 Good evening and welcome to the town of Williston Development and Review Board for April 24th, 2018. We have two items on the agenda tonight, DP-18-17, a boundary line adjustment and DP-18-18, a master sign plan application. We will start tonight's meeting as we typically do with a public forum. Is anyone here interested in addressing the board? Hearing none, we will dive right into application number one, DP-18-17, Gary A. Howard and Ross R. Howard request for discretionary permit for a boundary line adjustment. If you would please come forward to the table. He's a hard man to move. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. I'm Gary Howard, 697 Butternut Road, Williston, Vermont. Welcome. Staff goes first. Sure. Okay. So this is an application for a boundary line adjustment. A boundary line adjustment is where you have two or more parcels of land and the applicants propose to move one or more of the boundary lines between the parcels but you don't create any new parcels. In this particular case, we have two rather large parcels owned jointly by the two Howard brothers, totaling roughly 162 acres. Now in many cases, boundary line adjustment is processed administratively, but under our regulations, if the amount of land that's moved between one parcel to another is equal to or greater than the amount that would be able to be subdivided, it has to come to the DRB for review and approval. So that's why this is in front of you. So we don't have any development that's being proposed per se. Two pieces of land, a proposal to move one line between the two of these parcels of land. One of the parcels has a house on it, one of them is undeveloped. If approved as proposed, you would still have one parcel with a house, one parcel that would be undeveloped. So the particulars of the two parcels, there's a table that I prepared for you on page two. So you have the existing parcels A and B, existing 92.4 acres and 69.4 and then proposed 40.11 and 1.1. Now the acreage is an important consideration. So this is in the ARZD, the Agricultural Rural Residential Zoning District. And when you have a property in the ARZD that's greater than 10.5 acres, if it gets subdivided, there's a minimum open space requirement of 75%. So it's one of the things that we're always mindful of is the applicant proposing to make one of these parcels smaller than 10.5 acres. And in this case, the answer is no. So both of the parcels today are greater than 10.5 acres. Both of the parcels that are proposed would still be greater than 10.5 acres. So in the event that one or both of these parcels of land would come in for a subdivision request in the future, they would then be subject to the 75% open space requirement or whatever the provision would be available. So this doesn't get them off the hook for any of those requirements. One of the things that I would like to discuss is there are, so the project was reviewed by the Conservation Commission and one of the recommendations from the Conservation Commission recommendation number three was they wanted a floating easement for a primitive path. As you may know, the Conservation Commission frequently recommends that we get a trail easement when we go through rural parts of town. We had a similar type of request a few years ago, actually also on Butternut Road, and we had a discussion about this. We were provided with a legal opinion from the applicants attorney and we got our own legal opinion and basically the upshot of it was, well, a trail is nice, but they're not creating any new demand. And so there's no legal nexus to require a trail. And so the staff recommendation would be just like with the open space provision is the information is out there at some point in time, one or both of these parcels comes in for development that whether there's a trail easement would be ripe for discussion, but staff is not recommending that you impose that condition at this particular time. And so there's proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, conditions of approval. And so in condition number five, I simply wrote the applicant must address the Conservation Commission comments from the memo concerning their recommendation number three. So that's there for the board to consider. Our recommendation is that you not impose their recommendation as a conditional approval. With that condition number five, to amend it as you see fit. Having said that, I will stop. So your proposed conditions of approval strike the Conservation Commission's recommendation number three. Okay. Okay. Any, now it's your turn to address anything that you feel should be brought up or any concerns that you have with conditions of approval as proposed. No. I have no questions. Okay. And you've read the conditions of approval and yes, okay. The only the only question I had and can clear that up when I came in was that number three by the Conservation Commission. I didn't want to get engaged with a floating, floating easement for a primitive path at this point. Yeah. Okay. Any questions from the board? Are you currently farming this land? No. Okay. Just curious because I was going to say if they're farming it, I would definitely say absolutely no trails because the equipment's going to be going right through wherever the trail is. Okay. Courtney? Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the audience? Okay. Hearing none, we are going to close DP 18-17 at 7-11. Thank you for coming. Does that mean I just need to get the mile out of you? Call me in the morning. Okay. All right. All right. I will. Okay. Thank you. Okay. There's one of those guys I talked to before. The guy in the plaid shirt. He was saying. Okay. Next up is DP 18-18. Master sign plan. Welcome, Andy. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Andy Rowe. Lamar Owen Dickinson. Essex Vermont. Thank you. Ken? Okay. So this is a request for a master sign plan. Property address is 301 346 Avenue D. So a master sign plan is required whenever you have a building that has multiple tenants or where an applicant wants to have more than the minimum or more I should say more than the maximum amount of signage that can be approved administratively. So in this particular case, we have a multi tenant building. So one of the things that we do when we evaluate a request for a master sign plan is we not only look at what are all the signs that are being proposed and what's the total amount of signage, but there's a theoretical maximum that we have to calculate. And it goes by the square footage of a street facing elevation of the building. In this particular case, we have a building that's on a three sided lot. It's got street frontage on three sides. Now what we have done over time pretty consistently with the board is when we have properties like this, the bylaw was really only contemplating that you calculate signage based on one frontage. So we say pick one frontage, typically it's the biggest. And then we calculate that square footage and we use that for the basis of making a determination on the master sign plan. And so the maximum theoretical amount of signage you could have is 8% of that frontage. So in this particular case, it's 288 square feet. And so we have in the table that's shown on page one and two, there's a breakdown of existing freestanding signs as well as existing and proposed wall signs and then a totaling of what the square footage of all those are and it's 235 square feet. Now it looks like there's an awful lot of signage here. So there are a lot of signs. At closer examination what you'll notice is most of these are pretty small. So this is an industrial building. There are loading docks. So you have signs to identify a tenant suite like here's the door where you go in for the person. There's also a freestanding sign. There's also signage which is to direct delivery and departure trucks, signs for loading docks, et cetera. So at first blush it may look like, oh my God, I can't believe how many signs that are here but in this particular case these are signs that actually make a lot of sense in terms of this type of building. So there's a finding there for the board to make whenever there's a master sign plan that's approved and we've drafted recommendations, conclusions, and conditions of approval for your consideration. Thank you, Ken. Andy, do you have anything else to add? Nothing to add to the staff report other than we'll revise the plans to comply with the one side, the one building facade calculation as Ken outlined and we need to add some shrubs around the base of the two existing freestanding signs. Have you read the, I already know the answer because you're very thorough and I appreciate that. Have you read the recommended conditions of approval? Yes. Do you have any exceptions? Are there any questions from the board? Yeah, does the REM Development Corporation surrounds this property, have any problem with these signs? Nope. That's my only question. I have it at good authority that REM loves signs, especially on their own properties. Good. Any questions from the audience? Okay, thank you for coming. Thank you. I'm going to close DP 18-18 at 7.16, I'm on a mission. Okay, we're going to go into deliberations. I'm trying not to go out on a limb, I'm predicting end time. That was 36. Okay, welcome back to the Williston Development Review Board on April 24th, 2018. We're out of deliberative session at 7.28. Do I have a motion for DP 18-17, Howard boundary line adjustment? As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Courtney Doherty, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendation of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of April 24th, 2018, except the finding of fact and conclusions of law proposed by staff for the review of the DP 18-17, and approved this discretionary permit subject conditions above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek administrative permit for any development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you. Is there a second? All second. David seconds it. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. Is there a motion for DP 18-18 master sign plan on Avenue D? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application, materials submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory board required to comment on this application by the Williston Unified Development By-law, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of April 24th, 2018, except the findings of fact, conclusions of law, conditions of approval proposed by staff for the review of DP 18-18 and approve this discussionary permit for the master sign plan. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval for these plans from staff, and then seek administrative permit for future development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Paul. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of April 10th, 2018? So moved. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. Is there a motion to adjourn? Ajourn. Thank you, everybody.