 So I can skip the Zoom piece, all votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance and DRB members participating tonight. Nate Andrews. Here. Paul Christensen. Present. Lisa is absent. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Turner. Here. John Hemmelgarner. Here. And the chair is present. We have six in attendance. We do have a quorum. So for tonight's agenda, we've got just one application. It's DP 23-16, Shambling Valley School District. And then we will review the minutes of May 23, 2023. So a relatively light agenda for tonight. First order of business is the public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone in attendance who would like to comment to the board on issues that are not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to take that opportunity? OK, hearing none, first up is we'll go into the public hearing. First up is the sole application tonight, DP 23-16. If the applicant would please come forward to the table. And once you get settled in, state your name and address for the record, please. Good evening, everybody. My name is Jeff Kirschner. I'm from Hamlin Engineers, 136 Pearl Street, Essex County. I'm Chris Girard from the Shambling Valley School District. Thank you. As a disclosure, Chris works in a number of different school systems, including Charlotte D.E.W. construction. My employer has done work in Charlotte. I don't deem that in this particular case to be a conflict of interest, but I did want to disclose it. So with that, Simon, I will turn it over to you to read staff report, please. So this is a request for a discretionary permit at the Hallenburg School in the residential silent district. There are two main elements. Firstly, a modular classroom positioned at the front of the school to provide two new classrooms. And secondly, an outdoor storage area next to the existing maintenance shed. The classrooms are needed to a three to five-year period to account for an increase in enrollment of 25 students and for the sort of evolution of school teaching methodologies which require more space. Staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and approve the application tonight. We did receive one letter of comment from a neighbouring resident. They raised issue with the classrooms being moved after five years. And a sort of ad hoc parking storage area that developed the school over the years. We are the same for temporary and permanent structures. We treat them the same under this pile-off. School is undertaking a comprehensive facility master plan that is going to identify sort of the current and future education ideas and will develop the sort of more permanent solution for the school. These classrooms are needed on a temporary basis. How can we possibly figure that out? In response to the butters letter, the applicant has modified the site plan. The area you see there in red is the sort of ad hoc parking and storage area. They've committed to sort of receding that turning back to law and creating a sort of formal storage area next to the existing maintenance shed. In terms of the district, the proposal does comply with the dimensional requirements. Outdoor storage is permitted in this district. There are no specific standards, but they are required to meet the landscaping requirements of Chapter 23. In this case, that is, the landscape butters, those exist, and the sort of area of the project is probably 400 feet from the nearest butter, which is what an accessible requirement. In terms of access and connectivity, safe protection access will be maintained. They're not proposing any changes to the traffic or circulation areas. Also, at the moment, the existing situation with children walking to school being escorted by parents or staff overseeing things, or children walking to school being maintained, the existing entrance to the school and the new entrance, which will have classroom design being much the same location. In terms of parking, there's 112 people take parking spaces on the property at the moment, which does provide sufficient space for the increased enrollment, 325 students. We are removing the unauthorized parking area as part of this proposal, but there will remain sufficient space to accommodate parking at the John Allen Brook Park. I've spoken with the Director of Parson-Mercification where the town also supports removing that area before it. As I mentioned earlier, the modular or temporary buildings is subject to the same permitting requirements as government structures, and so we're not recommending conditions for the structure to be removed as part of the period of time. Simply because we don't have a bylaw for one to support last. The applicant has committed to replacing the tree that are going to go away to tend to oversight these modular classrooms. And then lastly, there are no changes to the existing lighting, but there will be having one light on the building, which is going to comply with chapter 24 on outdoor lighting. We will approve that at administrative permit stage. So what does follow is a recommendation to approve this permit with conditions. Great. Thank you, Santa. Jeff and Chris. So two part question, if you've got any comments to what was the staff report is part one of my question and then part two, have you reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and are there any that you have concern about? Just a couple of notes here on the staff report. I'll move very quickly through there. So I see there's some discussion in here about onsite infrastructure and a reference is made to the comments from the Department of Public Works. We did revise the plans in response to those comments and I haven't gotten any feedback whether or not those are acceptable or not. They're still reviewing them. Okay. They're a little short staffed. Okay, fine. And then the other comment is about the lighting. They're actually, I believe, Chris can correct me if I'm wrong. I think there's going to be three. There's one small light above each building entrance. There's a main entrance on the front door on the front of the building and then there's secondary entrances out of each classroom in the back of the building and each one, I believe, is going to have a light on it. Correct. So it's three new building lights. They'll all be the same. But it's different than what you've got here. Okay. And so if Chris doesn't have any, there's no questions on that. I do have