pass and other business um i have a few things um i have a an air bmb application coming um before the zoning board in september and you guys have asked me rather than get your comments to just bring you um bring it to your attention it's an existing accessory apartment that's already in place in there and he wants to air bmb it out for part of the year so i will um inform a zoning the zoning board and create a finding that you were informed of this application does that sound good it works for me can i ask a clarifying question yeah when you say an existing accessory apartment does that mean it's a this is where i i'm not very bright does that mean it's an illegal rental already or is it an adu no it's a it's a it's a it's an accessory dwelling unit an adu that they want to air bmb out but isn't an adu again i'm being ignorant here isn't an adu by statute for limited to family or no that that changed that changed a number of years ago okay yeah it's it's a free for all now anybody can rent them all right we'll have that a good job thanks also i should tell since i've got your attention on that i should let you know that the state changed and you will see that in a proposed um zoning reg change that it changed from a minimum of 600 square feet to 900 square feet and there is not a limit on bedrooms uh you mean minimum or maximum maximum thank you yeah right yeah yeah yeah it's uh all right good that's helpful i'm still learning about this 30 30 yes they can still go larger 30 percent is stays the same or 900 square feet whichever is larger wow all right cool um the next thing i have is um i've been working i used to do a violation in 2014 to patrick well it's an arm in liclare i don't know if you remember that up on liclork woods and limoir road and long story short arm and built his house um not on the lot so he he put a portion of it on his remaining lands and so thus i gave him a violation and in speaking with the town attorney way back when 2014 2015 it was it'll catch up with them when they sell the house well the house was for close the person who bought it paid cash so it now is becoming it's coming up for sale again um and and it's caught so um i would like to request the planning commission allow me to um approve this boundary adjustment administratively it's strictly just to make the portion of house that is not conforming to a conforming lot um so i would ask for a motion it and consideration that you allow me to approve that administratively oh all right i just got a whole crap load of heartburn i remember way too many many issues with that that area to like how much adjustment are we talking about here not a lot it's it's just the portion of the house to make the house become a conforming lot so it's not the whole house it's a portion of the house and i don't know how much of it i i'd say like a quarter fourth of it um it plus the set that right so i mean it's it needs to be done to become a conforming lot so whether even if it was the whole house i'd say okay it's a boundary adjustment for the whole house but it's not it's it's it's a it's a corner of the house that as you come up lamoor road under the square feet forget that yeah so if i i'm gonna keep my mouth shut on this one i struggle with this one based on the history yeah there is a there is a big history there they've been holding i will tell you that um the landowner and patrick have been holding each other hostage for a little bit because patrick is looking to get an easement off lamoor road because his dad forgot to give himself an easement for that and then it went for closure so that's that's another freak show that's not going to be part of this boundary adjustment however there are easements on this 2014 flat that says possible easement and the current landowner and everybody the attorneys and have agreed that the condition of this boundary adjustment will be that um that the uh easements are not recognized and no deeds will be recorded for the proposed future easement so so they've been holding each other hostage there unfortunately i think uh my understanding is there is strife within the household of 15 lamoor which is why it's probably being sold um it might be that one of them buys it but it needs to be sold and that's holding up other issues outside of our our arena um you are just making the case for me thank you Sharon that this is way more complicated than simply last thing on the last thing would be to get the to get the easement um the landowner wants more of front yard step back so that has absolutely nothing to do with this boundary adjustment this boundary adjustment is clearly to correct the 2014 violation and make the house conforming so the other little caveat is the cell tower is back on the table and they are going to lease 10 000 square feet and they want the violation cleared up not of this property but of the large of the remaining lands so it is yeah so um and all right i'm not good so if you want my two cents i'm it's way more complicated the more you talk the more complicated this sounds and the more this is an ask for forgiveness fix and i don't care that the current buyer bought it cash the title should have figured it out this is a mess and it's always been a mess and that whole property's been a mess the whole property's been a mess and i agree and again the the only the only approval that they would get if given if granted by the planning commission to do administratively is strictly to make a lot 15 lemur road conforming so they're not giving a piece of land to each other they're not doing an even swap they're just giving land to correct that piece of house that's on the remaining lands the minimum amount the minimum amount to make it a conforming lot so there's a change the lot size i it'll change the lot size a little bit that the remaining lands of the clerk are huge huge yeah so it's not going to change the lot size by a lot um but that is the only so it is a mess you're right it's a hot mess up there but the the fix the fix of of