 I don't like the magnet. It's a newborn. As everybody signed in, if you have not signed in, please do so. Please do it legibly. If we can't read it, we cannot log you in as we do here. OK, maybe not. Don't pray that legibly. Have you ever seen this plan once or twice in a long time? It's a year ago, and a year ago. Yeah. The last 18 months, we got 650 units. So we got two year supply in one year. And you could feel it, and you could really feel it. Without, at least it doesn't feel like a major increase in employment. Right. Where are these people from? There has been a fair amount of new employment from what we're seeing. I think it depends on number two. State agencies out of the hospital. Hospital, yeah. They were all UVM. Addict, and that has slowed down, too. Yeah, yeah. It has to see some of the private sector jobs expand, right? Yeah, yeah. So overall, I'd say it's pretty good. But I think we are, I feel, we're feeling a problem. A problem. Good. All right. So, Melinda, you're in luck. You're in luck. You're in luck. It's 10 years. All right. It's called the Brunches Town Center. That's another... Yeah. Yeah, actually, she's up first, so. Okay, everybody now signed in. I'm going to assume that's the case. All right. A little red light on that thing? No way. Nope. Okay. All right. Great. We are going to bring the meeting to order at 7.06. Welcome everyone to the Town of Williston's Development Review Board. There are four items on the agenda for tonight. We're going to start off with DP 14-06, amendment number one for Mr. and Mrs. Howard and Janice Novak. And I guess Jason will agree as well. So come on up. Good evening. Good evening. So when everybody is situated, if you would all state your names and your addresses, we would appreciate it. All O'Leary with an O'Leary-Bark Sybil Associates, 13 corporate drives, S-Exjunction, Vermont. Jason Green, Mark Stone Lane, Williston. Howard Novak, Mark Stone Lane, Williston. Great. Howard owns lot three. Jason owns lot number two. Okay. Where does staff go first? This is a request for a discretionary permit for a proposed amendment to a three-lot residential subdivision located in the ARZD. Subject property is located on Hart Stone Lane, which is accessed from Golf Course Road on the east side of North Williston Road. The applicant's proposing to enlarge the building envelopes established in the approval of DP 14-06. This is the first amendment to DP 14-06, and the first time the board has reviewed this request. The applicant is proposing a change to the previously approved site plan, which requires a discretionary permit amendment. Because this shared driveway was recently renamed to Hart Stone Lane in September 2017, we've included a chart just to avoid any confusion between former addresses and the current addresses. The pre-application review for the three-lot subdivision was conducted in February 2012. In March 2013, this project didn't receive growth management allocation, but did receive growth management allocation in March 2014. The DRB approved the subdivision as DP 14-06 on May 26th, 2015. Administrative permits for driveway construction were issued for Lot 2 and Lot 3 on September 28th, 2015. Lot 3 received an administrative permit on May 1st, 2017 to build a single-family dwelling. Lot 2 has not yet submitted an administrative permit to build a house. The project's located in the ARZD. However, the 10.45-acre parent parcel is just below the 10.5-acre threshold of the 75% open-space requirement. Thus, it's not considered an open-space subdivision. Lot 1 at 6.25 acres contains the existing house and is not affected by this proposal. Lot 2 and Lot 3, each at a little over two acres, are new building lots approved or created by DP 14-06. The applicants proposing to increase the size of the Lot 2 building envelope from 22,720 square feet to 29,966 square feet, which brings it to 32.5% of the 2.1-acre lot. It's proposing to enlarge the building envelope by shifting the southern boundary of the building envelope further southward. The applicants proposing to increase the size of the Lot 3 building envelope from 15,457 square feet to 17,127 square feet, or 18.7% of the 2-acre lot. By shifting the western boundary of the building envelope westward to the edge of the 50-foot no-cut buffer, the 50-foot no-cut buffer was established by condition number 9 of DP 14-06. The applicant stated that the proposed amendment wouldn't have an adverse impact on the forested habitat identified in the previously submitted Habitat Disturbance Assessment. The assessment notes an area of wildlife use in the northeast corner of Lot 3, but the proposed change in building envelopes doesn't encroach on that area. And it's planning staff's opinion that the proposed modification of the building envelopes on both Lot 2 and Lot 3 can meet the criteria of no adverse impact to the significant wildlife habitat area as specified under Williston Development By-law Chapter 27. As far as comments from other departments, the Department of Public Works had no comments for the project. The Williston Fire Department had no comments. The Williston Conservation Commission reviewed the project on October 18th of 2017 and responded with the following recommendations. The WCC had previously recommended that a formal wetland delineation is not necessary due to the distance of the existing wetland from the edge of the nearest proposed building envelope, and this recommendation still stands. The WCC recommends the boundary of the 50-foot no-cut buffer on Lot 2 and Lot 3 should be monumented as a condition of approval. That was carried over from the previous conditions of approval. The proposed amended building envelope for Lot 2 should be adjusted so that it incorporates the circular driveway at the... As you can see, I'm not sure whether they changed that since our meeting, but... We have not. So on the site plan, it just shows the circular driveway extending outside the southern part of the building envelope, and there's recommending that the building envelope include that circular driveway. So I'm recommending approval of this discretionary permit with the recommended findings of facts and conclusions of law and conditions of approval that I provided below. Great. Thank you. Paul, would you like to add? Very little. The site plan shows the actual houses that we're proposing to build. Lot 3 is well in the construction. Lot 2 hopes to begin this fall. We're in agreement with the proposed conditions as written. Okay. Thank you. DP14-06, amendment number one. No backs and greens at 716. Next up is DP16-20, Frank and Crystal DeVita. Welcome. Good evening. Thank you. Good evening. Names and addresses please, gentlemen. Frank DeVita, Fieldstone Drive, Williston. Doug Gouette from Lamaroe and Dickinson Engineering with 240 Southridge Road, Williston. Great. Welcome again. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Bellovo, is this you? Me. All right. So this is a request for a discretionary permit to five lot residential development for building lots, one open space lot, 35 acres in the ARZD. This item was continued from the September 12th DRB meeting. As the board may recall, the staff had obtained an opinion from our attorney, some materials that were submitted by the applicant, as well as some modifications to the site plan. So the application was continued to give the applicant an opportunity to submit a formal set of revised site plans in advance. And we also obtained a second legal opinion from the town's attorney in response to the legal opinion that the applicant provided or obtained from his attorney. So all that contained in your packet. So, you know, the project history on this briefly, the original subdivision was approved back in 1995 under SUB 9510. This application started back in 2016 under DP1620, went through pre-application, obtained growth management allocation this past March and now is in for potentially a formal approval of a permit to subdivide. There's a couple of issues at stake here. One is part of what the applicant is requesting is to create building lots in an area that was not designated to be built in back when this subdivision was approved 22 years ago. Some of the proposed lots, as they've been configured, in addition actually encroach into what had been defined as the no-build area back in the original subdivision. In addition, there's the question about whether or not the street as it exists, Fieldstone Drive, is brought up, the terminus of it is brought up to the town's current standard, which is to go to a cul-de-sac. It was originally built with a hammerhead terminus, which was allowed at one time, is no longer the town's current standard. The legal opinions, both the ones that we obtained from our attorney as well as the applicant's attempt to address those issues and some of these issues were discussed at the previous DRB meeting. Suffice it to say that the public works position in terms of that the applicant, if this is approved, would need to meet the current public work standard that's been adopted by the select board. Their position has not changed. The planning staff position and support of that position has also not changed. The town's attorney position on that has also not changed. So we're all still agreement on that point. The larger issue, I think, which was raised by council going back to his original opinion, is there's a serious question as to whether this should be entertained at all. And I think this raises some really serious concerns. It attempts to break new ground that I think has potentially very dangerous effects and a potential precedent that could affect just what the town is trying to do in terms of our development in the Agri-Roll zoning district, which represents somewhere between 75 and 80% of the land area of the town. So I think there's a lot at stake here. And our position, I think, is pretty clear we're opposed to it. We've recommended that you deny it. Okay, thank you. General. Great. Well, thank you. I'll go through a brief overview myself of what's changed since the last time we are here since September 12th, I think it was. I mean, first, I think I strongly disagree with all Ken's adjectives about how serious this is and how, you know, what a terrible precedent this would set. You know, this is a great little infill project. We've got five existing houses that were approved in 1995. The applicant's house is here, and there's four more lots, two are under construction, beautiful homes being built. So we're proposing, there's always been a lot, five in this location. We're proposing three new lots with frontage on Fieldstone Drive. The rules have significantly changed, as you know, since 1995 with the adoption of open space developments, which is what this conforms with. So you're ending up with, as you can tell, a huge amount of open space that will be protected in perpetuity. The remainder, what's not open space, will be common land shared with the eight lot owners. So we strongly disagree with staff that this is setting a bad precedent. This is a great project. So what did we talk about last time? We had proposed a barn, if you remember right, an architectural or, excuse me, agricultural structure in this location because of the open space regulations that restrict buildings in designated open space. That structure has been removed and is not proposed as part of this project. That was one discussion point that we had. As Ken mentioned, there was discussion last time, lot seven and eight, located right here. Their building envelopes encroached into this 1995 quote, no build zone, which I know it's hard for you to see, but it's that red line. Right there, it shows up on your point. So that no build zone was just that. It was an area that was not to have buildings in it. So to respect that line from 1995, we pulled the building envelopes for lot seven and eight. Previously they did encroach lightly the building envelopes into the no build zone that back set back lines for both loads. Lots have been moved south so that they now fall on the no build zone. So that there is no building envelope. No structures can be built in the 1995 no build zone. See that as an issue whatsoever. The septic that's shown, or the approved system that's shown for lot seven, does that exist now? No. So is there a definition of what build means? Well, that was always there. Even on the 1995 plans. Well, plus the no build zone goes out and around that wastewater system if you notice that. Oh, got it, got it. Okay, sorry. That's why we're back here from 1995 is the rules absolutely changed. The town rules, you know, with regard to open space, the bylaws changed. And the septic, as we talked before, I think in September the septic rules have changed where we needed to provide replacement of my own systems. We don't need to do that anymore. So we were left with an abundance of wastewater areas that weren't being implemented. So we thought, why don't we add a few more homes to this development and utilize those mouth systems and still respect the open space and the rural character of the property. So that's what you're looking