a couple of questions on the conditions of approval that I wanted to zip down through. Go ahead. You're ready for that. So number two way I talked about already is we did make revisions in response to the public work comments. We don't know if those have been accepted yet. They are reflected on the last plan set, which I think is the one that's up. The Williston Fire Department comments will be addressed by the school district as part of the next phase. Number three, I wasn't sure if that was just a standard condition in there. I don't believe it's applicable to this one, but I wasn't sure. Correct. It's a standard condition. So I don't anticipate any usements or dedication of land or anything like that. Number four, I had the same comments last question. Whether or not the district needed to provide a letter of credit for these temporary classrooms? Not in this case. Okay, so. It's in there, so I just wanted to note it. Is it appropriate if we just drop number four? We can do. These are standard conditions that we apply to every discretionary permit. It doesn't necessarily mean that's the right way of doing it, but we do apply these consistently. As we're not doing that in this case and there's no public or private improvements, I think are required by the by-law. I think we should stop here. Well, we could, sorry to have this. Okay, this is, I was gonna make a comment, but if we do strike it, then we really then take on the responsibility to review it every time going forward. Correct. If it's part of the kind of the template, and if it just doesn't apply, then we should leave it alone and just keep it in there. And you understand where I'm going with that? I do. The only concern that I have is if it's in there, it says we will do this. And so if there's a condition. We could change the wording from shall to may. I don't think you need to change anything because it says any required public or private improvement, then how can I show post any required letters of credit, miles assignment just said that they're not required. And so therefore this is totally not applicable. And it's what's required in the by-law. So it's not changing what's required of you. It's making sure that if it is required, you're agreeing to comply. Yeah. That's fine. I hate to start striking different boilerplate things because we'd be opening up a can of worms. So, okay. I'm just careful because sometimes if it says that you've got to do it and we all say it's not applicable, we still might have to do it because it says it. So I'm with you. The required word is important here. Okay. Okay. Continue please. In terms of number six, shall we in compliance with the lighting level requirements of chapter 24? I was under the impression based on our initial meetings that we didn't need to do a full-blown lighting plan for this. All we need to do is provide a catalog cut of that picture. Yeah. In terms of light levels, you're not expecting a foot candle plan or anything like that. No, nothing like that. Just an idea about what these are and the main thing is that that would shield it. You get to see it and we don't know it. We just don't want to show up with a floodlight. Yeah. It's just a level effort for me. If I got to go do a lighting plan, I just need to know that I need to do that. No, that's not my message there. I didn't think so. Number seven, same thing. There's reference in here to a landscaping plan included as part of the final plans. We're taking out three trees and when we take the building out of there, we're going to put those trees back in kind. That was kind of the lighting plan. I just wanted to be clear on the expectations of the staff. Landscaping plan. I'm sorry, landscaping plan. No, no, you're clear on that. Okay. And again, that's just the point of the day. You won't be talking about the smart on camera. Okay. Okay. You just gave me a heads up. I didn't even have to kick it. Number eight, in terms of a parking table, it sounds like you are expecting that analysis to show up on the plan. We hadn't, when we talked initially, we hadn't really talked about doing that because we're not making any changes to the parking. Again, I just want to be clear on the expectation going forward. I think it'd be helpful just to have a number of parking spaces annotated. Okay. That's done here. Number 11, talks about impact fees, which I believe these are traffic impact fees is primarily the one we're talking about here. I don't see that this right now with this proposal that this site generates any more cars than it did initially. Initially, there was 400 students and 60 staff or something. Now we're down to 300 students and 50 staff. Correct. It's the required impact fees that are not required. Okay. Yep. The school doesn't pay the impact fees, correct? All right. Okay. It's another boilerplate. It's another boilerplate. The school doesn't count. Okay. I think that that's it. I got a couple other NAs here, but they're obvious NAs mowing in the application of fertilizers and all that other stuff. I think that was it. That's all I had. Okay. Okay. Good questions. Chris, anything? Okay. Okay. DRV members, questions. Were there other options for the site considered and why was this particular site chosen? Well, there were units that were, if you're looking in front of the school, the main entrance to the right of the building. We couldn't put them there again because we now have a playground there. So it would require us to remove the playground and move it. And it's right off the door or right off the building where the preschool classrooms are because that's where the preschool is. So we couldn't put it back there. We didn't want to put it in the back of the building to feel that that would be appropriate. So we placed it as close as we could to where the utilities were. So we didn't have to do extra long trenches for water, power and sewer. So the best location is where it's actually being placed because all the utilities are right there. How does a modular building with a separate entrance fit into the school security plan? So how is it gonna fit into the security plan? So we will have door access to the door so that there'll be key carts. So that'll be built in as far as security features. We will also have, there's gonna be a camera on the outside of the building that will be looking at the trailers themselves. And then the rest of it will be working with the faculty and staff