 Good evening all welcome to the Wilson Development Review Board meeting of September 27th 2022 my name is Pete Kelly I'm chair of the DRB. If you are a Zoom participant please sign in by renaming yourself on the participant toolbar if your name is not currently displayed. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in Town Hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and public can communicate in real-time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All folks taken at the meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes the meeting will be continued to October 11th 2022. I'm going to start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members Paul Christensen, John Hemmelgarn, Scott Riley, Dave Turner, Nate Andrews, is absent and the chair is present. We have five members of the DRB present so we have a quorum. First up is on the agenda is the public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone either present here or participating via Zoom to address the board on topics that are not on tonight's agenda. If you're present and you want to address the board please raise your hand. If you're on Zoom and you want to address the board please raise your virtual hand. So we have no hands in the audience here and we also have no hands on Zoom. Okay thank you. Agenda item number two is the public hearing. We've got four items on tonight's agenda DP 20-18 which is a pre-app. Ethan Allen Holmes LLC also referred to at least by me as the redevelopment of the Catamow Golf Club. DP 10-34.6 is Chittenden Solid Waste District to have us consider a new parking area on a previously approved project. DP 21-18 the annex that's the large residential project at the Essex Alliance Church property and DP 22-06 Greens State Realty LLC that's the redevelopment of 4626 Williston Road and at the intersection of Industrial Avenue. So first up is DP 20-18 Ethan Allen Holmes LLC would the applicant please come forward. Chairman Mr. Chairman yes I will be recusing myself on this as I have every time in the past as in a budding landowner. Okay thank you John. For the record that leaves us four members of the DRP we still maintain a quorum. Welcome gentlemen if you would state your name and address for the record please. Sure. Cambelevo 683 Maple Street Waterbury Center Vermont 05677 I'm here representing the applicant Ethan Allen Holmes LLC. Christopher Sunasek 86 Ethan Allen Drive South Burlington Vermont 05403. We're here for the summer field application. Welcome gentlemen. Staff goes first. This is a request for pre-application review for DP 20-18 summer field to participate in March 2023 growth management review. The sole purpose of this application is to meet the requirement of WDB 11.4.1. This bylaw standard requires a project to have pre-application approval from the DRB before it can move forward to growth management review in the upcoming year. No changes to the approved final plans or conditions of approval are requested. The DRB may recall that this received complete discretionary review permit review and approval in April 2022 for overall site design and the first phase of development. And what follows is a motion to move this application forward to growth management. Thank you. Okay. Thank you Emily. So this is this is really just a form here formality due to the Wilson process and the allocation limits that are out there within the growth management process. So I would normally turn it over to the applicant to comment in this particular case. I don't think that's necessary. If you feel otherwise, let me know. But I just don't think that it's necessary tonight. Would you concur? I did have one comment that I wanted to make. Okay. I can never show up at a meeting and not say something. Can I second that? Just in the interest of full disclosure, I just wanted to point out that the site plan that we submitted with the application, this is the same plan that we submitted for DP review. And so there were conditions of approval as part of that. We have a year to file final plans. We haven't filed final plans yet. So there were some of the things that the board wanted us to make some modifications to the plan. We haven't submitted those plans yet. So I just wanted to point that out that this is the same plan that we submitted when we submitted our application for DP for discretionary permit approval back in the spring. But otherwise, you know, as as both Pete, you've said and Emily has said, we're going through this that the project is well known to the board. And we'd like to come back and see if we can get some more of the allocation back in March. Right. Okay. That was meaningful. Thank you for pointing that out. That was a sincere statement. I took it. Okay. Portable. Any questions? Okay. We're going to close DP 20 dash 18 at 709. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay, next up. DP 10 dash 34.6. Chittin and solid waste district. Who's here for the applicant? Carl Marshall. So literally 13 corporate in your eye. That's extension for lot 0545 I think Josh is on zoom. So he's just in case you guys hear me. Yeah, go ahead, Josh. Josh Tyler. Chittin and solid waste district 1021 Redmond road road. Great. Thank you. Welcome. Staff goes next. All right. That's me. Chittin and solid waste district requests discretionary employment amendment to reconfigure parking for the previously approved access and scale house for the CSWB organic facility located at 1042 Redmond road in the industrial zoning district East. The properties currently developed with an ODF facility operated by the landowner Chittin and solid waste district. Staff is recommending DRB take testimony and close the hearing to the great and approve the project. This is the first time the DRB seen this project. The scale of the project does not require a pre application. And there's a list of prior approvals. Neither the conservation commission nor the hack review this project. Public works and fire review the project and submitted comments only saying that they didn't have any comments on the proposed changes. No comment letters were received at the time of the mail out September 22nd. The dimensional standards comply as proposed outdoor sale sales and storage comply complies as proposed. The Chittin and solid waste district has a partial exemption because they are a regional solid waste management facility. So wholesale trade and retail trade are not ordinarily permitted in this district that they are allowed under this partial exemption. The proposed project is the sixth amendment to the development previously approved by the DRB as DP 1034. The scope of the hearing and the DRB action will be limited to determining whether the proposed amendment complies or fails to comply with the bylaw. The scope of the review may be expanded when the subject property is not full complies with the bylaw. So really what they requested is a reconfiguration of the previously proposed parking area. The reconfiguration can comply as proposed if the DRB uses the flexibility allowed under WDB 14A for industrial uses. Meaning that 14A provides a starting point of one space per thousand square feet but because industrial uses are quite varied, there's flexibility allowed. The previously proposed site plan provided nine vehicle parking spaces including one ADA space, four outdoor short-term bicycle spaces, three long-term bicycle spaces, and one end-of-trip facility in the scale house building. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure the parking as shown and add four vehicular spaces for total 13 spaces to accommodate anticipated high usage of the residential organic strap-off location. The requirements for ADA spaces, short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces, and end-of-trip facility remain the same for the new configuration as for the previously approved configuration. The proposed parking lot design dimensions ADA and bicycle parking all comply with the standards of WDB 14. The ADA space must be marked on the site plan and the site plan must eliminate the location of proposed short- and long-term bicycle parking spaces and end-of-trip facility and these conditions have been drafted. Also a staff noted that the snow storage area required to be shown on the site plan is shown where the proposed parking area is. I'm assuming that's an oversight something that wasn't changed from the previous plan. The staff is recommending that final plans designate a different area for snow storage and a condition has been drafted. Now when you say different area what do you mean? Meaning it can't be in the parking area it has to be the snow storage has to be outside the designated parking area I mean it can't be taking it can't be in a parking space so let's see. The outdoor lighting complies as proposed. The applicants provided a lighting plan I believe they're just moving the location of one of the pole fixtures but not adding any lighting and that's it. Okay thank you Melinda. Okay Carl and Josh so you are expanding you're proposing to expand the parking lot to accommodate what you believe is a need for more spaces. Is that a fair statement? That's a fair statement. Okay and uh and where is the snow storage going to be on the proposed new new uh you want you want to project the graphic up on the screen and you can Carl you can show us. The lagoon that's getting filled as part of the project is going to be basically pushed off to that side so if we can bring up the graphic I mean it's basically going to be if you're looking at the plan to the right side if you can zoom in on that existing building um yeah so the lagoon that's no longer getting used which is why they're having to bring in water it's going to get pushed off to the side there so we re-rated the parking lot to be a little bit more modest grading and then it's raised and it's going to go off basically the right side as you're looking at it now so that's where we're going to push the snow on off the parking to the right. Would you do me a favor and point that out please? Yep. I wasn't quite driving. Okay got it. Guys you can walk right up there that's cool. It's awesome to get all those pushing where the leaf pile is and it goes down to Melinda too. I think we're just really changing for flow through that I mean that's the main emphasis. Yeah okay yep. Melinda can you show on the screen where he pointed to on his screen um right here. All right that's what I thought. Thank you. Yep okay thank you John. Okay thank you Carl. Any further clarifications on your proposed plan before I turn it over to the board to ask questions? I don't know if Josh has anything but I I don't I think it's fairly straightforward. Yeah I do too. Good. Do you have anything? The real the real move is to allow for a safer safer movement of traffic through to allow for throughput so that's really why we made that change but yeah everything else has been covered in the description that's pretty much what I had for a narrative. Great thank you. DRP members questions. The only question I would have is um is to just an explanation of why the additional course spaces are necessary. That's to accommodate a higher volume of traffic so currently down Redmond Road we accept organics at our Williston Drop-off Center and we have two stations we have one outside of our Drop-off Center to accommodate people who are coming in just to drop off their organics and that was really put in because we no longer took organics at our ODF facility we want to move it back up the road and we want to accommodate people coming through we've seen a higher volume of people who participate in organics drop-off so our initial design didn't in our opinion when we had a time had had a chance to take a second look at it I had enough space to accommodate more than you know a significant amount of flow we also added that the traffic that would come in one way versus having to pull in park drop-off back up and pull out the same way you came in so from a safety perspective that's kind of what we really focused on with this this redesign is to help accommodate more people to come through so their experience is nicer and to keep it a little bit safer so you don't have to back up once you've dropped off your material and come out the same way you came in and it also helps it will be enough room for people if they have trailers so if you do want to bring in organics and you have a trailer full of leaf and yard waste it's a much more convenient throughput so that people can get in and do that as well and that's where we add those extra spaces in okay great thank you I appreciate that explanation yep I think I think it's much better design I do I agree okay members of the public any comments no raised hands in the audience and no raised hands on zoom okay DRV members last call applicant last call okay we're going to close DP 10-34.6 at 720 thank you thank you agree time okay next up DP 21-18 the annex Snyder Group Inc who is here for the applicant hey Chris good evening you would just for your stay here address for the record please yeah Chris Snyder with Snyder Homes 4076 Shelburne Road sweet six Shelburne thank you and Dan Heil Trudell consulting engineer sports and the player proper of Wilson welcome Andy are you going to participate or yes okay if you would both introduce yourself in your address please great thank you staff goes first I'm going to oh one more one more person uh smuggle busher landscape architect I'm here to talk about park design my business address is 301 collard street from into Vermont again to do plug associations so mr Riley you're going to refuse to refuse myself I have a financial interest in some other properties with mr Snyder okay this is a request for discretionary permit to construct phase one of the innings phase one includes Bodger Lane and Alpine Drive Eden Lane and a road connection to Chelsea placed on more lane phase one includes 208 dwellings as 170 173 dwe