 Okay. Thank you, Scott. Welcome all to the Williston Development Review Board tonight's November 22nd, 2022. My name is Pete Kelly. I'm the DRB Chair. If you are a Zoom participant, please sign in with your name on the participant toolbar. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in Town Hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will perform Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken at this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to December 13th, 2022. Let's start the meeting by taking roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. President. John Hilgarn. Here. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Turner. Here. Nate Andrews. Here. Hey, Nate. And Chair Kelly is present. We have six people in attendance. DRB members in attendance. We have a quorum. Next up, staff will go over Zoom instruction. Okay. Welcome to everybody. Opportunity for anybody participating in tonight's meeting to comment on anything not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone present here in the room? Or if you are on Zoom, please raise your virtual hand. If you would like to address the board, again, on topics that are not on tonight's agenda. There's a couple of folks on Zoom who are here probably for the dog rescue application. It might be good to go over the process tonight for that. Good to know that when I go over the agenda for tonight. Public section. Okay. No raised hands, Andrew. Nope. Okay. Next up is the public hearing. Now there's three items on the agenda tonight. DP 23-06, which we will hear first. That's for three new dwelling units on 376 Mountain View Road. DP 21-19. That's for three new commercial slash industrial buildings in the Robert subdivision. I will be recusing myself on that application as my employer has a financial interest with the applicant. And the third up in the public hearing is continued deliberations and a decision on AP 23-0062, which is the home use and lamp light lane. So let's talk about that one for a moment. So the DRP started our deliberations at the previous DRP meeting, which was held on November 8th two weeks ago. And we did not render a decision. We are going to continue our deliberations tonight. That will be in deliberative session. So it will not be done in a public forum. And so if you are participating by Zoom and you are interested in that application, you're going to be underwhelmed because we're going to be doing that in the deliberative session. You are welcome to stay and participate in tonight's DRP meeting, but we will not be talking about that application in the public forum. So with that, first up is DP 23-06, 376 Mountain View Road. Who is here for the representative of the applicant? Good evening. If you would please come up to the table, introduce yourself and state your address for the record, please. Well, I am John McGuire. I live at 13 Lake Utaris. Okay. Why don't you start again, please? John McGuire, 13 Lake Utaris, Burlington, Vermont. John, welcome. Staff goes next. This is a request for a pre-application review of a proposed residential development to create three new dwellings in a triplex building. The property is currently developed with a single family home. It's located at 376 Mountain View Road in the residential zoning district, where it was subject to conservation commission review, but not required to go through design review. Tonight, staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and close, deliberate, and approve a list of recommendations. In my staff recommendation, I included a note about the lot size for the density calculation, and I think that can be worked out at the next phase of review, and I can get to that further in the meeting, but at discretionary permit, they'll be required to do an accurate lot size calculation and survey the property boundaries, especially in relationship to the shared driveway. Also for the DRB to consider tonight is the existing overhead utilities. I'll get into that further soon as well. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing this request. The house was built around 1975. Conservation Commission reviewed this. Their recommendations are included. Public works and fire recommendations are also included. Fire Department particularly, we have our standard recommendation that their comments are advisory, and they can only be enforced to the extent that they do not conflict or can be enforced by the unified development bylaws. The Fire Department plan review document is a select board policy. It's not in ordinance. At the time of mail out, no comment letters were received. We did receive a comment letter yesterday from a neighbor, and that was emailed today, and it's included for you to read. Overall, compliance is anticipated for this subdivision with building heights, setbacks, the open space development standards. There's a forested habitat area on the majority of the property the building is proposed in the existing mode area. This project, if authorized tonight, will move forward to growth management in March 2023, where it will be scored and ranked in a signed allocation. I do include some notes here. Our upcoming growth management hearing is going to be different in that this part of town is highly competitive, where I'm anticipating five subdivisions competing for 114.5 dwelling unit equivalents, and there's only 23 for the DRB to give out, including 15 market rate. I do include some notes here that a project that scores less than 30 points and is less than 10.5 acres could be eligible for the exemption if it only proposes two, not three units. And I also include a note that units at or below 80% area median income can proceed from free app right to discretionary permit. They don't need to be allocated on the growth management table. These notes are primarily for the DRB and applicant to think about as they prepare for a growth management hearing in March. Access compliance is anticipated here. It's a shared private driveway where up to five units can be served on that private driveway. At discretionary permit, they need to show that it's with and it's clearing meets our driveway specifications. And there's really no opportunity here for street or path connectivity. At discretionary permit, they need to show that easement along Mountain View Road, but due to wetland and slope, you know, constructing it would not be feasible. And the abutting property is due to wetlands and development pattern. There's not really an opportunity for street connectivity between this lot and the abutting parcels. We're also not recommending a traffic study for three new units. Parking compliance is anticipated. On site infrastructure is where the DRB would need to edit recommendation to see. Currently, our bylaw says a new development needs to have its utilities served underground. The existing house has overhead power lines from Mountain