that'll be using the space and coming up with our own security plans based on once we're in there and we know what we're doing with the space. Just like with the school, we have to kind of look at our conditions and look at our surroundings and try to figure out what our best practice is for. Any other questions? These modules will also be full ADA plan, right? Correct. Yeah, yeah. And the other option question, and you might wanna consider if there is a nice spot for a second building for the future, just in case there's another group that do a plan. Oh, we're hoping not to go that far. Well, I know it was okay, but a lot of building going on in Malston. John, do you have a question? I did. And he kind of dug tails onto that a little bit. You know, I'm quite familiar with the previous set of modular classrooms that I attended school in them for two years. There is room over there, I think, beyond where the playground is to put them. My concerns are that this is right out front, as Nate was getting at, it's pretty out there kind of spot. It's also extremely visible. And I know that the pack doesn't get the review that is from an aesthetic standpoint, but it's still not the most attractive spot to put. A modular building, and you would all agree has limited aesthetic value. In addition to that, you're cutting down three trees, which have grown up quite nicely along that side in which you do a good job of landscaping the parking lot, which is the requirement. Thirdly, I'm confused about this. I keep hearing that they're temporary, but I hear from Simon that we need to assume these are permanent. We need to review them as if they're permanent. Well, there's no distinction in the bylaw. Exactly, so these buildings go in. So I don't think that we can agree, just like we can't make them take them out. I don't think we can agree that you can, when they go out, we'll do something. These trees are there. They were required by a previous permit, I presume. I don't know if they're sufficient. So, at the very least, I think they should be replaced now. Well, didn't they say they were gonna replace them? That's not, only when they're removed is how I write that. So I guess I look for clarification. That's how I write it too. And I'm not sure a good subsequent question would be, is there even a room with where you're putting this between the parking lot and this building to replace those trees with this current plan? I have about 32 feet between the building and the back side of the modular unit. The back side? Yes. How much between the front of the building and the parking? It's gonna be as close as I can get it to the sidewalk, so we're not putting in additional concrete surfaces. So again, my concern to the, yes, and if I knew these are temporary, they were coming out in three years, and I'm probably much more likely to do that, but I know that the last ones were there for considerably longer than three years. And so when this is here for five years or 10 years or 12 years, the trees that you plant now are gonna be 10 years old and they actually would be something. And so therefore, there's this funny gray area here of how long is it gonna be there, and I don't think you can answer it. I can. Mr. Helmogarner, are you talking about just planting them somewhere else on the site? Three trees somewhere else? I think at the absolute minimum, that would be the case. If you're gonna take out those three trees, I think you should be replacing them and not at some uncertain date in the future. I don't know what the requirements were for those trees and whether that was part of the required landscaping for the parking lot and how that works, and there's a certain percentage of trees that you need to have. Yeah, so the way the parking lot landspainting is sort of talking about not more than 24 consecutive hours per season in the evenings. So there's not much about the landscape about the livery on the lawn. It's about just avoiding the idea of a situation when you have enormous experiences of past faults. Probably share exact warnings. That's helpful. I think I get that. But I do think that replacing these trees or putting trees back in the locations would really be a part of the application when these are coming out and there's some other piece of building going on at Allen Brooker, which I'm pretty certain is this group would be correct. Is the primary route for the children to move between this building and the main building along that front entrance that goes along the front sidewalk bordering the parking lot? Yes. So if I add, when we were, Chris actually came to me and we were talking about siding this building, this was exactly the discussion we had because me, the first place I wanted to put it was back there. And then we got talking about kids getting out of the car, getting dropped off, getting into this building, getting into the main building, being near a drop off, being near existing sidewalks, and suddenly this made a good sense to put it here out front where people are supervising the kids, getting in and out of the, coming to school and departing school. This is where that activity is happening. We didn't want to send these young children out to the back where nobody's watching. They're kind of, they are out front. That's kind of, that was the discussion we had and that was the point of why we're doing this. And I will jump right in and from my perspective and saying, I consider that to be the right answer. And I disagree with putting this thing in the back. That's foolish, given what goes on in this day and age. I've got one other comment too though. And these are two other comments. They are temporary trailers. If you look at the architecture of the school building, it's brutalistic. These fit right in. We've been agreed to disagree on that. My point is that you know as well as I do, the length of time it takes to get funding, permitting, design, building on school, they had no idea. I mean, how long you've seen them. I don't know they had no idea. But because I've worked on schools, I've been doing that for a living. I understand that. 12 or 20 years. I just know that they're either. One of the things we could do is say at year three, if they're still there or year five, if they're still there, that it's a requirement of the conditions of approval that they come back in front of us and give us an update on what's going on with them. You know, it doesn't let us