at here. With regards to the hammerhead, let's make sure we're all clear. We're not proposing a new road. This is a town road that was accepted in 2015. We're just proposing lots with frontage on that road. Again, if we were proposing to build a new road, we certainly would agree with Public Works that it would have to be built to today's standards. But we don't understand and never have the desire for Public Works for three new houses to reconstruct the hammerhead. It's a deeded town road. We talked about this at PREAP in length and you folks agreed that that recommendation was not supported and that was part of your decision. The applicant moved forward with the understanding that that decision would be upheld moving forward. So as you know, after PREAP, that's when we start spending the big bucks on doing all the design of stormwater, wastewater, lot layout, property plots. As a result of that, we moved forward with this layout and since then we've got a state wastewater permit issued for the project. We've got a state stormwater permit issued. We've got a construction general permit that's been issued for this project. We're just waiting for a couple loose ends on Act 250 and that was all based on the premise that you were happy with the road layout that we presented at PREAP. We absolutely, irregardless of all the attorneys posturing, we think what's said here in documented at PREAP is important and we took it for face value that you wouldn't change your mind on such an important issue as that roadway issue. So we thought it was clear direction that you didn't support public work, so we moved forward. Lastly, with regard to this whole issue of whether it's legal or if that's a proper term to resubdivide this property, I don't know if staff did any research. I can't imagine that this is the first project that's come in for subdivision that hasn't been part of a previous subdivision. I just can't believe that. So I don't see what precedent we've set here in 1995. There was no restrictions that we couldn't resubdivide. Lot five remember was 30 some odd acres, 35.4 acres. So that's what we're here to do. We know of no restrictions in the bylaws that say we can't resubdivide this property. Staff hasn't provided any documentation nor has the town attorney that were in violation of any bylaw. There's no citing of any sections that this project isn't meeting. It's simply speculative that they think they have a serious concern. I'm not an attorney, but there just hasn't been anything cited that would say this doesn't meet the bylaw. In fact, the town attorney in his last review letter, whatever you want to call it, in the last paragraph says that there is really the bylaw doesn't address this situation. It's silent on it. And that you may or may not look at it based on Act 250's criteria as a Stoke Club Highlands Analysis. Having said that, we already presented that to you. That analysis, we did it, and it was accepted by Act 250. We handed it out to everyone here, including staff and Emily. So that's part of the public record. The town attorney seemed to indicate that that was still an open question, and I don't know whether he was supplied with our Stoke Club Highlands Analysis or not, but certainly staff had it. So that's a little question we have, is why didn't he comment? We had the Stoke Highlands Clubs Analysis already done, yet he still throws that up as maybe a test that you folks should consider as to whether we could subdivide this property or not. But again, I think in my closing argument or overview, I just think what's really significant here in all the town documentation, the staff reports, the legal opinions leading up to tonight's meeting, there is no cited references to where this project does not meet the bylaw. It does. We're not doing anything unusual here. Anyway, I think that's where I'll stop. Frank, we'll go through a couple issues with regards to the staff report, and we'll open it up. I'll try to make it as quick as I can, where I know the times, the absence. First off, I just wanted to find out my lawyer Jeremy Fark has wanted to know if you guys had received his 75-page document. He asked me to ask you. Okay, he'll be happy. So I would just like to go over my comments on the staff notes with you. And then after that, a background summary of how the issues have gotten to this point from our perspective. Again, but I just want to make a couple of quick points here. You may have noticed in our lawyer's letter from last month, it mentions that Crystal and I have about $35,000 investment into this since the pre-app decision in June of 2016. Now it's over 40. To put it simply, if the DRB does a reversal on its previous decision, we will lose those monies. There is no reasonably possible way to make this work if the roadway needs to be modified. This is a decision that can have serious consequences on real people. Further, Crystal and I feel that the taxpayers of this town, which are most of us here, deserve to be treated with respect and fairness from the town to which it supports financially and to which it contributes socially. Crystal and I have been supported in this town for over 25 years, and we will continue to be positive in a contributing source in both of these areas. I'll try to go through this in an organized fashion from here on. Feel free to interrupt if I get ahead or if you need to answer, ask any questions. Just go into project history, second paragraph, minor comment. At June 11, 2013, the initial pre-app, we withdrew because the approved conditions required forfeiture of the 95 approved public roadway, turning it private. There was some unclear as to why we dropped that. I just wanted to explain that's what happened. Into the open space, touching on some of what Doug mentioned, disagree with labeling the no-build zone as open space, the 1995 no-build zone was not defined other than in its description as recorded on the plat, which was boundary line of lot five land use restriction area, no-build zone north of this line. That was the only definition that has ever been recorded for that no-build zone. And we are adhering to this description by not proposing any building or envelopes in the no-build zone. Moving further, the conservation commissions section, just want to make clear that our current revised proposal adheres to those requests. Moving further to the public work section at the end before the fire department section, I just want to say that last statement about the legal opinion. I think it's arbitrary. As Doug said, we're not asking for a street design approval. We have pointed out exhaustively that we're proposing three new lots with driveway access to an existing public roadway. Okay, so moving further down to the fire department section at the end, our interpretation of this revised statement from the fire chief is that he does not require a pond for a buried tank. Now, discussion section. The first sentence where he talks about we're proposing to further subdivide land that had already been subdivided in our previous town regulations. As Doug mentioned, it's somewhat arbitrary. It's basically true for all lands subdivided in Williston, which was settled in 1700s. Corrections. The next sentence talks about the author's sub-9510 created three lots. It was five lots. And it says there was open space area defined on the plat correction. No build zone. It was within lot five, as I said earlier, not a separate lot. Legal opinions. At the end of that first paragraph, my comment is, these legal opinions were retained from both of the legal opinions of the town lawyer were retained from our receipt and review for several weeks until just days prior to the hearings, leaving us with no time to respond and little time to prepare. This is, in my opinion, just unprofessional. Continue to have time to prepare. Again, down the road. Okay. Recommendations. At the end of that paragraph, before findings of fact, I just simply want to say we object to the recommendation. Crystal and I request the DRB to approve our current proposal and we urge the DRB to consider all of the points we make have made consistently with support of the public in which we have had concurrence of this subdivision process. Moving on to findings of fact, number one, the correction, 386 Fieldstone Drive is the 911 address of existing lot five. That's 386. Down to number three, findings of fact. I believe this is irrelevant. There was no expiration or time limits imposed on the condition of our subdivision or the roadway. The fact that we took almost 20 years to complete was our prerogative and could be looked at as admirable from the standpoint of slowing the growth consistent with the accepted overall philosophy of growth in Vermont and Williston. Number four, just a correction again as I explained earlier, there was no existing lot. It was just an area on lot five defined on the plot as a no-build zone. Number five, another correction here. The proposed design is consistent with the language of the plot. Number six, a correction. It's not lot five, lot eight. It's lot six and modified lot five are located near the end of the roadway. We point out that although this hammer design is no longer the standard for new roadway design in Williston, we are not proposing any new roadway design. Conclusions of law section at the end. We disagree with the statement. We have honored and adhered to all of the current standards that apply. No specific sections have been cited. Moving further, the conditions of approval. Just want to point out an I is still incorrect as we pointed out at the last meeting. The correct minimum number is 26.58 acres which we have met. Not the 7.95 acres of the 10.6. That's 35.44. Item B, we object to this condition of the public works comments and ask that it be removed in consistency with the pre-application approved minutes. Number four, FYI, that's been done in July. Couple e-mails to Melinda. Number six, no comment right now on that. Number 10, we concur. We present a non-conflicting material that is consistent with the decision of the DRB at the pre-application hearing. We need a proposed motion. I just want to say we object to some parts of the motion. If you'd like to take a note, you're welcome, but I just wanted to point out that line five into six request to please omit accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by staff for the review of the DP 16-20. Three more requests in that. Line six, please replace the word deny with approve. Line six, please add DP 16-20 before discretionary permit. And finally on line seven, please change five-lot residential development to subdivision. Now I'll just try to quickly wrap things up with the background history and try to put a little light on why we're having these issues. Spring of 2013 in preparation for the initial one-lot pre-app hearing. The planner suggested I'm going to refer to the planner as I'm going to talk in the third person for clarity here so you can follow and I'll refer to the planner as planner and I rank David as FD so on. Planner suggested to FD that he see Public Works Director who I'll call PW. FD visited with PW and PW office meeting went very poorly. I choose and I'm going to skip down further to I choose to refrain from offering the details of this conversation in due respect to PW. However, his behavior was no way for a town official to present himself. Nobody deserves that kind of treatment. I'm referring to myself here. I was provoked and put on the spot to defend against his behavior in only a way that came to me at the moment. I regret the way the entire conversation was handled. Days to follow FD met with town manager TM and planner. TM was very accommodating and planner was also. TM said that PW would be spoken to or something like that and it would be handled appropriately. Shortly after this meeting the planner or planner confirmed that Fieldstone Drive approved roadway design was vested from the town standpoint and could be pursued. The conditions of 95 approval were recognized in effect including a requirement to provide a letter of credit and drafts of the roadway deed and offer of dedication. Skipping further, I'm going to skip a few things here to something that another incident that bears weight on this why we're here thing. The day after the pre-app hearing on May 25, 2016 another disturbing event occurred. FD met with lawyer Don Maddox to review title work that had to be done for two upcoming closings of sales of lots three and four at Fieldstone Drive. Maddox asked FD to go to the town after the meeting and ask planner if he could do an administrative change on an easement line shown on the plat. Once again this is my comment I choose to refrain from presenting the details of that discussion out of due respect to the planner but I can summarize by saying that the planner was angry speaking loudly in close proximity to others in the office I did not engage or retaliate but simply put both hands up backed away said that it was okay and left. We haven't spoken to each other since except for earlier tonight when we walked in so that was nice. Now here