View Road to the house. I believe this overhead line might be shared with the abutting property. So our bylaw would require that new unit to then be located underground, but it's up to the DRB to decide, is this a level of nonconformity that is okay to remain that the existing house and the existing line from the street is overhead. Municipal sewer and private septic, they're proposing sewer in their narrative, however, several reasons this might not be feasible, they would need to seek an exception from the Department of Public Works to locate a new septic within the sewer service area. The sewer line would have to go south towards Meadow Run, where the water and sewer lines are public, however, the pump station is private, and they would have to have private negotiations to connect to that pump station. Maintenance standards show solid waste containers in snow storage at discretionary permit. Density compliance is anticipated. They'll need to confirm that total acreage at discretionary permit either way, whether the lot is more like 6.62 acres or 7.03 acres, their number of units is anticipated to be below the maximum allowed density. Landscaping compliance is anticipated. In fact, the existing landscaping is more than sufficient what our bylaw would require to plant new. There's a dense hedge on the western side of the property that the abutting neighbors would like to see retained for privacy between the two homes. Street trees, typically they're required along new and existing streets. However, Mountain View Road, there's a grade change, the wetland overhead power lines that would make it pretty difficult to put in street trees along here, and there is an existing stand of trees about 100 feet back. The DRP may grant an exception for existing woods, and a recommendation is included here that that 100 feet of existing woods would be sufficient. Conservation areas, so the Conservation Commission reviewed this. There's some significant wildlife habitat area on the parcel, as well as unique natural communities of a hemlock woodland area. The development is proposed to be outside of these areas in the existing mode part of the property. However, if they were to locate that sewer line to metal run, it would have to cut through these conservation areas, which is also overlapping with a watershed health area with wetlands and wetland buffers being delineated on the property. And the applicant has already conducted a wetlands delineation. And a recommendation is included that they not try to pursue a sewer line through the wetland buffer. The bylaws prefer that utilities and road crossings be consolidated or mitigated where feasible. Lastly, outdoor lighting and impact fees. These are anticipated to comply. And impact fees would be assessed at the time of administrative permit. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Emily. Mr. McGuire, what do you have to supplement Emily's staff report? I don't have anything to supplement on. Do you have anything to supplement? No, I reached out to Aaron to try and verify the lot size and didn't hear back. I suspect that the lot size is actually bigger than what the town has, but we will need to confirm that. Okay. Don, if you would state your address for the record, please. Don Welch, 410 Colchester Avenue in Burlington. Okay. Welcome. Thank you. DRB members, questions? At the risk of going over old stuff, I keep going back to this fire department and the rules and whatnot. And there's some confusion here about what we're telling the applicant the width of the driveway or the road needs to be. I see something in here about 26 feet, but that's for a road. I assume that what's being proposed on the site plan is a driveway. That's correct. And so why is there any comment about a 26 foot road requirement? And again, it may be a rhetorical question to use. So is the fire department the why? Is that the fire department's wish list? It's a fire department's wish list. Right. And then later on they say driveways. And I'd actually prefer to have this conversation and deliberations. It states a lot of things in here. It does. And I want to talk about them. I would prefer not to do it in this forum. But just to be clear, it is proposed as a driveway. Yes. And our bylaw requires 12 to 16 feet of width, I believe with four feet clear on either side. Whereas in the fire department's memo, well, they're saying a solid base of 14 feet width. So that would fall within our range. And they're looking for a six foot wide zone on each side. So our bylaw requires four. I don't think there's anything in our bylaw that would preclude them for doing a bigger driveway, but it's not enforceable under what chapter 14 for access says. So and fairness to the applicant. I don't want to leave you thinking that we're speaking of code here because that's unfair to you. And so it does seem like there's a bigger foundation that's going on here. But we were going to put more here. And when we were advised about the DOT requirement or the bigger, much more significant driveway, fireway, you know, we scaled back to come in to what like we're in approval mode. Like we were going to put more stuff there. Okay. So, so, so let me look more density there. But we were like, we're not like it's not in the books to put what the fire department wants. Like we don't we're not looking to put in a $200,000 road. In initial conversations before they filed an application, we informed them that more than five units, you go up to that street specification with the cul-de-sac and then it got back to. Okay. So we're after the three. So that's where we are. That's what we're applying. Okay. So, so let me continue where I was going for point of clarity, please. And I'm going to truncate this discussion. So we are having a bit of back and forth internally within the town of Wilson, where the fire department over reaches and their recommendations. And we as a DRB can only require what is written into the bylaws. And so if you look through the staff report through that lens, I think it will make sense. So you are only responsible for doing what is in the bylaw. And so if the fire department asked for a 400 foot landing strip, if it's not required for the within the bylaws, you don't have to do the addition to the Burlington International Airport. Okay. Thank you. I mean, I was trying to get some levity there, but it wasn't clear. Okay. Okay. DRB, more questions, please. Yeah, I've got a couple. Have you identified a site for a potential septic system? Assuming that you're going to ask for that and not drive up force main through the wetlands? Don, should answer that one. The short answer is no. So as we've worked through where the connection actually is, as we worked through what's wetlands and what's wildlife habitat, it's become more apparent that maybe we shouldn't try and connect. And the next step would be to see if we could find