 All right, thank you, Scott. And welcome to the Williftham DRB for October 24th, 2023. My name is Pete Kelly. I'm the chair of the DRB. This is a hybrid meeting taking place at Town Hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes the meeting, we'll be continued to November 14th, 2023. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members. Nate Andrews. Here. Paul Christensen. Present. Lisa Brayden-Harder is absent. Scott Riley, here. Dave Turner, here. John Hemmelgarn, here. And the chair is present. We do have a quorum. Is there Andrew? Is there a need to go over Zoom instructions? OK. Or is yours? Scott, I'm seeing that you've got an opportunity to speak with us today. This is an opportunity for people to weigh in on items not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone participating by Zoom or here in the room that would like to address the board? OK. We'll segue into the public hearing. We've got one application tonight, EP24-05, which is a free app or a subdivision. Is the applicant present? We need to go on Zoom on the console. All right. Why don't you come on up to the table and introduce yourself, your name, and address for the record, please. I'm George McCain with McCain Consulting. Addresses 93 South Main Street in Waterbury, Vermont. Welcome, George. And the applicant that is participating by Zoom, would you please introduce yourself, please? Yes, good evening, gentlemen. My name is Ironman Fournier. I am the applicant. I live at 615 Butternut Road. Thank you. OK, staff goes next, Simon. OK. This is a request for pre-application review at 615 Butternut Road in the ARZD. The property currently has one home on it. They're proposing a four-lot subdivision to create two new homes and an open space lot. Staff is recommending approval and allowing the project to proceed to growth management with recommendations as drafted. We did not receive any comment letters on this pre-app. In terms of dimensional standards, we do anticipate compliance. Setbacks will be controlled by the landscaping buffer requirements of Chapter 23. The applicant can meet the minimum lot sizes. And we'll need to show a 40-foot frontage of each home onto Butternut Road or the private drive on their site plan. The parcel, the parent parcel for this subdivision is larger than 10 and 1 half acres. So they are required to protect at least 75% of their total area's open space. And the site plan does show 21 acres as its own open space lot, which amounts to 75% of the parcel. So we do anticipate compliance there as well. The bylaws for the ARZD do emphasize, including conservation areas in that open space parcel. I'll just be touching on that a bit later in this report. And then lastly, they'll be required to meet the housing design standards. Most of those are covered in other areas of the bylaw. But the important one to note is the half-acre clearing envelope for them to build on. But we do anticipate the developer being able to meet those requirements of discretionary permit. The select board voted on October 17 to adopt some amendments to the bylaw. One of those relates to growth management. And it would allow the construction of up to four units on a parcel without going through the growth management process. So we anticipate that coming into force on November 7, unless the town receives a petition to put it to the vote. If it does come into force, the applicant wouldn't need to go to growth management. He can proceed to discretionary permit. But as ever, we just advise just to focus on the current bylaws with those at the back of your mind. So the recommendation has been drafted accordingly. Access management. At the moment, there's only one home on the parcel. So they have a simple point of access onto Bundinup Road. By developing three homes there, they'll need to meet our private driveway standards. The applicant is sort of a task for the applicant to look into. At the moment, their existing drive goes up quite a steep grade. So they're going to look to see whether they can modify it and stay within the 10% grade. If not, they have identified a potential new driveway, which is shown in green, sort of on the right-hand side of that image there. So that's a recommendation for pre-app that they did to show that. We've done a preliminary density calculation for the proposal. That comes out at sort of a max of nine units for the parcel. That is subject to them doing a wetlands delineation. So they're going to need to do a wetlands delineation on the parcel. That might reduce their unconstrained acreage. But when you factor it all in, we do sort of anticipate. They probably will be able to get the three units they're proposing. Just a point of clarity in some of the documentation that was submitted with the application. There was a sort of arithmetic error. The site plan indicated that they might be able to get 26 homes on this parcel. But I think that's a simple multiplication error. It is closer to nine or less. Let me reload this. Bear with me the PDF has stopped displaying. Great. So there's a sort of little known element of our bylaw, which is transfer of development rights, or TDR, which allows an applicant to transfer units that they might be entitled to in the ARZD into the growth center. And then that receiving parcel in the growth center would be able to build a higher density than their ordinary cap. So for example, in the mixed-use commercial zoning district, normally there would only be allowed seven and a half dwelling units per acre. But with TDR from an ARZD site, they could double that. However, with the adoption of form-based code, density is no longer a constraint. Form-based code, as you're probably well aware, deals with what the building looks like in its massing rather than a density cap. So there's very few areas that are within the growth center that are not within that area. And so the options for TDRing their density are