we are at the discretionary permit hearing tonight and I would like to share some of these issues that have gotten out of hand. After this verbal presentation of my testament I submit a plea for the DRB to approve our DP16-20 discretionary permit with the corrections that I've offered and also a request for the town not to engage in further legal actions. Sincerely frank and crystal the data. Thank you. Are you complete? Doug anything else you want to add? Thank you. Questions from the board? To refresh my memory since this has been going on a while can you point out how you are going to access lot 5 initially when it was a single lot in a single building lot? How are you going to access that? Was it near the hammerhead? Was it down by where lot 7 and 8 were? There was a house exactly where it was but the house was somewhere down in this location with the driveway coming off the hammerhead and then obviously the the upper arm of the hammerhead because the lower one looks like it's entirely they didn't access lot 4. I don't recall John and Frank. They wanted it at the end, the very end because they didn't want the Y they didn't want the Y is disturbed for plowing purposes they wanted it at the very end at the V of the Y. Of course we were dealing with Neil Boyden back at that point. We were dealing with Neil Boyden back at that point not Bruce Hoare. I'm just as soon as you started to keep personalities out of this. No, but I'm just saying personnel has changed. So in other words that driveway would have been essentially an extension of the approach you had on the road and it would go straight through the Y to get onto this. And for the lots that you were proposing is that two driveways coming off that spot or off of the hammerhead or is it a shared driveway? As you look at the Y they're coming off the interior portions the V. The same place. Two separate driveways. Sheet S1 shows it. S1 shows it at a larger scale. They're sort of light lines but they're there. Sorry. It's hard to read those between the contours and the company lines and the building at this scale and with the age of my eyes. So this is the Sheet S1 I was covering at the driveway for a lot. It's shown right here and the driveway for lot 6 is shown right here. So the piece portions are all open. Not that are currently formulated. Other questions from the board? Did you say that the cul-de-sac, so forgetting about money and the background and the issues, is the cul-de-sac itself the design, the layout of it? I thought you said it kills the project or something? Why is that? We've got my own systems down the end of the road that would be taken out plus two building lots. What's the rate? Is it a 50 foot radius? I don't have the specs here but it's big. It's kind of a tear job with a 50 foot radius along the outside. I don't recall the length. And so it's the area is much bigger than the hammerhead? Yes. I guess I can't scale it off of my head. Well remember, I mean lot 4 I guess doesn't matter which I point to. Lot 4 is not part of the project anymore. It's a private lot with a house on it now. We've lost our ability or we've lost our flexibility to change the geometry of that hammerhead to some degree. But as Frank was saying the cul-de-sac would have to be out here somewhere and would jeopardize both lot 5 and 6. And the mount systems? For staff, has public works ever stated why or if there's anything other than it not being the current standard why the hammerhead is not acceptable? Do they have trouble plowing or trouble maneuvering? It has to do with plowing and turning vehicles around. That's why the current standard is a cul-de-sac. Or what it's worth I know. Other towns continue to have the hammerhead as their design standard. And the last question I guess is I don't fully understand what the problem is with re-subdividing. There's the Stoke Club Highlands out there but it seems like that wasn't an issue that came up with Act 250. I guess it would be helpful to understand why you can't reopen a subdivision in this case. What the precedent would be that would be set by improvements. There's a lot of ideas that were designated on that original subdivision plot. That so the words no build zone was what went on the plot. When you look through the record it was discussed as a type of open space. And so it was it's clear to me when you read through the record that it was the planning commission at the time we didn't have a DRB. They were looking to achieve some sort of preservation of open space as part of the approval. And it was also contemplated that there would be this area where somebody might be able to build something like an ag structure. And so what the applicant is requesting now is they're sort of chipping away at that. And I think that goes to the heart of Paul Gillis's comments which is that there were no conditions of approval. There were public hearings. There were no appeals. And so these things may seem small but they were all part of an overall concept and approval. The town's regulations clearly were not exactly the same as they are now. But a lot of what we have today the seeds of them go back certainly to the 90s I would characterize them have evolved over the years. So to me that's an important question is that somebody the wisdom of the planning commission and the regulations at the time was here's the building lots here's these areas that are going to be protected they're going to be protected as open space for any number of reasons as well as this area where we're going to reserve for somebody might put some type of an outbuilding on it and now what's being requested now attempts to undo that's and so you know my concern is that the whole preservation of open space in this zoning district for any lot greater than 10 and a half acres is a key and core principle of what we try to achieve and how we review and approve residential developments residential subdivisions so so that's so that David is where my you know where my injections come from I forget the layout of the approved the 95 plan physically is it at the eastern end is that chipping away at the open space is it because of the reconfiguration of the building so these proposed original there you put it up on the easel for me because I just can't see it so the no-build zone as remain saying we're not chipping away everything underneath the no-build zone there are the lots there was a large accessory building envelope so they could build whatever they wanted in there primary residential large building envelope here for lot 5 and then remember lot 5 was an open space this was all privately owned property and the light the medium green stuff was for anything there wasn't any restrictions over there so right now we're offering common land instead of that light green area preserved another thing I just had to add was in 95 we restricted the 5 lots because 150 test pits or better we're dug and 44 acres and that was it we could only get 10 and we needed 10 for 5 lots we wanted to put 7 or 8 lots on there all along so when you talk about the 90s in the intent yeah that was our intent our intent was to have a neighborhood like that and I'm sure it would have came out of it I mean probably not even as good because the rules have strengthened now I mean and let's not forget the permitted density on this property is 19 units so staff is over exaggerating that we're raping and pillaging this poor little property we're providing more than 75% open space common land which will remain undeveloped I think we've gone from from good to better in our proposal from 1995 but the idea that once a piece of property is subdivided it can never be further subdivided is that what we're saying here or is that what staff is saying so what I'm saying is that what's being proposed is attempting to undo some of the elements of what was approved as part of the whole of that SUB 9510 so as Doug has correctly pointed out there's the no-build area there's also that area that I mentioned just a couple of moments ago that was reserved for outbuildings and now we're talking about carving out building lots in there so that's a different thing and my point would be all those things were designed to go together including the layout of the street all those things they were you could look at individual components of it but all that stuff was designed to go together so that's really what I'm referring to is that so we have in the one hand there's we have lots portions of two proposed lots to encroach into what was designated as the no-build zone and in addition both of those lots are being proposed in areas that were never conceived to be for building areas for houses that was for outbuildings and it given the note on the plat it seems clear that those were really thought of as being in support of the open space or the no-build zone which I believe may be prime ag soils as well so that's where the objections come from can I just say one quick question when Ken is referring to the carving out building lots I just want to make it clear that the accessory building envelope was this light green area here where anything could have went in there anything this was a 35 acre farm designated to be a farm we're proposing that lot right there what's that one part of lot eight encroaches into a small piece of that accessory building envelope not two lots part of one this is all going away now no buildings are going to be there these people right here who are going to be part of this association are going to have preserved distant views forever because this is protected and they've expressed to me a number of times that that's very important to them as a matter of fact I had to put it in the deed for lot four that there couldn't be anything in his view shit so they're elated that this is going away and we're just taking a small section of it and we're just like we said over and over I think we're just improving things out there really and anything we're enhancing the intent of the 95 and I just go back to the bylaw is the rule book for you folks where does it say in the bylaw that we're doing something that shouldn't be done it doesn't exist or staff would have found it by now I'm guessing other questions from board so if this were to be improved you're essentially subdividing a single lot five as a new subdivision into four building lots and maintain the open space from the initial approval what happens what about the rest of the land is the open space a separate lot so I can answer that so first of all there was no original open space five was totally private with the area they couldn't have no build we can keep repeating that if you want but it's just taking up more time here I'm trying to get to the point of what is left of the non no build zone what does that become part of I can answer that I had a meeting with the two new lot owners before this okay so lots Steve Hackett owns lot three now he's building a house in Susan Greenbaum living on lot four three and four I had a meeting with them before we decided to do this proposing the open space and I suggested I said hey look I think I want to turn lot five into common land most of it you guys want and they couldn't believe it they wanted to know if I was going to ask them for money I'm like no I'm not asking you for money I'm just asking you if you you want to do this so it's common land everything all these lots these white lots that's our lot my lot my crystal and I this is vacant right now still we own that that's lot three and that's lot four this entire thing here currently is lot five but does this project not have what I'm hearing you say initially is that this project has nothing to do with lots one two three and four and yet those lots are gaining common land common ownership of wait we own one two and five okay yeah probably didn't explain that actually it seems that this does indeed include lots one two three and four because they've gained common land well they don't have to you could exclude them from that we could but you just said that they haven't I think that's a good point there's a nice neighborhood out there so everyone wants everyone to have a nice neighborhood well if we're restricted and only having open space to those four lots that's fine too I mean if somehow legally we can't accommodate them but they'll be happy anyway knowing that it's a non-build zone homeowner's association with this neighborhood well officially it's hasn't been registered with the state but everything's been prepared bylaws and who would be members of this homeowner's association the proposed members right now are myself which lots would be involved okay the proposed members are one this one works better that pen won't do it for you one one member from each lot so if there's eight lots total there's going to be eight members that's the proposal and right now I'm the crystal and I own lots one two and five and Steve and I are on the other two so there's three of us basically just to make sure there's no question about the difference between the common land up in the top sheet the light green are the lots proposed lots as part of the subdivision