suitable soil on site for an on site wastewater system, of course, getting approval and okays from the Wilson DPW. It seems like that would be in our best interest and more consistent, I guess, with zoning regulations, but it's it's a path that we're going to need to pursue. I'm guessing that the wastewater system, the existing wastewater system was designed long enough to go if it's something the state approved. So there's probably a makeup field and in that makeup field, the soils would most likely be suitable, maybe not big enough for to provide an on site wastewater system. Even even as far back as 1975, that might be wishful. Yeah, it might be pushing it a little bit, but yeah. City water comes off of Mountain View. I believe so. It does, right? It runs down Mountain View. And depending on what the capacity of the on site well is, we could tap into that too. I think Jonathan, is there an on site well? I thought there was, yeah. Is your plan to bring the water in from the property line from Mountain View or to drill a well? More curiosity than anything else? We don't know right now. Okay, all right. And have you given some thought to the overhead underground power line question? I mean, it would be a lot cheaper to keep things above ground, overground, but if we have the very power, we will. I think if we can keep it above ground as is, the existing and then go underground with from the box to the new development, that's the route that we would take if the DRV approves that. Okay, great. Those are my questions. Anyone else with questions? I wanted to clarify landscape buffers. Clearly there is, on this overhead view, there's a very, very dense hedge towards the west where, and I believe that's where the letter that we received today is coming from. But to the east, I'm not seeing on here much of a natural or existing buffer. So I didn't know if there's something there that I'm not seeing on this aerial view and whether we may want to look a little closer at whether a little more buffer is required on that side of the property. That would probably be confirmed at discretionary permit. There's a couple planting. The spacing requirements are like two or three trees for 100 feet depending on which buffer they go in. So you're right, there might be a couple gaps that may need one or two, but so far anticipating that most of that existing distance will comply. I guess as a pre-app comment, I would just ask the applicant to pay particular attention to that moving forward. Can we make this letter part of the record? I know it's part of the record already, but when the DP comes back, can we make sure that this comes back with the packet to the DRB? We'll do our best. It could be a while before DP. Nate, do you have any questions? No, I'm okay. Thanks. Okay, thank you. John, are you all set? Yeah, I'm okay. Okay. Paul? David? Good. Scott? Okay. Have you read, John, have you read the proposed conditions of approval? I have not read the proposed conditions of approval. The recommendations. The recommendations. No, I've not. That's your pre-app recommendations. Okay. Don, have you read the recommendations? Yeah. Is there anything that's being recommended? I realize the DRB has to weigh in on some items that are highlighted, but otherwise, do you have any concerns with any of the recommendations? No, I figured it would be something we'd work through where waste containers go, things like that, working through overhead power, underground power, things like that, but no? Okay. Great. Okay. Members of the public, any comments? Seeing no chats and no raise hands. Okay. Okay. I'm going to close the hearing as 725. So we're closing DP 23-06. Thank you for coming. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Okay. Next up is DP 21-19. I'm going to hand this off to Mr. Hemmelgarn, who recused myself. Yes. This application is for GQA-SROC, which is owned by the children, but they pull over to profess the argument. Nothing to do with SQA-SROC corporation. I'm going to err on the side of caution, and I'll recuse myself. Okay. Perfect. We'll open the public hearing on DP 21-19 at 730. I guess I'd ask the folks at the happens table to identify themselves, name and address. Chair, my name is Patrick O'Brien. I'm here representing GPAALC, and I just did 193 for Shriver, and we'll listen for a moment. Nick Smith. I am also here representing GPAALC and Asterial and Companies 193 Industrial Lab. Great. Thank you. So, staff, who's got this? Melinda, I believe. Ah, Melinda's. Hi, Melinda. I didn't see you there. Okay. This is a request for a discretionary permit to develop three commercial industrial buildings, approximately 106,250 square feet total, with parking loading areas and related to pertinences on lot four of the Roe-Bear subdivision. A vacancy 0.74 acre parcel located on Williston Road opposite Munson Drive in the industrial zoning district west. The parcel's currently undeveloped and forested. Staff is recommending the DRB deliberate and approve the proposed project with conditions as drafted. The DRB reviewed a pre-application for this project on October 12, 2021. The historic and accurate, the HAC reviewed this project on, let's see, that's not the right, I don't think that's the right transmittal date, and the recommendations are included and the public works comments and fire comments are also included and the DRB can adopt comments as conditions, but only to the extent they can be enforced by the statutory authority of Zimbabwe. No comment letters were received at the time of the mail-out. So as far as pre-application recommendations, the applicant has addressed all of them and I will be talking, they will be discussed in different, the different sections of the staff report. So as far as the uses, compliance is anticipated and uses, specific uses will be identified in subsequent administrative permits. The applicant is proposing three buildings with up to 18 tenant spaces. The applicant has identified possible uses such as general light industrial warehousing and specialty trade contractor, NAICS 4849 transportation warehousing, NAICS 23 construction and NAICS 3133 manufacturing are allowed in this district. For dimensional standards are anticipated, they comply as proposed. There's no outdoor sales or storage proposed as part of this project. If proposed in the future after approval, this discretionary permit and amendment would be required. The vehicular access complies as proposed. The property served by Williston Road, which is a state highway, the curb cuts located across from Munson Way on Route 2 and has been approved by the Vermont Agency of Transportation. Pedestrian access can comply with conditions. Sidewalk connections are proposed between each building and the sidewalk to be constructed along Williston Road. The sidewalk along Williston Road connects to the portion constructed through the U-Haul parcel to the