probably quite limited now. That said, if they do want to propose it, they would need to provide us with draft needs of conveyance at discretionary permit stage. We're recommending irregular type 1 existing landscape buffers of 50 feet and no street trees in this case. The subject parcel has got quite a large number of conservation areas on it. The first is the strategic wildlife habitat area, which is cohabitat in greens. And then the wildlife travel corridor in the sort of hashed brown. The bylaw requirements are that they submit an HDA habitat disturbance assessment with their pre-app. And we're already sort of limiting the impact on that area with the half acre building lot. So they'll need to do that at this discretionary permit stage. Perhaps more unusually, they've also got uncommon rare threatened and endangered species on the parcel, which are those sort of green fingers that come down into the very top. It is dry oak hickory hornbeam forest up there, which I understand to be very rare in this sort of latitude. It's more common further south. So what we've recommended in this case is that they do their HDA. They figure out whereabouts that is on the parcel. Because of the nature of their subdivision, they're actually focusing development down in the south there. So it seems highly likely that they won't be impacting that. And really the HDA is just to sort of demonstrate that. Sort of same deal for the unique natural communities, which I think are forested uplands and vernal pools. Again, we're asking that the HDA assess whether any of those resources are present in the developer area. And then if so, we'll take a look at what the impacts are. But again, by focusing development in the south of the parcel, we think it's likely that there won't be any major impacts. And then lastly, by no means least, is the scenic viewshed. The conservation commission didn't raise any concern over the impact of the viewshed. I think probably largely because there is a good bit of screening there to the south of the development area, separating it from but not road. So in summary, there's quite a lot of conservation areas on the parcel. We do prioritize incorporating those in the open space. So what we're proposing to do is once we have the HDA completed, we'll probably have a quick meet with the conservation commission. Make sure everyone's on the same page before finalizing the site plan for discretionary permit. And then lastly, we do have some suspected wetlands. So we are recommending a delineation of the development areas and sort of areas bordering the development by about 100 feet to avoid the applicant having to survey the entire parcel. So that's it. What follows is a recommendation. Is some recommendations and a motion to approve? OK, thank you. George and Armin, have you read the recommendations? And do you have any comments on the recommendations? I have read the recommendations and I do not. I have also and I do not. Anything else to add, gentlemen, to supplement Simon's staff report? No, I think he did an excellent job summarizing what we're planning to do there. I think it's relatively low impact. Proposing one lot for the existing house. One lot will be for an existing detached garage that will be converted to a residence. So it's really just construction of one new structure on the third lot. Great. DRP members, questions? I just have one. On the garage that you're converting to a residential, will that next have its own separate septic system too? There will be the existing house is served by an individual leach field. And then there's an area below that existing garage that has some really nice soil. So there will probably be a shared system to serve both the converted garage and the new house on lot three. Whether it's a shared leach field or two discreet systems within the same easement, we still have to finalize those details. But both those systems will be located on what we're proposing for lot two. And will there need to be much cutting? Do we do that? Or is that a full comparison? There will need to be a touch, but there will be limited cutting for the new structure. So within the half acre clearing envelope, since there's already a structure on site there, there will be no issue with exceeding that clearing limit for construction of the leach field. Other questions? What is Grandma Ridge? I said that correctly. Grandma Ridge? I believe that was one of the unique natural resource or its unique natural community that was identified by the town some years ago. So it's just been identified with its nature conservation value. So this particular one is forested uplands, vernal pools, and wildlife habitat. So it's sort of a delineated area that the town has identified as potentially being important. Is there anything more specific than that? Or is that just the general? We do have more specific information on that available. Some of that area, most of it's on the open land, but some is in one of the lots. Is that right? Yeah, some of it extends into this lot. Most of it is to the north of this lot, or in the northern portion where we're proposing the open space. Got it. So what we do as part of the HDA is we identify whether or there are any of those resources that are important, figure out the impact, and if absolutely necessary, the open space might need to include some of that area. OK. Other questions? Yeah. In your statement to us about the application, you say there's a density analysis for sheet C2 showing adequate density for 26 units versus 3 proposed. That was the technical glitch on my part. I had my numbers transposed as one unit per 0.55 acres instead of 0.55 dwelling units per acre. So I accidentally transposed that numerator and got a much higher density than what is actually available there. OK, so that's why you accepted the lower number of that. Correct. Yes, we had to tell you about that for he even pointed out my