the the lot is the only element that is being requested for this boundary just how vengeful are you feeling Dave say again how vengeful are you feeling it's not that i'm feeling vengeful i just yet unfortunately being on this commission is as many years i just i know i know the history of this i we i know what happened it's just it's there's no accountability for like they built where they wanted to build they didn't care and it's like it got foreclosed on and now we're being asked to just like make this go away and there's still future development on those parcels and future gain to be had and there's been no consequences and it's like now we're going to administratively just draw some lines to make sure that part of this house is not violating setback and and you know encroachment rules and i don't know i just way too much i guess time on this commission and too many headaches with slopes and all the other crap we dealt with on these parcels that that was that that's been a i mean Dustin you know we've dealt with so much stuff on those parcels don't forget the horseback trail oh yeah there we go yep got a ride horse through there i believe that legally they would have to fix this violation before they can do anything else on the property the house can't be sold until until they fix well it can be not only the property there's a there's an encroachment and a title issue and that's going to hold up someone who buys cash can basically say i don't care there's a title issue i'll take it as is but a bank will not give title insurance on something like this and that's why it's an issue right that's why it's an issue now so again chris crons bought this and his wife chris and was into whenever whatever year in page yes which is why they take cash and they may have been a bit but they could happen until this is not fixed not on that lot not on that lot right and there is no development to be had on that lot it's it's so okay so you know you i do foresee that you will see a future application coming in because they are you know they are trying to negotiate to get the easement and to get more front lawn which will require a little clerk woods to be shifted but that is a separate application clearly at your table you know shift so so Sharon let me let me ask what is what is what is the other option i mean if if you're asking us to just the other option is so david peatman did this this survey in 2014 joe flinn has been working with patrick as as you may know most engineering firms are looking way out everyone's crazy busy so they they they would survey they can't reach peatman they've both tried unsuccessfully um so so the next step would be okay sorry so the cell tower probably will not sign the lease um the hang on hang on what's the next step for us if we don't if we don't bless you know if we don't do this what would be administratively so joe flinn in a postponement of three or four months for a survey to be done and i'm i'm guessing when i last spoke to joe about a month ago um and i speak to i spoke to a patrick this week um he said that they told him three to four months still before they could get enough patience so it would just be a delay for them and an application for you as a boundary adjustment but just to clarify they need to change the survey or are they just asking the we just need to determine if that goes administratively or back to the planning so i am asking to just allow me to approve this administratively to keep things flowing with the cell tower lease that they're trying to get taken care of um and they're unabit they're the ability not having the ability to reach peatman and again uh joe flinn has tried patrick with her has has tried um he's just not returning call so the next step would be an application to the planning commission and joe flinn would have to go out and resurvey um the property and that's it and come before the the planning commission so and sharon in your in your opinion is this i mean i know this sounds messy and i respect you know davis comments and your opinion is it is it that clean as a simple adjustment in my opinion if if if there is a clearly written um condition that states this is this boundary adjustment is just for the um the portion of house and setback and does not recognize and no deeds can be recorded for the references on the flat for the possible easements that that are listed on the flat and that's why they were trying to get a hold of peatman to get those references off then um i think that that captures it i mean you have to be a pretty lousy attorney if you're not checking your planning commission approvals and um all parties are aware of it patrick wants to come back in with his bu d although he's been saying that every year for however many years but um so yeah i'm i agree it's messy it's it's not great to file a flat that has documentation on it that's on it but you can file a flat and never recorded deed and it it doesn't validate you know an attorney needs those deeds to see you know what was approved and how so the landowner um who again they're trying to hold each other hostage the landowner agreed to going forward with this this flat that shows this possible future easement on his lot with that condition so it's really just a matter of time time and not delay for getting a new um you know a new survey done by by uh jocelyn from oliri berg's office so it's up to you guys okay round table round the table shoot uh all very interesting uh field a little bit like uh dave does a free pass feels really there's something wrong with that i'm also nervous about two other things and that would be one that we don't have real documentation recorded with the cash like i'd rather wait the four months and have it be done so i believe i i believe i misspoke a little bit the next step would be coming before you with the peatman flat and that's where the three month delay is because we're unless i throw it on consent then we're talking a month and a half probably so you would be doing the same