east and will connect to the V-Trans bus stop to the west, which is currently under construction. Because of the topography, the nature of the topography on the site, a guard rail is proposed for both vehicular and pedestrian safety along the portion of the sidewalk constructed along Williston Road. There are a number of places where the sidewalk on the lot is interrupted by driveways, where the sidewalks are interrupted, staff is recommending that pavement striping be provided, a condition has been drafted. The applicant has submitted a revised traffic impact assessment that demonstrates a trip generation of 91 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 93 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. The town of Williston assesses a transportation impact fee of $1,943 per PM peak hour vehicle trip that's generated by development projects, and the state of Vermont assesses a separate transportation impact fee as well. So for off-street parking and loading, the vehicular parking complies as proposed. The applicant's proposing a total parking of 143 spaces equating to a total of 1.35 space per 1,000 square foot of floor area. And they're proposing to construct the parking in phases, but they're requesting approval of all of the proposed parking at this time. And staff recommends that all the parking demonstrate compliance with the bylaw. ADA spaces comply as proposed. Bicycle parking complies as proposed. Outdoor bike racks are located in front of the buildings, and long-term spaces are provided inside each of the buildings. They would require an additional end-of-trip facility to comply. Table 14A requires two end-of-trip facilities, and one is being proposed. A single shared end-of-trip facility is proposed to be located in Building A and would be shared between employees of all three buildings. Staff recommends that one additional end-of-trip facility be shared between B added in Building C, and that one end-of-trip facility can be shared between Buildings A and B. It's just that Building C is probably, looks like it's more than 300 feet from Building A, so that's why recommending one be placed in that building. A condition has been drafted. Per onsite infrastructure complies as proposed. The applicants proposing municipal water and wastewater connections. Stormwater infrastructure is shown on the site plan, and all utilities are proposed to be underground. The applicant has addressed DPW's pre-application comments, and let's see, and state stormwater permits will be provided to the town as requested. For maintenance, three dumpster enclosures are shown on the site plan. One provided at the rear of each building. Four snow storage areas are shown on the overall site plan in the vicinity of Buildings A and B, and staff is recommending an additional snow storage area be shown at the far end of the building of the parking lot for Building C. A condition has been drafted. For design review, the applicant has provided updated elevations, floor plans, and landscaping plan in response to the HAC recommendations. The HAC reviewed the proposed project on November 15, 2022, and made the following recommendations. The site plan needs to show an airlock at each building entrance, provide additional landscaping around the building entrances, provide more windows on the second level of Building A between each entryway bay. The applicant did revise the elevation in response to these comments, and has added more windows to Building A. The landscaping complies as proposed with the exception of parking lot landscaping. A parking lot landscaping is required where there's more than 24 parking spaces in any one parking area. The parking lots for Buildings A and B include landscape medians and seem to comply with the standards. The parking lot for Building C doesn't comply. Staff is recommending the DRB require the site plan, final plans to show landscaping in the parking lot for Building C meeting the standards. A condition has been drafted. Street trees comply as proposed. The applicant's site plan shows large trees included in the front yard landscape buffer along the frontage of Route 2. Technically, these are a little different than street trees. The spacing isn't quite the same, and they're not planted in the right of way, but they'll largely serve the same function, and staff is recommending the proposed plantings comply. Conservation areas complies as proposed. The subject parcel contains a wetland and significant wildlife habitat area, and no development is proposed in the Watershed Protection Buffer or the core habitat. And runoff and erosion control plans have been submitted by the applicant and comply as proposed. This development is considered a high risk development because there will be quite a bit of land disturbance, and the land that's disturbed has a slope of greater than 8%. And the site will require significant amount of grading. The applicant is proposing to lower the elevation of the site by 14 feet and to construct a retaining wall along the eastern boundary to form the transition between an elevation, the elevation on lot three and lot four. And the applicant's plan set provides details and sheets for pre-during and post-construction stabilization that demonstrate compliance with the standards of WDB 29.5 and 29.6. Wetlands protection complies as proposed. A class two wetlands located to the west and south of the property on lot nine. A portion of the 54 Watershed Protection Buffer extends onto lot four, but the site plan does show demarcation of the wetland buffer by builders spaced 50 feet apart. There will be some class two wetland buffer impacts due to the proposed construction of sidewalk along Williston Road, but the applicant has designed the sidewalk and provided for a new retaining wall in a manner resulting in no impacts to class two wetlands and minimal impacts to the buffer. And WDB 29.9.6.3 does allow roads and pedestrian facilities to cross wetland buffers. For outdoor lighting, the outdoor lighting complies in all manners except for the height of building mounted fixtures. The applicant has proposed 22 building mounted fixtures proposed to be mounted in the height of 24 feet where the bylaw requires a maximum mounting height of 15 feet above average finish grade for fixtures mounted on the facade of buildings. And staff is recommending lowering the mounting height for these fixtures to 15 feet or less to comply with this requirement. The condition has been drafted. Let's see. The applicant has included a master sign plan as part of their submission and the signage is reviewed in a separate staff report. I have proposed findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions for you to consider here. If you would like to discuss this first, you can do so or I can launch into the master sign plan your choice. Have you prepared a separate motion for the master sign plan? I don't