numerator-denominator issue. I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page there. We are, yeah. No, no, no. I've done math like that before. Any other questions, comments? OK, members of the audience, any questions? If you would please come up to the public table, please, and state your name and address to the record, and address the board, please. Thank you. My name is Ori Ben-Esri Raven. I live at 152 Butternut Road. My question is, essentially, are there any plans to do a hydrological study? So I pulled the data for the completed well reports that have been done on Butternut Road. 75% of the wells on Butternut Road produce less than five gallons per minute, which is considered the standard for residential homes. The overall average in Williston as a whole is about 37% of the wells in Williston produce less than five gallons a minute. So there are a lot of issues. I bought my house there a few years ago. The well issues were not fully disclosed. And I've called Spafford, I've called Chevalier, and I've called Vermont Well and Pump. All of them say that this road is notorious for water issues. The current well at 615 produces two gallons a minute at the time that it was drilled. So I guess my question is, do we know that those wells, like the new development on this property and new wells on this property are not going to negatively impact? Simon, if you would address what the other bylaws address as being raised. So we've got a bylaw that addresses both wastewater and sort of on-site water. And as part of that, we sort of require them to get the sort of dual permit from the state of Vermont to demonstrate that they can meet all the required standards and have capacity and so on and so forth. Where we are at the moment is the application stage. So this is like an opportunity for the DRB to make recommendations for the applicant to go away and investigate so that they don't have that information at the moment. Yeah. So when you were reviewing it, sorry, it just didn't seem like the drinking water part was addressed. Because of the wastewater part, I just wanted to make sure the drinking water part is also addressed. So one of the things I do when I read my report is I try and focus on like anything that's like non-standard, if that makes sense, not to like glitter or anything. But they have to get that permit from the state. So it's in there and it's part of our bylaws that you have to provide it. So just because I didn't call it out, doesn't mean that we're ignoring it. Thank you. I did read the bylaws and they said that that could be waived in some situations, specifically in low-density situations, which is why it was concerned. OK, great, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the audience? Any questions from people participating by Zoom? Any last questions from the DRB? Any final comments from the applicant? I'm all set, thank you. Arvin? I'm all set, thank you. OK, thank you. OK, it's 7.22. I'm going to close DP 24-05. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Have a good evening. OK, next up on the agenda is item number three. It's under the Category Communication, Final Plans, and Other Business. It pertains to DP 21-18. And Mr. Riley, are you going to refuse yourself on this one? I am. OK. Would you state for the record why you are refusing yourself? I may visit for later. Thank you. Is Emily on? Hi, Pete. Hey, Emily. So Emily, you're doing the staff overview on this? Yes. So this is Final Plans for DP 21-18, the annex. The DRB approved the discretionary permit last October with a motion that they retain Final Plans review. So usually Final Plans are reviewed by staff. Bigger projects sometimes go back to the DRB. I do note that the annex is still within the Taft Corners Zoning District. It is not within form-based code. So it still follows that discretionary permit Final Plans track. So staff is recommending that you approve the Final Plans as they are submitted. We're working through the development agreements and easements with the Public Works Department and legal counsel as is customary. I have included some attachments, mainly a refresher on the DRB's decision findings of facts, conclusions, and conditions, as well as some notes from the applicant on how they address DRB conditions in their plan set. Thank you. OK, thanks, Emily. So this is really the DRB. We don't have an obligation to do a formal vote on this. It's more of taking the temperature. And does the DRB authorize the chair to sign off on the Final Plans, which staff has recommended? Is there any objection to that? OK. Right. OK, is there any reason to go into a deliberative session? OK, John, would you do the honors and read the motion for DP 24-05, please? I would do the honors. Mr. Riley, I believe that you can return. Page 11. So as authorized by WPB 6.6.3, I, John, Hemmelgarn moved the Wilson Development View Board, having reviewed the application 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 for public hearing of October 24, 2023, accept the recommendations for DP 24-05 and authorize this application to move forward to growth management in 2024. Thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Yay or nay? Nate? Yay. Paul? Yay. Scott? Dave Turner? Yay. John? Yay. Chair's the yay. Six in favor, none opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of October 10, 2023? Yeah, I move that we approve the minutes as written before the meeting is over. Thank you, John. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds it. Any discussion? Nope. Indicate Yay or nay approval of the minutes, please. Nate? Yay. Paul? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. John? Yay. Chair's the yay. Six in favor, none opposed? The minutes are approved. Is there anything else to bring forth tonight? Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? Nine. All right. Any opposed? Motion is adjourned. I mean, meeting is adjourned.