the two darker shades of green are all of the common land if you will so the common land amounts to 31.7 acres so that's all of this will be all common land of that this will be designated as open space as required by the panel that is everything this the red this is all open space as opposed to common land just to make that difference so the HOA would be the owner of the common land sorry the homeowners association would own the common land is that a lot nine is that a separate lot which is labeled C1 there's two C1 and C2 C2 is the big C1 is where the four of the mound systems are C2 would be all of the screen I just referred to C2 that's C2 C1 is this little strip here which is four mound systems so that would be common land ownership as well all persons eight, nine, five, and six common area with these common mounds if there's a failure how are they going to sort that out out of curiosity since they got four house building lot mounds all in one place if one fails it's a good chance they could all go right yes or no well you're here to make a statement I think more than me answering that but maybe the applicant can answer that oh okay lot so the four septic systems in this C1 C1 are owned by lots one, two, three, and eight and the plaque clearly shows that all four of those lots have an easement over that entire parcel for future maintenance they could in there and work on the mound systems they're four separate lots they look like one but they're four separate they're not okay other questions from the audience any other questions from the board I'm going to ask you again do you have a choice you can, we can close the hearing and vote or we can continue probably another four weeks you can address the issues that have been brought up at this hearing no continuance please alright very good we're going to close DP 60-20 Frank and Crystal DeVita at 808 thanks for your time while we have a moment the hearing tonight and we'll be taking her seat on the board at the next hearing welcome it's Paul here too where's Paul he just he even said his name perfect welcome as well Paul I didn't realize you were here we're looking forward to having both of you on the board okay next up is DP 18-05 Brian Harnett gentlemen welcome, if everyone would state their names and their addresses please I'm Ian Jukes from Crebson Lansing Consulting Engineers 164 Main Street, Colchester say her name one more time Ian Jukes Brad Revenowitz, architect 200 Main Street, Burlington Brian Harnett, veterinarian 51 Nashville Road, Jarrett Overmont Jesse Carzwell, Crebson Lansing Consulting Engineers 164 Main Street, Colchester great, welcome Matt you look like you're ready to go this is a request for pre-application review it is to both adjust a boundary line in an existing industrial commercial subdivision and to develop one of the adjusted lots with a new building and site for Burlington Emergency Veterinary Services this is on Marshall Avenue it is to the north of the existing FedEx facility and across the street from the Champlain Oil Fleet Fuelers facility before you get to Shun Pike Road if you were headed north northwest on Marshall Avenue the proposed building is currently designed at 17,145 square feet includes all of the things that you would expect to come along with a new building parking, signage, outdoor lighting we are in the industrial zoning District West Veterinary Services is an allowed use in the zoning district subject to site plan approval by the Development Review Board in any conditions on that approval necessary to generate compliance with the bylaw quick note this is a pre-application meeting this is intended under our bylaw to be a concept level review there are a few things the DRB can decide to request a pre-applicant bring it the next stage of review as part of their pre-application recommendations including wetlands delineation functional assessment, shared parking study, traffic study there's a few other determinations I've listed there that aren't really applicable to this one related to infill developments transfer development rights or specific plan that the DRB can also apply at pre-application this property is currently developed it's a big open field the subject lots currently have the same tax parcel ID number in Williston system so certain maps if you were to go look for them they actually show up as one but there is a dividing line there and it's a line that was created as part of the original production park subdivision in the area as I mentioned the proposed use is an allowed one in the eye west the building is a little under feet there is a boundary line adjustment proposed to create a more regular lot that would fit the proposed building parking and other appurtenances at this point we don't have a full lighting plan nor would we expect one but the staff does note that outdoor lighting will require a complete lighting plan photometric plan showing compliance with all of the maximum intensity pass uniformity ratios etc that are required under our bylaw in terms of setback in landscaping I've tried to identify for the board and the applicant what the likely allowable landscape buffers are for this project in most of Williston side and rear yard buffers are determined by combination of the intensity of the proposed use the intensity of the adjacent use and the amount of landscaping that's proposed to be planted so the more alike two things are the smaller the setback the more you're willing to plant in a buffer in terms of density of vegetation the smaller the setback I have identified adjacent uses including vacant land that would be the other lot that's subject to the boundary line adjustment public way Marshall Avenue where we're looking at street treats scenario and a typical zoning setback of 35 feet in the south that's the FedEx facility I have identified the lands to the west as residential there is kind of a mix of uses back there one of those uses is residential and that's the one that generates the greatest demand for a setback so that's the one I've identified in the pre application notes for the board to consider there is also a requirement that we're identifying at this stage of parking lot landscaping a requirement that a minimum of 5% of the area of any parking lot in landscaping and that landscaping includes shade trees that provide shade over the parking lot there's no proposed outdoor storage at this stage outdoor storage is typical in a lot of industrial uses probably not typical for this use and we wouldn't necessarily expect the applicant to need to identify outdoor storage areas on a plan like this in terms of access the applicant using to access by a new drive on Marshall Avenue it's a town road and we would look for public works to review and approve or recommend approval of that access under their standards there are new vehicle trips that are expected with this new use some of those would be during the PM peak hour which is the design hour used by the town in assessing its transportation impact fee this is also the stage of review the PRB may determine whether they would like to see a traffic impact study or other traffic impact information submitted by the applicant as part of a discretionary permit and I'd recommend the board ask the applicants about what their anticipated trip generation is what their operation looks like during that PM peak to try to get a feel for whether you want more information or whether you just are comfortable with an administrative fee happening on the road there are parking requirements in Williston's bylaw and they are expressed as generally both a minimum and a maximum meaning there's generally one correct number of parking spaces for any site or use and that that number can then generally be reduced or increased based on compliance with a couple different elements of the bylaw in the case of what the applicant has shown here they've shown about 85 parking spaces that uses a medical office standard to generate the parking number I've provided the DRB with a table using the veterinary clinic standard which is significantly less and I put that out there I use the term compliance summary in my parking table but really we're having a pre-application discussion and I think it would be good for the DRB to take any testimony they'd like and give the applicant any direction based on whether the parking generation at this type of clinic looks more like a traditional vet clinic or looks more like a higher volume human medical use so with that we have both required baseline parking spaces handicap accessible spaces outdoor bicycle spaces long-term bicycle spaces and end-of-trip facilities meaning commuter showers all of those things are shown in the applicant's preliminary floor plan and they're generally showing provision of more of all those things because again they're using a higher baseline parking number than I might apply just looking it up in the book there is no shared parking proposed there's no other user on the site or nearby where you would expect a shared parking arrangement to work if the lot next door was being developed or being developed at the same time there might be an opportunity there for shared parking but we don't have it today the applicant is proposing to connect municipal water and sewer service and in the public works comment member you note that water connection and sewer connection fees will apply just a quick note we do require designated snow storage areas on the plan at discretionary permit just knowing where we're going to push somewhere that's going to preclude handicap parking or acceptable circulation around the site when we get to discretionary permit this project will be subject to design review so our design review district which we normally think of as being things that are either here in the village or down in Taft Corners does actually also cover properties that have frontage on Marshall Avenue so there will be some review by the historic and architectural advisory committee related to that generally design standards for a building like this it needs to have a couple of windows facing the street entryway needs to have an airlock no dead walls I can't think of anything in chapter 22 that would be problematic I should also note that in the industrial zoning district unlike much of the rest of the design review district we do allow buildings to have parking between the building and the street so we don't require parking to all be at the rear side of the building like we might in Taft Corners or our mixed-use districts development agreement a complete draft development agreement guaranteeing all of the required public and private improvements will be required as part of the discretionary permit application there is a boilerplate development agreement and our bylaw the applicants can make use of if they'd like and I just note that because sometimes there's a lot of issues that arise when they come in to submit the discretionary permit that's simply a way of talking about bonding for those improvements and guaranteeing that they get done in to this town standards we did receive review from police fire and public works for this project there were no comments from the police department public works and fire comments are attached and generally show sort of typical these provide documentation related to storm water permitting pay water and sewer fees there's a discussion of the 20 foot wide bike pettiesment along Marshall Avenue and the need for a right of way permit to access the town's roads and the fire department generally notes that the project will be subject to their plan review standards and calls out a few of those requirements going forward so I have prepared a recommendation that this be authorized by the DRV to be moved forward to discretionary permit review I did leave you with a shall or shall not recommendation related to the parking number I don't think the board and the applicant need to nail it down to an exact number tonight but I hope that what the board gets to see a discretionary permit and what the applicant needs to get back from them isn't a total surprise based on some preliminary discussions about parking you can have tonight and I'll stop there thank you very much gentlemen your turn the let me just walk in and say for lining up for the existing driveway across the street that's why the driveway is kind of cocked and lined up a lot of different turning movements the lot is going to have drainage, stormwater the rest of the park is all under the central system this area is just too flat for them so soon the parking seems a little heavy frankly under the current standard so what are you bringing me into if you use the vet standard? 