see one in here. Let me see. Is it in the master sign plan? Hold on. I'm looking. It's probably in the master sign plan. I see it now. Why don't we do this one separately? It will not take long. I don't think at that time. But let's not confuse the two different applications. Okay. Is that it? I'm sorry. I don't mean to catch up. That was it for that staff report. All right. Well, thank you. I guess I would fill in the one blank you had at the hack meeting, I believe, that happened on November 15th, 2022. And we'll just put that in the staff report that way. So welcome. I guess the first thing I would ask you is whether you receive and look at the conditions, the proposed conditions, whether you have any questions or concerns is something I would ask you to address at this time as you as you respond to the staff report here. Yep. I think we've taken a pretty in-depth look at the conditions. I don't think there's any major hurdles for us on these. They're all pretty standard. Some parking laws adjustment. I mean, the only comment I would make is that to meet the parking lot landscaping requirements, we may end up taking out a couple of spaces. So it was my anticipation earlier. So I think we'll still be well over the one, which is kind of a standard one per thousand square feet of floor area. So hopefully that's acceptable. I think what I'm looking at now is just taking out two spaces in front of the link seat. Other than that, I think the remaining items will probably follow Melinda's and staff's suggestions. Pat, are you going to chime in on your cohort saying you'll probably follow the recommendations? That's a joke, Pat. Yeah. I've got to leave a little wiggle room just in case. No, you don't. So any other comments? If you want to add to the staff report. The only thing I would add is we're well on our way through all of our permits. We've had discussions during pre-app with all agencies. And again, now we've submitted for all of our permits at this point. We're heard back on some and we are still waiting for some additional information. We anticipate, I would say, getting permits by the end of the year, hopefully all in hand. Stormwater erosion control, wetlands permit for the sidewalk, Army Corps permit, and the trance as well. So am I understanding this correctly that the subsequent to the HAC meeting and their requests, for example, the additional windows, that was when the documents that we see here were prepared in response to that? Correct. Yeah, we provided updated drawings for that. And I saw that then there were some airlock shown, I think, on the interior of the building as well. Correct. For that response. So one thing I didn't see in response to the HAC was some additional landscaping at the entryways. I did end up updating the landscaping plan and providing some more, I'm not sure, that made its way to the breakfast. It did. It's in there. Okay. So I think it's been added. Obviously, we can discuss that. I think, you know, part of the HAC's reasoning for the landscaping is framing the entryways, obviously. So in some cases where we find there to be a lot of ramps and stair requirements, we thought best to maybe kind of reduce the landscaping in those areas while increasing it in the other doorways. So that might be the only change that you're seeing. It's possible that I'm not perceiving what was there, the HAC like that versus what I'm seeing. Fair enough. I get it too. Understood. Questions from the board? I only have one simple one. On the sidewalk, we're at meet the U-Haul. Now you're saying you're going to drop the land by around 14 feet there? So is that going to be slowed down there in that area? Yeah, obviously you drive through there now. It looks like at the monumental task. And it is. So we're coming down about as quick as we can to the access point with Munson Way there. So it's going to be pretty steep ramp down there. And then after that, it'll be fairly flat as we cross the remainder of the site. Well, yeah, just kind of curiously, the lines that are poking out from your overhead doors, are those just marks in the pavement or those actually retaining walls? Yeah, those are retaining walls. Yeah, so we're actually doing low. You do hate truck drivers and plow drivers. They should be fine. It'll be well lit back there. No, I'm talking about the plow drivers just going to love having them pull out all those retaining walls. Yeah, so because of the interior spacing and tenant spacing, we're trying to provide them flexibility for both accurate. The other issue is, are you thinking that there's going to be trailers showing up here just up curiosity? Probably, yeah, but yeah. Oh, you really like them. Okay, that's on me now. Great. I will just comment that I appreciate the sketches that you provided that actually reflect, I think, the proposed grading and the location of the trees. I would just comment, I appreciate the colors that you've chosen here. I think they're nice colors. They're not garish. They're understated yet provide some interest. Same with the building elevations. So I'm hopeful that's consistent with what you heard from the hack, but we don't always agree with the hack anyway. Our architect can keep his job, it sounds. That's right. I had one kind of curiosity question as well. I was wondering if you could give me a rationale on how you located the bicycle racks and what the rationale is of where you put them. I see that the one for building A is way down at the far end and I'm wondering if someone's riding their bicycle to work, they're going to be parking pretty far away potentially from where they're going to go. Why you didn't put that maybe closer to some of the main entrances? Yeah, I think sometimes you have two different worlds. You can park in front where everybody walks by and bike and dings up your bike or this or that or has eyes on your bike where you can park them off to the end. I can see both sides to that. So if the staff would recommend us moving them, we're more than happy to move them, centralize them or something like that. Are these covered bicycle racks or not? No. Did you provide a cut sheet on kind of what kind those are? Yeah, I think it's on sheet D5, I believe. They're kind of the standard loops and pad. You're a good man, you know your drawings. D5 it is. I've been through them enough. That's apparent. All right, that's all I had. So I'll give board members one last. So I guess we would open it up to the public. Is there anybody, there's clearly no one in the room with questions. Is there anybody on Zoom that has, would like to comment on this application? We have no raised hands on Zoom. Nobody's paying attention to us tonight. Okay, so I'll give you one last shot to make any comments you'd like before we close the hearing and move into our deliberative. I don't have much to add. I would like to apologize that it's taken us so long to get back here, but