kick them out, but it would at least afford the board the opportunity to comment on it, find out what's going on. And then the only other comment I do have is that to me it seems a little, if you look at the site plan, they're around the outside. So there's two trees in the front where this is going to go, supporting some of these houses. I mean, I don't disagree with that. I wouldn't make it before. But I think you're coming for you, right? So we'll talk about the trees and delivery of the session. Sure. And because I think there's a path forward on that. Yeah, I mean, and I don't want to comment on the security pieces. No. For the school district to do. I mean, I know previously there was actually an interior car. You had to go into the buildings before you got into those classrooms, which would actually be a much better solution. I agree with that. I agree with that, too. I know, because I used to go in the building, go all the way out, back out to one of the front doors to go through the tunnel like that. It's sort of like a classroom, you know. So you're someone else as well. So the other, I have one other question. So the area of lawn that's going to be restored, which I'm really glad you're doing that. It's not a store, but is there any plans for how to keep people from parking there again in the future? The future is. The future is. Nice idea. There's a very good tow company that will haul cars out. Obviously, we'll be putting up signage. You know, and we'll just, we've already started talking to the staff. They're already starting to park in the parking lot. So that process has already started. Now, as far as when the public comes and wants to park closer to the park, what does that have to do with the general signage? So I didn't know if we were thinking of some boulders or basic boulders or things. Something like that. All those things would be useful on keeping people from who you wanted there. That's from the audience. I have a question about the three assigned carrier workers, the chief operations officer for CVSD. Was there a site plan requirement for those three trees at any point? Do we know that? I'm going to turn that over to Simon. They were shown on the site plan when the school was approved back in 1995, in that location. Okay. And I just wondered about the number of trees we have added trees since 1995. It certainly made sense that the, when the buildings are removed eventually, whenever that may be that could restore the original landscaping. I just wondered if there was a requirement for the three trees in question. So yes, there was a requirement when the original project was approved. And in terms of other trees that were planted, I mean, I think you would answer that. And we have, I mean, every arbor day, they plant a tree. So just this last one, they planted one last year, they planted one. So for the last, at least since I've been in this position, the last four years they planted trees. So I know at least four new trees on the premise. Okay. I just want to follow up question. And in terms of my previous question about how this fits into the school security plan, I think maybe a different way of asking that same question would be, can you elaborate more on the pedestrian traffic? In this situation, it's children, it's teachers. I have spent time coming through this area and I know there's a lot of traffic there. It works well because the kids are funneled into the front here. And I just have concerns about this front entrance and not a lot of space between parents dropping off and winging through on their way out. Is there another entrance or exit plan that fits with the back, the front of the main building? Or is it really just that one front entrance? I think that's just the front entrance. It's just the front entrance. That's where the drop-off is. Yeah, the drop-off is right there in front of the school. So basically right in front of where the modular units are going to be, that is where the parent pick up the drop-off is. That's an important part of the Allen Rooks security plan is that there's some limits with access control. Okay. Thank you. Any other final questions? Any last comments? Okay. We're going to close DP23-16 as 731. Thank you very much. Thank you. The town of Wilson Development and Review Board, it's Tuesday, June 13th, 2023. The DRV is out of deliberative session. The time is 753. Is there a motion for DP23-3? Reporting in progress. Did you get all that or do I need to? No, no. You're good. Okay. Is there a motion for DP23-16? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, John Hempfire, moved that the Wilson Development and Review Board having reviewed the applications submitted in all company materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing on June 13th, 2023, accept the findings of facts and conclusions of law for DP23-16 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 in which this approval is based. We are going to add two conditions. Number 21, final plans shall show the planting of three new trees at two and a half inch, I should say a minimum two and a half inch caliper in accordance with the requirements of WDB 23.7.4. This is in addition to the three replacement trees that shall be planted when the module classrooms are removed. We will also add condition number 22, the unauthorized parking area shall be restored to lawn and protected from parking by physical measures, which shall be shown on the final plans. Thank you, John. Is there a second? Scott Riley seconds it. Any further discussion? Hearing none, let's vote. Nate Andrews, yay or nay? Nay. Paul Christensen? Yay. Scott? Yeah. Dave Turner? Yay. John Hemmelgarten? Yay. And the chair is going to abstain. There is four in favor, one opposed, one abstention, motion carries. Meeting minutes of May 23rd, 2023. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? I'll move to approve the minutes. Nate makes a motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds, any discussion? Hearing none, yay or nay? Nate? Yay. Paul? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. John? I'm going to abstain since I wasn't in here. And the chair is a yay. Five in favor, none opposed, one abstention, motion carries. Is there anything else to bring forth tonight? Hearing none, all those in favor, two adjourns signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion is adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.