35 I think we're walking past that we were originally thinking that this end of the block could be since we touched on it that topic is really going to be the point of discussion why don't we stop there and Brian why don't you give us a rundown on why this is a medical office building or if you're looking at it as a medical office building as opposed to a veterinary standard I think if you were to look at a small hospital you don't have to stand a small animal hospital I'll speak up and stand with two to three veterinarians and maybe a dozen staff members then absolutely I think that's appropriate and the coming and goings during the day but we have probably 65 staff members that span 24-7 we're the only hospital that's open on Sunday to receive emergencies Saturday afternoon so much heavier volume in parking needs during those times do you have an existing site now? we do we're on commerce street and we're in 5000 square feet and I can't do you have any cases you have done? I think we have about 40 I think we have about 40 do they fill up? they do yes we lease space across the parking lot from the real estate the realtor building so we're allowed a third of their spaces under that lease and we use those spaces as well currently so tripling the square footage but not necessarily the parking that we're currently using so so 65 staff members is what you're proposing over a 24-hour period of time what would be the peak load of employees at any given time and the customers pet owners I think that currently Tuesday is a busy day we have 10 veterinarians and probably 30 support staff so of course of that day with variable intensity and then there's the client numbers that are actually there parking at any one time is maybe only 5 to 10 because they're coming and going so it's largely staff driven one way to handle this might be to just literally count for a while take a log of this based on what you just said I got 40 10 vets 30 staff 10 to 15 customers so 85 is a we don't want to we don't want to do something that's going to hold your business back but given the impermeable surface issues that are a lot of times so we don't need to do it right now we don't want to nail that down I think that's appropriate the idea is to expand right now they're in 5,000 square feet they're going to go to 17 it's not a direct multiplication and it's like doubling your business is that a fair thing at least that's what they're aiming for so maybe is it conceivable that again this is a discussion so is it conceivable that 60 or 65 vets built now and an area is designated for another 10 or 20 but that frankly was what we were going to ask you for so it does seem silly to build the last 20 if you're not really sure you're going to use them so we were trying to provide proof to you that we could build them if the demand really was there we could accommodate everything on the site but we were trying to back off so that's a topic we can discuss later on maybe you can make a note of that when you come back down the road that's part of your presentation if I may I understand the nature of what you guys do is you're really you're not your garden variety you're a hospital right so which is why you have all the staff right and Ian perhaps this is something we might be able to have a conversation I don't know if there's studies or there's a standard in the ITE manual for parking for that hospital as opposed to so I don't believe there isn't for a hospital now I'm just trying to think through this because I understand that you're different from where I bring my dogs to there's a few people at a time that you need a lot of staff because you have dogs and cats and birds I guess no that need a lot of care because they've had surgery or they've had an accident or they're very ill I think what you've got is you've got different activities going on in the hospital more of them than what you would have in a regular clinic and specialists are treating for chemo or they're treating for surgeries or other things that are going on you don't have those kind of things happening in a regular veterinary office I have an add to that I guess in the same vein on sheet C2 you use medical office for calculating parking requirements but then the veterinary clinic for drug generation ITE I think if you're looking at what's the right use for parking purposes you should also think about trip generation this sounds unique it sounds like it's not like a regular vet and so it doesn't generate more or less trips but it makes you reuse the same code across the park we did we did one count so far just one night and it wasn't even on their busy night so it might not be that representative we got 25 peak hour trips DM peak hour so if they double their business they'll be in the 50 range but we have to do more counts one night was on a Monday Tuesday and Thursday were really their big nights so we'll try to get you a representative sample of that so we all at least know what the existing facility is doing it still seems like it's going to be under the 80 that we were coming up with seemed a little heavy let's see if we can nail that down a little and I think the peak hour aspect of this business it's not a very peak hour intensive business it's a 24 hour operation there's shift change between 4 and 6 I don't remember 75 trips is kind of a threshold beyond which we'd like to see traffic studies that would be my sense if you're above 75 traffic would probably be warranted you know this is 80 which is above that you're saying maybe 50 so I think that's an important number to pin down what I would just reiterate is if the board wants a traffic study now is the time to ask for it so you'll need to make some sort of determination on that as part of pre-app okay gentlemen keep going I don't know if there are any other questions for board on parking traffic go ahead normal things are going to be part of this thing there's a 10 foot I guess it's a multi-purpose path goes across the front of the property it's got a bottom we've around the existing electric out there but it can be done the landscaping et cetera let Brad go into that he's got a much more sophisticated look at it that's a preliminary shot at it we don't have the street trees on there which I was in a requirement but the Landscape Arcade was looking at type 1 and 2 buffers I think it is on the north and south sides of the property the rear of the property which is I get my orientation there on the left hand side there's a lot of existing vegetation there and that's quite a distance on that side so the buffer there seems less of an issue I think it's really just enhancing the building and the property you'll see there's a heavy dashed line running around the property it's really sort of a walking path for clients and staff you know the animals that are in the hospital don't aren't walking around like that they're in a contained area when they do take them outside they're in a fenced in area but at times the clients and the staff will take dogs and things and walk them through the property and we will obviously have a lighting plan lighting the parking lot and I do have a question and it's probably in the regulations but on the rear of the building which is the north side of the building I was saying because it is a 24 hour building they're going to have lighting along the back side of the building for security maybe motion activated or something the exact standard is what's going to apply in the parking line in terms of the light intensity of the ground you have a standard for security lighting okay the very strong preference in security lighting is that it be on motion detectors with 10 or 15 minute timers yeah that's the other thing is parking lot lighting can be on during hours of operation if you have a 24 hour site you can have your parking lot lighting on 24 hours it makes sense to the applicant to have something that goes dimmer but is activated periodically when someone is out there at two in the morning I think the town would support that we don't require people to turn lights on on their parking lots we limit how bright they can be that it's keyed to some sort of hours of operation maybe it could be that let's say you may have part of the parking lot yeah I'm sure that somebody will talk about in terms of for the staff at midnight what do we want to light at that point because you want people to feel comfortable coming in the building you want the staff to feel comfortable but we may move things around a little bit there's one thing I'd like to point out we have a MRI unit out here it's actually you can see from the pose I should say outside the building it's like a mobile unit it's like a trailer kind of pre manufactured unit that you drive up to the building and park there and it's just a little unusual I want to make sure you know what's out there it's somewhat screened by the projection of the building over there and we don't know if it's happening yet but we want to say that's an option that we may do it's shorter than the building so staff let's talk about that for a second so this is a big a box trailer outdoor storage what is it you call it a lot of different things if it works outdoor storage is allowed in the zoning district to the side of the property so if you call it outside storage it has the potential to meet the requirements of the bylaw provided it's not in a setback area and it's screened from view is it parking is it a loading dock well I think the bigger I would be inclined to say it's a piece of accessory equipment but the question becomes I think one of the questions is do you calculate the area of that as part of the metric by which you evaluate everything else in other words if you said well there's sort of an assumption that ordinarily that would be in the building and so you would size the building for this piece of equipment as well as the space you would need for the pets as well as for the staff and all the other examining rooms etc etc so you're externalizing this piece of equipment which is essential to the operation so it suggests to me that somehow that square footage should be used as part of the calculus and then as the staff would say as long as there was some sort of screening to soften the view from the periphery of the property I don't know that we would have any objections beyond that as I said the worst case is you call it outside storage and the bylaw allows it if it were indeed part of the building that you were then including in the footprint in the area of the building then it seems to me that the screening is what's required for the site and for the rest of the building so your nine foot buffer would suffice to screen that piece of the construction it would have to be included on the elevations and the building that we would be commenting on as part of any design review perhaps there might be when you do like typically we get informal plantings around the periphery and within that perhaps the informal plantings would be arranged in a way that gives particular screening to that but still allows you to pull it out if you need to would this be attached to the building there being a connection so we get from the building into the outside I would also point out that at the moment that function is inside the building we're doing a MRI function within the building footprint there's a room there that says MRI we just wanted to mention this is a possibility and I think that's where his comment is I think to know and hopefully between now and the time we submit we'll make a decision on that and bring the appropriate documentation and views how mobile is it does it happen? well at some places I think some human hospitals shared the MRI and they moved it every week between two different hospitals so it's that mobile so if you had people parked in those you'd have to have a way to pull it right out so we'd have to design that into it you wouldn't propose a bid this layout no we'd have our parking conflicts with doing that we need to change it if we're going to use that I want to point out one other thing on the site I had tubers on the side of doing that we have let's swap this a little bit stuff on the site that here comments on so we have a little wing coming out this side of the building here which is on the front of the building coming out on the side there a generator here and so we're screening it with hard construction here we're screening with landscaping on the side but that just for a lot of reasons because it is doing the entire building and this is I don't think that shows up on our plans no put it by that that's where we're intending to put it right now because the electrical is coming from the street the room here and it's just wire size and then everything else gets inside the power this is a much better location than maybe it's somewhere else is that footprint there slightly different than what we have in our packet it's a lot different it's it's the same thing we have a little indentation I see right off you've got four offices up there on the front along towards the road and our plan is only showing three oh you have a footprint a floor plan we have changes like this same square footage we're moving around 17,200 square feet does that total include what's noted as optional future expansion or no the 17,000 is and right now again I think it's just prudent to safety we may expand there's no plans for expansion but I'm going to show it somewhere being sketch plan, yes things are moving around in transition but it's pretty close to the same thing I'll just take this