you know dealing with the sidewalk issue would be trained was a little bit of a curve ball and Nick was able to work through it all. Be trans through you curve ball. I can't believe that. I mean, honestly, we're on track. We could get this in before they finish everything out there. So there's still a chance. Probably a good possibility. That's no longer an unstated goal. Okay. No, that's about it. Great. Great. So I'm going to close this hearing at 752 and turn the meeting back over to our Mr. Chair. We have a second application. Very good. The other one. I suggest that if you're closing a hearing site. Very good. So Scott reminds me properly that we're closing the hearing on DP. Well, we're not going to do that yet. So you're going to close. They're two different hearings, right? No, it's all one hearing. It's all one hearing. It's all one application number. So I'm just about screwed it up three times in just two minutes. So let's Melinda, why don't you go run through the staff report on the master sign plan of for DP 21-19. Great. Okay. This is our quest for a master sign plan for proposed development on a lot for a World Bear subdivision Wilson Road. The staff is recommending approval for the sorry, the staff is recommending approval for this master sign plan. We should make that change with findings, conclusions and conditions as drafted. And the fire department had comments about signage in their overall comment memo for DP 21-19. No comments letters were received at the time of the mail out. So the applicant is proposing master sign plan because the site contains multiple commercial tenants. There are included a table in the conditions of approval with a list of existing and proposed signs for the master sign plan. The applicant's proposing one freestanding directory sign at the development point of access and for each of the buildings, building numbers, building numbers and suite numbers, wall signs and window signs. The building numbers and suite numbers are exempt from the sign need for a sign permit. No awning, projecting, suspended, portable or banished signs are proposed. There's no development on the site, so thus no non-conforming signs. There are 18 eliminated wall signs proposed. The exterior view renderings show Goose net fixtures. Final plans need to provide specifications for all proposed sign elimination. A condition has been drafted. The proposed signage complies with the maximum allowed under the frontage calculations. The proposed signage is well under the maximum potential sign area for each of the buildings. The total excludes the 32 square foot freestanding directory sign at the entrance, which does adhere to the size limit for freestanding signs. And there's findings of fact confusions of law and conditions of approval as listed. And also there's a condition number five added that final plans need to provide specifications for all proposed sign elimination. That's it. Great. Thank you. So routine. Yes, we're fine with the conditions. I think there are two comments I would add maybe on this. One is after reading the player department's comments they wanted to flop a hydrant at the entrance, which is right where the sign is. So I think and a street tree or trees out there as well. So we may end up kind of flip-flopping or adjusting some of the entrants, but generally the intent is the same as you enter. It's going to be that first island after the parking accesses as far as the freestanding sign goes. And then as far as the sign elimination, we can provide cut sheets. They're all going to be cast at building. So there won't be any down, it won't be up or down light. It will be directly at the Great. Any questions here from the board? Scott? No? David? Paul? None from the chair seat here. So anything from the audience? That's again nothing on this again. It did remind me one thing though from the previous. We're going to have the, I don't remember hearing it, my brain. We had the light going off. Yes, that's it for the parking lot. So I'll just make sure. Yep. I didn't hear it fully out though. It's in the plans. Yes. Okay. That's all I need. All right. So we're going to try this again. This time we're going to be closing the public airing for DP 21-19 at 7.58. And we'll ask the chair to return to the table again. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, John. Appreciate the support. All right. We're going to go into deliberative session at 7.56. Yes, I can. View board for Tuesday, November 22nd, 2022. Now the time is 8.52. Is there a motion for DP 23-06? As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I John Hemmelgarn moved at the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Williston Development bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 22nd, 2022, accept the recommendations for DP 23-06 and authorize this application to move forward to growth management. We're going to adjust a couple of the proposed recommendations. Specifically, number 2C shall read WDB 15, existing overhead utilities from road to house, must be relocated underground. And we're going to adjust number 2F to read WDB 23, landscape plan and compliance with WDB 23, retain the existing privacy hedge along west property line while maintaining screening at ground level. Can I, can you stop right there for a second? Yes. CWDB 15, existing overhead utilities from road to house. I suggest you add from road to house, including existing structure and new structure. Yes, no? Alba from, from road to, it just says a house, there's two of them. Yes, so from road to existing house and new, and, and, and new, or and new construction, new proposed construction, must be relocated underground. So there is, there is a bit of a complication here in that, in that, that other home at that fork is served by, the same pole, the same, the same pole. And so, so let's rethink this. So we're looking at the high, then you can put in just how this is, you could make it plural. Well then they would, but would that put the onus on the applicant to bury the electrical line to the house, the house that shares the driveway with? That's what I'm talking about. Are they buried, are they buried now? No, they're all overhead. That's why they got that pole, right, where the road splits. So that's why we need a hybrid solution to that pole. How about, how about, how about underground from, from, at the point where the pole splits? Right. That's, that's, that's what we need to do. So this needs to be reread. Back into, let's go back into, Yeah. Yep. So we're going to go, Scott, we're going to go back into deliberations. If you wanted to do this one in open, you could. Yeah, you don't. Okay. Utility pole. Okay. Yeah. You don't have to. Okay. We'll, we'll, we'll do this. We'll, we'll craft this language in an open, open, sorry, Scott. Okay. So why don't you pull that back up again, please? And let's just, let's just revise that real time. So I'm still in the middle of making my motion. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. And you got completely interrupted. Not the last time. I'll take credit for that. Okay. So staff, if you could help here with this, um, the rewrite of C. It'll be buried mandated. So what we're going to do is go aerial to that pole at the fork and then buried from that pole at the fork to both the existing home and the, and the, and the triplex. Why wouldn't we just say the existing overhead utilities? Um, we're just, yeah. From, I mean, from where, from A to B. From Mount View to the, to the pole at the Y, driveway Y. And then buried. Can remain above ground. Can remain above ground. Where it's split to remainder of electrical service to be buried underground. Yep. Yeah. New electrical service must, new utilities must be underground. And then that's from where it splits to the new triplex. I think it's, I think I just skimmed the Zilla photos and for this house and I'm not even seeing utility connections from that pole. So the existing house might be underground already. That's, that's what I don't know. Yeah. Anything that makes it look like it goes overhead. But it's hard to tell with that. We could pull up Google Earth and take a closer look. I think that's what Emily was doing. Oh, I didn't see that. I mean, I, I do remember looking at the, the photograph in the, in the packet that showed the overhead lines along mountain view and there, there is no branch that seems to go off perpendicular to that. But it's pretty far away and it's, my eyesight's not very good. So it might be already underground. Yeah. From that driveway split. From the driveway split. Yeah. Well, we could, we could put it, we could actually put a, an if option in there saying is if the, the power does not go to the other home, then the whole thing is buried from the road. So what I'm hearing is this is a good picture on the screen right now. It looks like you can see it. That looks like the last pole. So from that pole at the driveway split, right, needs to be underground. Yeah. From there to both the existing house and the new. Yes. Right. Yeah. So so this should just say WDV 15 existing overhead utilities from pole at driveway split to existing house and new proposed construction will must be underground. Yep. Must be, it must be buried. Kind of redundant, buried underground, but well, it's, but it's what we use all the time. But that's, but that's the industry now. It is kind of like hot water heater, which is redundant. Okay. So Mr. Hemmelgar, please. So let me, let me try this again. Okay. With the, the, the amendments we're going to make to the proposed condition recommendations. So number two C will read WDV 15 existing overhead utilities from pole at the driveway split to the existing house and the new proposed construction must be buried underground. And then is that okay with everyone? Yes. Yes. To sorry, I do have a question. I am confused. I originally we thought that everything was underground from that pole, right? And then didn't we just decide again after we were unsure that it is in fact underground from that pole? We're not, we're not, we're not, we're not certain age. So what we're saying is just, it has to be buried. And if it's already buried, then that'll be very easy to comply. That it's, that it's in complies. But we're not comfortable saying it as the original home from the street. Right. Because then we would have to require them to bury the electrical service to the neighbor's house on the neighbor's property. Right. And that's an over. Isn't it underground from the neighbor's house to that pole as well? We don't know that. Yeah. And they're not being due. That's not something that they can, if we required it that way now that they would work out together and come back to us with. No, we can't do that. No, no, that's off limits. We can only do it if the neighbors come and start to fiddle with their place. I think it is. Are you satisfied with that question? Nate? I mean, I guess I'd prefer to know for sure rather than prefer to have all the information. Well, it's really, so there's, so there's a pole at the, at the driveway junction. And the one driveway goes to the neighbor, one driveway goes to the applicant. The pole to the applicant, we're saying anything from that pole to the existing residents or to the new triplex has to be buried. And what we, what, what, what that gets us out of is to get our hands into the neighbor's property, which is also fed off that pole at the Y and the shared driveway. And we want to stay away from anything to do with that adjacent property's electrical feed. I just thought that the neighbor's property it looked like it was already buried from that pole, so it would not be interfering to bury from the road. If it is, that's okay. But if it isn't, we're going to allow them to stay with aerial from that junction pole. Okay, we're just, we're just missing out if it is already underground, right? Which it looks like it is. I don't think we are missing out if it's underground because if it's underground, they're going to keep it underground. Right, but, but Nate, I think correct. If the, if the line from that pole to the neighbor's house is already underground, then we could, we could require them to bury the entire line. Oh, I see. So you want to put a statement in there? Is that where you're going, Nate? Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear. That's exactly what I mean. And who knows, it might be an opportunity for natural gas or something. I don't know if that's out there. Oh, I mean, they're going to end that. Thank you. If it, you want to phrase it that if the neighbor's wire is already underground, then we require it to be buried from the street. And if it isn't, then it's, it's buried only from where the neighbor's wire. Correct. That is what I was thinking would make sense here. But we would still be mandating, we would still be mandating some electrical cost. No, I'm trying to say if the neighbor's already underground. Oh, let me finish. We would still be mandating some additional cost for the applicant to do what was necessary to. Oh, tie the junction? Correct. I don't know what, I don't, I don't know if the cost is that great because hell when they came out and tied my arena and marn together off my pole, they didn't even turn the power off. They put, they just put 220, into 220 wires and said, oh, it's now on this building as well. So I don't know if it's going to be that big of an expense if they're already digging down there. That may be perceived as a bad method by the neighbors. I mean, it may help. In this whole point. All right, so we can, we can just add a a second sentence that just provides in the event, you know, one of those. That's it. That's it. One of those kind of. In the event that the neighbor's wire. You can turn, turn around, John, Emily's