thing if you're gonna see the same flat you're gonna see this and if you guys reject it at your hearing then they're gonna have to go do the resurvey and come in with an application and come in with it well this will be an application no matter what and come in with another application with the survey so the other concern i have that i that i don't this could be a bigger another can of worms it's not going to affect anything that's sitting on that that large parcel right no it's going to take a little bit of acreage away it takes the space but it's not going to is nothing is proposed for patrick's lot at all i'm with dave i'm irritated like here whatever everybody else has to say okay josh um i'm kind of with dave that the more words that i heard the more confusing it sounded and we've spent 10 to 15 minutes talking about how simple this is and i understand where everyone where share and i understand where you're going with it but i'm i'm of the dave and and shoe mine that like make them come in make them fix it the right way okay and to be gone okay sorry um yeah i just not it doesn't it's not sitting well and initially you know i my initial thought was yeah let's just clean it up and get it done but i didn't know what the history of this but as i'm hearing it that just i worried about setting a precedent and doing this kind of thing and uh yeah it just in needs more scrutiny it's unfortunate for the people that bought it but that's the risk you take with buying a foreclosure too no in this foreclosure was and that's fine i respect your opinions that's fine the foreclosure happened years ago and they bought it years ago so okay it's but we're just trying to cure a 2014 violation and only it's coming to the table because they need to make some other private arrangements with their themselves so um i will be bringing forth the exact same mylar the 2014 mylar to you with the draft approval letter and we will go that route good discussion thank you Sharon you're welcome and then my um i have another couple of other things the november 11th meeting is veterans day a holiday do you guys want to meet on that day do you want to meet on the wednesday before do you want what's we're often veterans day right how do they meet when we're all we so the month of november we only have one meeting in november and one meeting in december for Thanksgiving and christmas it happens that november 11th is veterans day as well which means you would either have no meeting for the month of november if you'd like to change the date i would if you're i'd like not to skip a month completely right it would be it's hard it backs everything up to skip a month so that's why can we do it the freak can we do can we do it either the uh preceding thursday is there anybody that uses none of them they have a meeting i couldn't do the preceding but i could do the 18th what's the 18th the thursday okay the following and that's not Thanksgiving the Thanksgiving is it's it's the week before yep so the 18th is i could do that at this point that would work the 18th that worked for everybody else at this point sure perfect so we'll we'll send out an email i'll have dina pass out an email to to inform you that it's the 18th and as long as we have a quorum i guess that's all that's you know that matters hopefully we'll have you all but and the last thing is just to note for the record that the town of williston you receive something in your packet for for their updated bylaw that's all i have i can segue um so looking at the williston bylaw updates we just wanted to point out they are making some significant changes to their parking standards and we'll be taking a look at that when we look at our parking standards as we look at regulation updates because there's some good stuff in there we'd also like to provide the commission some information on bike parking and eb chargers which came up at a meeting a few months ago now i guess i just want to let you know that's going to be coming your way either we'll send it to you tomorrow morning or or soon and four we'll put it in the packet for your next meeting and that'll be a opportunity to discuss planning issues related to those okay the other zoning updates that we have are that the um the low hanging fruit so um so-called low hanging fruit zoning items that we discussed um within the past few months um we're going to um get you a um and and those are all items that are corrections or statute updates uh we'll get you a marked up draft for the 923 meeting and um we can choose a public carrying date to get those done um other than that um we're looking at the abandoned building ordinance that the village has um and um and planning on reviewing and adapting the village ordinance to um to reflect the town's needs and you'll be seeing that in the next couple of months um and we're working on a um on a potential design design charrette potentially um for january um to get public input and thoughts on um on the um on the intersection of the um of 128 and 15 roughly um in that historic portion of the town and we thought that that could be an interesting exercise for both the planning commission to be involved in and get the public involved actively in um in a process and so I don't know if you have any thoughts about that try to talk with the mask on you can take it off when you're talking oh that's true so I can breathe um okay so those are the um those are the items that we have for you that we'll be bringing forward in the next few months things to look forward to excellent with regard to zoning okay i have a rezoning update I know somebody's got design charrette aspirations Tourette's maybe design Tourette's oh we've got two kitties on the screen though mine's got teeth all right are we good for tonight folks I'm I'm getting mauled I think it's closer to having to run outside here in a minute wow you got a pee yes somebody 803 all right all right good job we gotta be adjourned I'll second that all those are favor all right aye posed we are adjourned