opportunity to comment I appreciate the detail and the clarity of the drawings that we're putting in front of us it made it fairly easy to understand I was going to ask if you had any sense of the building materials or form but I see you gave us a sneak peek yet I wasn't going to hide I'm not going to hide this is sketch plan so we have a little grace here so this is the street side here we're looking at probably a thin seamed metal roof for a good part of the street side of the building this again is street side over here this is an entry trying to have some kind of covered entry it's 24 hours I think we have an entrance there these players are here the heart of the hospitals treatment room and stuff like that's in the middle of the building so we need to bring natural light into it this is happening here get to the back we do have a flat roof back here we do have rooftop units will be over here on this part of it they show up in this isometric we have here really giving the roof so up in the distance you really can't see them in the street we are looking at photovoltaics on this side this is south elevation we're debating the epinox and everything else with that but right now it looks like a pretty good way to do it we have a combination of probably clavards probably cement floor clavards a little bit of stone treatment down here as a base part of the building there's a conference room I think that shows up on part of this kind of facility educational kind of thing so we have conference facilities back here almost like a stand alone can you talk a little bit more about how that space is going to be used 65 staff members we have to get together and actually meet periodically and it's nice to have a place to do that that's not on top of all the animals in the active clinic so there's that part of it there's also referral hospital and we're specialists it's nice to be able to bring in the local community of veterinarians and do talks and things along those lines to educate them but also just be able to provide a space to get together so the circle right back around and that could hold a fair number of people simultaneous to your thought to the building so as you think about your response to the parking I would suggest that you think about it I would say those sorts of meetings are not that's maybe a quarterly event I mean that's not a weekly kind of thing and you have control of the scheduling too obviously we'll be scheduling the day of the clinics right there's a very nicely sized space that there's I found that typically you can't help the man in the community so sure absolutely we definitely would open that we would encourage other folks to use it hear what you wish for maybe one of the sharpest looking buildings on Marshall Avenue it'll definitely stand out 6 of R kind of high that's good what else should we include the square footage of the MRI in the future applications I think so because if it's mobile then you free up space within the closed building that would be used for something else right we just don't want to undercount it we just want to be able to do it if we drive in there snow storage that's one thing that popped up here we talked about it off the west side I would leave that side open for that obviously reading through some of the notes from the reports and fire again I know this will all get worked out in the end but turning radius the turning radii for the town's large equipment something to think about too when you know if they get you don't want to get stuck in there other questions to the board there was a public works comment I didn't totally follow it said provide documentation the storm permit will not be required or amended there will be a new storm water permit the permit for production park didn't include the impervious on that lot or the proposed impervious on that lot because you can't get it to flow to the central system it's just too flat that's one that's going to be infiltrated anyway and obviously need a new permit so that it doesn't make sense should it say that a storm permit will be required yes well a storm water permit will be required however you guys want to word it I suspect what Lisa was trying to get through is she's probably thinking as Ian was just saying that anticipating that process sounds like there's just going to be a new permit that's going to be a new provision to see how they want to process it we're not going to propose any changes to the existing system for production park none of those ponds need to get modified I think what I think public works is they want they want some documentation of what the status of that storm water is going to be whatever that means yeah well we're hoping that it infiltrates we've got a test schedule for Thursday so it's a Dorothy Krupp's old farm I don't think it was it wasn't the greatest soil for farming but it's pretty good for infiltrating frankly any questions from the audience anything else you would like to add that's it I just had I believe there's a public works comment about the location of the 20 foot wide easement 10 foot rec path they wanted to adjacent to the existing right away but we have it shown where it is to avoid the existing utility pedestals at the southeast corner is that going to be an issue that's the question have you talked to public works we'll work that out with Bruce okay so if you can't answer affirmatively to my question then you should go and talk to public works and they will work that out you'll know exactly what it is that they'll be asking for so I encourage you to talk to Bruce and they'll tell you exactly what they want are you proposing to construct this or just have an easement shown on the plan I believe we're required to construct it this is in design review this one for some reason I thought it wasn't all of the growth centers districts as well as properties in IZ that front on Marshall avenue and Williston road is that a new thing I said that so I actually brought the bylaw up on my phone to make sure and Marshall have is called out and I do recall now we've done a few things in this area related to that Berlin city auto they have a portion that's in mixed use and a portion that's in IZ for Fiat alpha Romeo do we get through design review across the street for the Champlain oil yes I believe they have been fairly cursory because the buildings were sketched out and the rest of it was just a set of what it is in Champlain oil there was a condition about the utility shed being painted a neutral color and it either came from design review or came from conservation I'm going to guess it came from design review sounds likely any other questions from the audience any other questions from the board anything else you would like to add thank you for coming thank you we're going to close DP18-05 at 8 okay next up is DP18-04 Village Associates I am going to recuse myself from the hearing the applicants and my property do about each of them Mr. P. Kelly will run the hearing olery olery Burke civil associates 13 corporate drive as a conjunction watch and I'm Brek Raabowski with Village Associates 32 Seymour Street in Willis-Ton welcome as customary staff goes first okay so this is your request for pre-application review it's a proposal to construct a 31-unit apartment building at 55 to 59 day lane in the Taft Zoning District. The proposed development would add 31 one-bedroom units to the site which is currently developed with a 14,000 square foot office building and associated parking, etc. In Williston's density rules and growth management rules, a dwelling unit has only one bedroom or a studio unit is counted as one-half of a dwelling unit equivalent and that's both for the purposes of determining maximum allowed density on a site as well as how much growth management allocation is needed to go forward to discretionary permit. So you might have 31 front doors but you have half that in terms of dwelling unit equivalents when you start to assess it for density and growth management. This is the first time the DRB has reviewed this proposal. Lot development was originally approved under site plan approval 95-26 and was later amended a few times after that including the addition of a master sign plan etc. There were two building footprints on this site previously approved and partially constructed. You can see in the area of photograph there's two things that look like squares on the north end of the site. Those are foundations or frost walls sticking out of the ground that don't have buildings on them and that's the general location of where this building is proposed. As I mentioned before this is pre-application it's a concept level review in the case of a residential project. The other purpose of this is to both authorize the applicant to move forward but in this case to growth management the interim step between pre-app and discretionary permit when you have a residential site. So the proposed use added to the site here is multi-family housing. Mixed uses including residential uses are allowed in the Taft Corners zoning district. This new building containing 31 bedroom units, 31 one bedroom units. As we discussed a little bit before and below this is understood as 15 and one-half dwelling unit equivalents for the purposes of determining residential density and growth management allocations. There is new site work related to this. The site has to be reworked both to locate the building as well as to create some green space around it, sidewalks and access. So moving on to residential density we're using this dwelling equivalent. Looking at the size of this lot we have 2.07 acres. None of the acreage is in a wetland or wetland buffer or is in any kind of steep slope which means all of the acreage counts toward the maximum allowed density on the lot. So under the Taft Corners requirements there's both a minimum allowed density for new residential development, a net allowed density and a maximum allow that you can only get by transferring development rights in from the rural part of town. And so that middle number the net allowed density based on a dwelling unit equivalent is 15.52 dwelling unit equivalents. So 15.5 dwelling unit equivalents can be constructed on the site. 31 one-bedroom or studio apartments can be constructed on the site pertaining to density. There are some general site planning elements. Outdoor lighting will require lighting plan, setbacks and landscaping will be required. In this case we're in the Taft Corners zoning district with a general requirement that buildings will be pulled up to the sidewalk and that landscaping is more of an urban or street tree type configuration. I did have a conversation today with the applicant about the possibility of the trees on night lane maybe being relocated into the green belt between the sidewalk and the street because they may they may not work between the building and the sidewalk. That would put them in the right of way of night lane and there's a there's a conversation that would need to happen with with public works about whether they're willing to accept that in their in their right of way or not. We're at concept level here so it's suffice to say there need to be some street trees exactly where they land. Our bylaw doesn't really say that they have to be in the right of way or on the applicant's property. In terms of access, the property would be accessed by curb cuts on both night lane and day lane. There are also pedestrian accesses to the sidewalks along those streets and in between the commercial building and the proposed residential building and the parking lot in the proposed residential building. So those are all things that our access chapter wants to see is good pedestrian connections from all of the building entrances to all of the pedestrian infrastructure that's adjacent to it. In terms of traffic and trip generation, the DRB can opt to require traffic study at discretionary permit would be charging a traffic impact fee for this project related to the PM peak hour vehicle trips generated. In this case, you know, multifamily housing in our bylaw is expected to generate a little over three quarters of a trip per unit during that PM peak and that's a total of 24.18 PM peak hour trip ends. So, you know, talk a little bit about the numbers for a traffic study. VTrans often looks at, you know, if you think you're going to have 75 or more, you might look for a traffic study. We're down around a third of that here. In terms of parking, as I mentioned before, you get the minimum and maximum amount of allowed parking and you get that one that one perfect number that can then be adjusted under Williston's bylaws. We do have some parking challenges on this site in that you have some existing office uses. I did use the office use calculation for the existing building on the site. Came up with demand for that office use of 49 spaces, three and a half per thousand square feet for the 14,000 square foot office building. And then our multifamily residential standard is 1.75 per dwelling unit. So we have this dwelling unit equivalent that we use for density that we use for growth management. We don't use