got some text up there on the screen that might be helpful for you. It would actually be from Mount View to the pole. Polls would actually be, well, then the applicant shall place underground. Then the applicant will be required to bury the underground, to bury underground utilities. In the event that the neighbor's utilities are underground from the driveway split to 374 Mountain View Road. That's the neighbors. Then the applicant shall be required to bury the utilities underground from Mountain View Road to the pole at driveway split. Otherwise, the applicant shall underground utilities from the pole at driveway split to the existing house at 376 and the proposed triplex. So otherwise the applicant shall bury underground not shall underground. As opposed to burying above ground. In a very few bodies. That's an inner thing now. Burying above ground. Okay, I think, I think you got it. All right. Okay, so John, do you have a, are you accepting a final argument? I'd like to put forth that revision as recently read by Emily. Right. And then, and I'm going to try again to get to 2F into the record here that says landscape planning compliance with WDB 23 retaining the existing privacy heads along the West property line while maintaining screening at ground level. The applicant is encouraged to contact the neighbor, ring landowner at 374 Mountain View Road regarding their concerns about the buffer. Great. Thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second it. David seconds. Any further discussion? Okay. Yay or nay? Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. Nate? Yay. Chair is the yay. Six in favor, none opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 21-19? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, move the Welleson Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Welleson Development By-law. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 22nd, 2022, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 21-19 and approve this discretionary permit for master sign, oops, approve this discretionary permit for subject conditions of approval above. The approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval for these plans from staff, and then seek administrative sign permits. Great. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds it. Any further discussion? Yay or nay? Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. Nate? Yay. And the chair has recused himself. Motion carries five in favor, none opposed. One recuse recusal. Okay. Next up is AP 23-0062. Is there a motion? Yes, I will make the motion. Emily, could you post it on the big screen, please? So I can read it. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 8th, 2022, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for AP 23-0062 and deny the administrative permit for this whole business. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds it. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none. Paul? Yay or nay? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave Turner has recused himself because he did not participate in the November 8th hearing. Nate Andrews. Yay. And the chair is a yay. Five in favor, none opposed. One recused. Motion carries. Meeting minutes for November 8th. Did we take care of the master sign permit? I think that's what we got to do, the MSB one. Oh, I kind of was confused because part of it was the master sign plan. Is it a separate number? Well, if it's not a separate number, then it was just approved. I think that should refer to it as an MSB. I'm recommended they just run the motion and say MSP at the end of the number because that's how we catalog them, but. Okay. Let's do that. Okay. So that would be DP 21-19 master sign plan. Okay. Is there a motion for DP 21-19 master sign plan? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Dave Turner, moved the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards. Required a comment on this application by the Williston Development By-law, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of November 22nd, 2022, except the findings in fact, the conclusions of law for DP 21-19-MSP and approved the discussionary permit for master sign plan, subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to submit final plans, obtain approval for these plans from staff, and then seek administrative sign permit, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans in which this approval is based. Great. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? I'll second it. Okay. So I'll rather he seconds it. Any further discussion? Okay. Yay or nay, Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. Nate? Yay. The chair has recused himself, five in favor, none opposed, one recused, motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the minutes of November 8th, 2022? Scott has made a motion to approve the meeting minutes. As written, is there a second? I'll second it. Dave seconds it. I want to have some discussion on this. Is there any discussion? On the roe beer pre-app, I don't see anything in here about the recommendation to put in the striped bike lane along the driveway. Did we not, did we not adopt that? You did ask for some language about how did we word it? 30 or 44. I agree with you, John. We included that. So I'd like to have that added into the minutes that there was a recommendation to provide a, my memory stinks. Striped bike lane? It was a painted bike lane. Emily, would this be back on your notes from, would this be back on any of the amended notes that you would have made or somebody would have made during that hearing? I don't recall if we wrote words live to this or if you did, okay. I think it might be. Let me see. Wait, which one is this for? Roe beer shun pike. Yeah. I think what probably happens is that the recommendation is in motion, didn't get updated. It's 2305. Yeah, in the parcel folders, there's a version with DRB edits. The applicant shall include within the private driveways design, a lane designated for pedestrian bicycle use. That's what we came up with. So that can be added. That's also in the discussion. Yes, it was in the discussion, but I'd like to see it in the, in the recommendations. And I don't know, was that, was that put in there as a recommendation number four? Yes. I'd like to, I'd like to move it. Okay. So the, so the minutes will reflect such good catch. Good catch, John. Anything else? No, okay. Any other, any other discussion? Okay. Yay or nay on the meeting minutes with the amendment that we just discussed. Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. Nate? Yay. Chair's the yay, six in favor and none opposed. Okay. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Staff? No? A great holiday. Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving. Happy Thanksgiving. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Okay. Thank you all.