it for parking. So you can have a two or three or four, a six bedroom attached dwelling unit. It generates 1.75 parking spaces per unit. You can have a one bedroom or a studio today in our bylaw generates the same exact parking demand. So my calculations are based on that 31 units times 1.75 is another 55 parking spaces for a total demand 104. So right now, the applicant is looking at 81 spaces proposed. There is some ability to reduce the commercial parking demand based on proximity to transit in this site. But you know, I think this is one where the DRB and the applicant will have to talk about coming up with an agreeable number on parking that's supportable by our bylaw in order to move forward with adding something of this size to this particular site. There are requirements for bicycle spaces, long term spaces and for facilities, etc. Those aren't shown at this point. This is pre application. We would expect to see those as part of discretionary permit. So in terms of signage, there's no changes to signage proposed. There is some stormwater treatment on the site. The proposal is water. Some storage would be have to be identified firmly as part of discretionary permit. And we will need to know about locations for trash recycling containers and how those will be screened as part of the application for discretionary permit. So this this project is in the design review district that we were just talking about. It's also in the corners district, which comes with the quote unquote, five of nine design review criteria for new projects. I thought through the nine potential elements of a project here that can be chosen from until you get up or until you get up to at least five. Very briefly, those will be multiple uses, including at least one retail and at least one retail office or residential use on the same property. Rappel shops on the street facing side of a retail space greater than 20,000 square feet, lodging or residential uses, structured parking, multiple stories, wide sidewalks, public artwork that's incorporated into an urban park on site renewable energy generation generating 25% or more of the estimated demand of the development or just a standalone urban park. And where that is accessible to the public and compromise the other proposed uses. So very briefly, those are the nine criteria the applicants need to achieve five of those on the site in order to get approval under that. We did ask for comment from police fire and public works and I've attached memoranda from both fire and public works. We did not receive comments from the police department. The fire department has generally cited to their plan review standards and identified a few of the key criteria there the applicant will need to meet. Public Works is memo asks about showing utilities, providing documentation about stormwater permitting, noting that water and sewer allocation fees are required and public works is asking for engineering fees from the applicant. So I have I have prepared recommendations for the applicant and an authorization, a motion authorizing the applicant to proceed to residential growth management allocation. And suggesting that the applicant needs to obtain those 15 dwelling unit equivalents. Remember, this is a lot with no residential use today comes with one unit by right. And that's why I've rounded the 0.5 unit off of that total. And made some general recommendations related to design review and the taff corners criteria as well. I'll stop there. Okay, thank you, Matt. How's your turn? Thank you. We don't have a whole lot to add. Matt had pointed out, the building sits now, there's two existing foundations. One is 5,180 square feet, 3,600 square feet. I think they've been there for at least 10 years. You know, the previous owner, Mer Brown, never, never got a tenant forum, poured the foundations ran the utilities in. And that's as far as it went. So the proposed building has a square footage of a little over 10,000 square feet. It's roughly about 60 by 160, you know, fairly standard shape and size for this use of building as Matt mentioned 31, one bed of units are proposed. Fairly standard comments from fire department and public works. No big issues there. Probably end up with a slight increase in impervious surface, but not enough to probably require us to amend our existing stormwater permit. Stormwater currently was actually fairly innovative at the time. For this lot, it goes into a four Technics stormwater chamber. You know, it's right here. Then it where it gets pretreatment, then it goes into an underground system here. And then it goes into the street system and goes down and eventually goes into the large tension pond. That's right at the corner of two a and night lane. This property is at the corner of night and day. Just a little side note only street I've ever named when Merv was doing when Merv was doing night lane, I said, Hey, you got to name that street because we always was Street A Street B Street C. And so jokingly, I said, Well, you all call it day. So you're at the corner night and day and and sure enough, Merv said, Hey, that's great. We're gonna call it a lane. So my only claim to flame. The only one I've ever named. Well, we have some work to do on our parking count. You know, by the regulations comes up to 104 straight. We're 23 spaces short, we're 81. We'll certainly look at the bylar see if there's some tweaking we can do. We'd like to discuss with you whether the 1.75 spaces is an appropriate number, you know, for one bedroom unit. So whether the board will consider allowing us to use a lower number to see if we could get a little bit closer to the requirements of bicycle parkings long long term bicycle parking will meet all those requirements. Not a concern for us. The other issue we'd like to talk to the board about is the location of the building. As Matt mentioned, the the bylaw encourages that the building be pushed up close to the sidewalk at shown in your drawing. It's roughly 1012 15 feet off the right away line. We we pretty much lined it up with the buildings on either side. You can see the Chelsea Common, you know, buildings are basically about the same dimension off the right away as is the existing commercial building on what's known as lot two across the street from day lane. So we just kind of looked at that visually down through there and kept it about in the same spot. We wouldn't object to sliding it a little bit closer. You know, whether or not that would look good or not. We'll leave that up to the board. We get a little bit closer. What do you mean? Well, we can slide a little bit closer to night lane. If you want it to be a little bit closer to the main walk, we kind of like it right where it is. But we're open for a discussion if that's something the board would like to see. So those are really the two big issues that we'd like to see feedback from the board on. And that's about all. It's pretty straightforward. We do have a we do have an initial sketch of what the building might look like. Realizing that's really not part of tonight. But that's our initial take of what it might look like. This would be the side facing night lane. And then we have the worst elevation. And we did not submit that as part of the package. We just got that the other day. So just a second. Anything else? No. Okay. Questions from the board. I've got one. Matt mentioned about the street trees there and the idea of moving them. You know, as I look on my my phone here, and I can see the map view of the Google Maps view of this. Yes. They look to be fairly mature specimens. Yes, I think they're gonna be tough to move. They're concerned that having this building that close is going to damage those trees. I think any excavation around those trees would would create. Plus, plus, I don't even know if the existing build the existing foundations that are in the ground right now, if they could be built as proposed with the size of the trees that have grown there now. Because if you look at the canopy, the way it has increased, I don't think you could build the buildings where the foundations are. We expect they'll be damaged, but we'd be we'd be glad to get an opinion, you know, from a landscape architect or someone who's familiar with with moving trees of that size. So again, I'm not even passing any judgment here. I'm just having a discussion that those trees are actually telling you to push the building away from them to try to save them. But again, it would be probably good to get a better opinion on whether even that would would even still have a chance of doing that or whether we need to say those trees are sort of a purpose and we need to replace them with something else. And it is it is possible that we could slide the building back some for sure. I think you should address in the in the final application. Anything else John? The only concern I would have on the parking is if we look at some something on weekend parking, because I know when you go through their own weekends that parking lot's pretty packed. So I would be concerned about definitely the spaces. There is a street parking on Day Lane, which helps, which helps a little bit. But I think there's only maybe six or eight spaces. I spent a lot of time in my office in the weekends. I've never really seen that. No, well, I know Jazzercise. There's exactly really full of half that lot was very full. We are we are the parking. If you look from what was proposed as far as the numbers go, I know it is built at 80 some on spaces. But I think the overall I mean, the discussion that we can have as far as staff goes and I mean, we are proposing 31 units. So at 1.75 parking spaces per, you guys just had a pretty expensive discussion about having too much impervious surface and asphalt. And the whole purpose of the mixed use that we're trying to propose here is that is a shared parking situation, which we have not taken, you know, the numbers that were thrown around and not taking into account any credits for for for shared parking. Right, so you can take the commercial building, you can do shared parking among the uses there. You can potentially propose a reduction for being proximate to transit and, you know, major employer offering reduced bus pass program. And then I think in terms of looking at the generation of the apartments themselves, there is some language or bylaw about the applicant being able to provide their own information based on a, you know, manual study. And, you know, just by way of example, you can you can take the demand. If you reduce the commercial building demand by 20% and you take the generation on the units from 1.75 down to 1.25 per year, right at 80. That's that's just me saying there's a there's a path that's not really dramatic to get there. But the applicant will need to show you the numbers that that back that up. And there is an offset for street parking within 600 feet of a building entrance. So that and so if there's street parking adjacent to commercial, you can offset some of the commercial that way. Same thing with with the residential demand. There's some language in our bylaw that does allow for that. So it'll be a big table with a couple of variables and up to the applicant to convince the board that it's going to work. But our philosophy remains for this project is not to over build parking. We don't want to see a vast fault. Yeah. Absolutely. And it's and we've done it. We've done. I've done many shared parking projects and especially with the use it is here, which is primarily it's a the commercials of daytime use, which is but it's and then the apartments are traditionally a nighttime parking use. I think it fits very well here with this building is a great replacement for the two foundations that have been in the ground for 10 years and to coincide with with the office uses that are in the building adjacent. I'm open to data that you would supply to us to kind of how full that lot is a different. Sure. We can do that. Yeah, we can certainly give you actual counts. I mean, during the during the week at night, it's I mean, yes, Jazzercise does have, you know, evening. I don't know how late they run. We can obviously get the hours of operation for Jazzercise, but that there's there's plenty of time for that. There is not a car in that lot at all. And so we can certainly we can certainly do actual car counts in regards to the to the uses that are there. David, give it a sense. Is this market rate housing or is that have you thought through for the most part most likely to be market rate? I mean, we'd like to be, you know, as to be competitive in the marketplace, we're always going to price it as low as possible to still make the you know, but you still that's that's the gambit you run. You still got to meet the numbers and make the construction and financing work. But certainly, you know, if you look at the other units that we have in the Hamlet project next door, we are, you know, our units are actually, I would argue, substantially below market rates for one and two better units. And that's why we don't have any vacancies. I mean, there's still a huge demand in the task corners area for for apartments. And thus, like, we continue to build them. So it's the single there are the one single unit. That's there's a lot of demand for one bedroom. So yeah, there really is a lot of the the a lot of the requests that we get are for one bedroom on whether it's not that individuals are trying to save some money or they just they just don't want roommates. But Jim, maybe it's a little bit of both. In terms of the five of nine, do you have a clear sense of and I kind of to that you mean, but you have a sense of yeah, yeah, we do. We there be some discussions, you know, we've talked about I know I can run off the top of my head a number of them, most likely it'll be it'll be rooftop full tax as far as a power generation to meet the 20 was it 20% 25. So there'll certainly be that'll be one of the criteria we're going to meet. There's obviously the mixed use criteria we're meeting. I'm at some of the others, if you could I just don't know. Do an urban park. If you put a public art in it, you've got public art. So one of the ones that we wanted to do is there is something that's already that is already built there. There is a there's a fountain in the middle of it. I've never seen water come out of it. So what what we are planning to do is we have actually contacted a local artist in town who does commissioned work and we are basically exploring, basically doing and replacing the fountain with what would be a public piece of art. His name is Bruce McDonald. He lives in Burlington. He does quite a bit of he does a lot of really neat works with metal. So it could be brass copper type of type of design. And I think that's we're going to explore that avenue of noise. I've had some preliminary discussions with them to actually commission and to do something. So it would be kind of very unique for the for for the area. Be able to put it in that location. We're planning talked about storages and storage and stuff like that. That's all going to be a we're actually going to have a basement in this building. So there's it will be there'll be ample storage bike and otherwise. And then I met some of the other criteria. We've got four there might be looking at me one more sidewalks is generally one that's fairly easy for someone to achieve. If they're if they're reworking their streetscape to give it a little more of interactivity with the street. Multiple stories. You've got mixed uses, including residential. We've got power part. Yeah, we should make the five. Yeah, much as you can integrate those with each other, that would be great. Yeah. Experience of the site. Yes, yeah, most certainly. Okay, you know, it looks like a sculpture garden of criteria. Yeah, no, no, no, exactly right. The obviously that the power would be all up on the roof. Obviously that in multiple stories is multiple stories, but that cannot. So and that's part of it. Part of what you're what you're hinting on is great because it's that's also kind of falls in where we want to site the building, how close to the street off our way from the street. And that's either going to take away some area in the back or it's going to provide more area in the back. So and that's certainly discussion that we can have not only with public works, but we can have it with staff as well and see what their, what their suggestions would be. Questions from the board. Any questions from the audience? Okay, well, thank you. Thank you. We are going to close BP 18-04. Thank you. Okay, we are going to go into deliberation. Scott, so there's final plan. Okay, after we came out. Okay, that's what you want to do. That's fine. Do that now. Are you guys just interested in doing a project? Yeah. We're taking a law class, so we're studying the agreement. And we also have to attend an agreement in court and go to the town clerk and the press information. Wow, this is that, you're at CBU or is this UBM? Oh, the same likes. Yeah. Is this everything you'd hoped it would be? I said that with straight face. Okay. All right. Why don't we, uh, Hey, Pete, you don't need to close the door yet. I'm on the press because other things you need to know. Yeah, very good. Close that door. So we've we've brought a couple different sets of final plans for you guys to sign. First one's a project you might recall at 7997 Williston Road, the Pinter Project DP 1506. That project went through some fairly lengthy environmental court appeals, DRB's conditions were upheld throughout those and the applicant has submitted a set of final plans that comply with all of those conditions. Within the plan set, there's there's the plan set showing the building and the site, essentially exactly the same way the board sought a discretionary permit. There were a few conditions the board had about materials, three inch reveal on the clavoured siding wood veneer with vertical siding on the garage doors. Planning office has a copy of the 1111 permit and rain garden and area north of the rain garden to be open space. So there's just some some verbal stuff by the applicant that I've also had him put a signature block on that should be part of that. They've complied with all of that. They've provided the landscape buffers as specified by the board. There was no condition on the board related to relocating the building. I did have the applicant put the very specific language the board had about the height of the building being above. You may remember this, that we wanted to be sure that the height was keyed to a line of the existing grade on the site. So instead of saying building shall not be more than 36 feet tall, this is building shall not be more than 36 feet above the I forget it's like the 502 foot grade line on the site. So they've complied with that. So they've put that note on the plan. That's this. This is the handy subdivision. This is just the plot has to be signed by the chair. Just need the plot signed by the chair on that one. Peter Judge is also just the plot needs because it's a plot. The review of final plans was delegated to staff but whenever there's a subdivision plot it's got to be signed by the chair of the board. So that's why all this stuff is here. Matt has it. He said he wasn't going to lose it. I promised I wouldn't. Do it all right here. Yeah. Garment. Quite a while ago. That was one of my first hearings. That's right across the street, right? Yes. Yeah, yeah. Two pages. I see there's a detail. Two pages. It's just super blurry. Signature block and the dates down. Different material. Yeah, I don't know. You can see how that one kind of. I don't know. And that, yeah. He's saying like that. I'm sure to do that allegedly, Scott. I wouldn't be doing my job. Do you want to have Scott sign any of the paper of print here? Yeah, I should sign the first sheet of each that. OK. So that'll be. You have the job. It's not the cover sheet. It's just a sheet down there. So we're basically done. I don't know. You have to like stay to the bitter end. Well, do you guys decide on these today? Yes, we'll go in. So we'll close the door. You'll have to leave. Stick around till the end. Well, your other your other option is you could follow Matt in the morning. And he'll tell you, then, you know, stick around. The only thing. Yeah, sure. I don't know if you guys have any interest in, you know, you mean you got to stick around for a while, but there is a there's a whole motion period that we go through where we approve or disapprove of the hearings that we have heard. And it's very formal. You don't have to, you know, you don't have to stick around. But it is it is different than what you have seen so far. Or you could go to the channel. Or you could do that. And this will be posted. Maybe. There's one. We could be in deliberations for a little while. Just an FYI. That's it. We're just going to find out if she's okay. Don't rest when we've got you on the screen for a while. There is one. How if you want? I wasn't sure. Yeah. I should do this one. Okay. Why did you do this one? So. That's okay. Yeah. It was South Burlington. Burlington. That's it. So. So. Is there any other questions? We'll call them by that. We'll go out the back door. For. For a little, a little, you know, is quite depth-washed. Yeah. That's quite nice. You know how that ... The chair, and then you're doing this chair. Tonight, is a interesting, a little turn of events. I think we'll announce that on the table. Yeah. Okay. It's just a sign of the orc. It's just a sign of the orc. Here's the chair, Brad. Oh, thank you so much. Thank you for coming. coming. Take another career. We don't know what's going to happen between now and in a year or two. What other projects could come in? Well, we do sort of. I know you do. But in theory, you really don't know what's going to queue up. Right. It's a dark night to come show you. Okay. All right. Welcome back to the town of Wilson's Development Review Board. It is now 10 30 October 24 out of deliberation. We have four items. We have four items to pass motion on. First is DP 14-06 amendment number one. Novak and green. Do I have a motion? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3. I Peter Kelly move that the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendation to the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of October 24, 2017, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by staff for the review of the DP 14-06 amendment number one and approved this discretionary permit subject to conditions 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. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Next up is DP 16-20 David 5Lot subdivision. Who would like to make a motion? I will make the motion. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3. I David Saladino move that the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development Bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearings of September 12th and October 24th, 2017, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by staff for the review of DP 16-20 with the following modifications. Modify findings of fact six to strike lot number eight and replace it with lot number six. And add in findings of fact seven which reads lot number eight intrudes upon the accessory use zone as defined in the 1995 subdivision approval. We therefore deny this discretionary permit for the proposed five lot residential subdivision. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Pete seconds it. Any further discussion? No further discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. 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 October 24th, 2017 and the recommendations proposed by staff for the review of the DP-18-05 and authorizes pre-application proceed to discretionary permit review. We will adjust a couple of the recommendations. Recommendation number one shall read the applicant shall adjust the parking calculations to reflect demand for a veterinary clinic as described in WDB 14. The applicant shall produce supporting data and calculate or shall produce and present to the board supporting data and calculations. We will add recommendation number three, the applicant shall conduct a traffic study. Recommendation number four, the applicant shall obtain all necessary stormwater permits. And finally, recommendation number five, the applicant shall use a consistent land use designation for all trip generation and parking calculations. Great. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Dave Secondton, any further discussion? No further discussion. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. comment on the application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and duly considered testimony presented at the public hearing of October 24th, 2017 and recommendations proposed by the staff for the review of DP 1804 authorize the applicant to apply for residential growth management allocations and we're going to add recommendation number 7C to this. The applicant shall provide parking information for weekdays and weekends to justify proposed adequacy of 81 spaces. Thank you. Do I have a second? Second. Seconded by John. Any further discussion? I've recused myself but I would add, do you want to add parking in front of those 81 spaces? Adequacy of parking for 81 spaces? 81 parking spaces. Okay, so David, why don't you reread that? So 7C is going to read as the applicant shall provide parking information for weekdays and weekends to justify proposed adequacy of 81 parking spaces. Thank you. John, is your second still standing? Yes, it does. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. One abstention. One abstention. So that motion carries four to zero. Great. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes of September 26, 2017? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of September 26, 2017 as proposed by staff. Second? Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. I was not there. Four aye's. One abstention. Motion carries. Who I have a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10.37. No moves. Thank you everybody. Welcome. Any questions? You guys got a good one tonight. Will you be back?