as carriage homes duplexes town homes and two apartment buildings as well as some park space future phase two includes a senior living facility and additional town homes and three 12 unit apartment buildings several changes have been made to this application since the July 26th hearing highlights include a traffic signal at Alpine Drive and Route 2a intersection eliminating Cabot Lane rerouting multi-use path reconfiguring Eden Lane and full design for both parks we'll go into detail on that momentarily this property is 54.2 acres it is currently vacant and developed with a single family house it has access on state and town roads where the proposed use is both residential and commercial it is located in the Taft Corner zoning district and it was subject to both conservation commission review and design review tonight staff is recommending that the DRG take testimony review the changes made since the last hearing in July and continue the hearing to either October 11th or 25th this continuance will allow commenting departments public works and fire time to review and respond to the revised plans and given that many changes were made it also gives the DRV and staff ample time to finalize the findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval most of which have been drafted for you tonight so so to that point Emily so uh i'm not planning to close tonight i'm going to continue this i'm going to continue it unless anybody has any compelling argument i'm going to continue it to the first meeting in October which is October 11th and uh so just keep that in mind if you have any comments on that when it's your turn please uh please make them then thank you continue thanks Pete so this project had its first discretionary permit hearing on July 26th it had pre-application review last year in September and it received its first round of growth management allocation in March where it scored 54 points and was allocated 173.5 DUA conservation commission and historic and architectural advisory committee both commented on this application their recommendations are included as conditions of approval public works and fire fire their comment memos are also included as conditions of approval and they will be able to provide updated comment memos based on revised plans 43 comment letters were received at the time of mail out and two additional comment letters were received as of today they are attached in your packets so so to that so to that point members of the audience those those comment letters are all part of the official record and so just just keep that in mind when we get to the public comment phase those are already entered into the record and there's there's there's no need to reiterate verbatim the comments and themes that were in those those inputs thank you what follows is the July 26th discussion items list so there were several items that the DRB and staff outlined that needed to be addressed in this application for each of those comments in italics i show how the applicant has responded to this most of these topics will be discussed throughout the staff report as well similarly formatted is the pre-application recommendations from september 14th so this was last year when the DRB reviewed the concept level plans their comments about meeting the bylaw requirements and the right column is staff notes identifying if that documentation has been provided if the standard complies overall compliance is anticipated for this development with the pre-application recommendations vested rights non-conforming lots uses structures so this application was submitted prior to the select board warning a hearing on tap corners form-based code so it is vested in the current version of the bylaws that we're reviewing tonight it's also anticipated that the select board will hold a hearing on october 4th where they're considering a version of form-based code that excludes excludes this property from the district so it's possible no guarantees until the select board hearing but that future amendments might not be subject to the form-based code and this property would remain in the tap corner zoning district as the design and development statements exist today this property is located in the tap corner zoning district where senior living and residential uses are allowed with the dimensional standards in terms of lot size building height and setbacks complies as proposed the carriage homes duplexes and townhomes comply with the 36 foot height limits the apartment buildings and senior livings building are eligible for the increase to 52 feet because structured parking at the garage level is at the basement level is provided no outdoor sales and storage are proposed nor allowed in this district for commercial uses and with development pattern this also complies as proposed as requests of the applicant reconfigured the layout of apartment building B and Eden Lane so that apartment building has more frontage along the street and sidewalk as well as Cabot Lane was reduced to eliminate wetland impacts and because adequate the vehicle access for phase two buildings could be provided from Alpine Drive and Bodrew Lane one of the future buildings in phase two still complies with the frontage requirements because the building comes to the sidewalk in this case the building is pulled to the multi-use path the multi-use path was rerouted to the location where Cabot Lane formerly was proposed for Adirondack views it complies as proposed the applicant has represented that the views are not present on the site however they may be visible from upper story apartments facing west and the top corner zoning district has the five of nine design elements so a new development in this zoning district must provide five of the nine listed elements they're providing structured parking multiple stories wide sidewalks and urban park and public artwork the DRB may recall discussion at the last meeting about the design placement amenities of the urban park the quality and quantity of the public artwork that's proposed as requested the applicant has provided full specifications for the urban park and excuse me public park is how it's called in the application it includes wooden play elements that are interesting to both children and adults with balanced beam logs jumping boulders there's an interesting entryway sculpture and then two other sculptures around the path loop and a gateway shelter and picnic tables and benches the public artwork is proposed to be made of stone and wood overarching design elements so here go into some more detail about some of the changes that were made since the last hearing as requested they provided on-street parking along alpine drive near the neighborhood park community building they provided the specifications for both park areas and the multi-use path was rerouted to avoid wetland impacts this alignment has five crossings whereas the prior alignment had four crossings however their crossings are still very minimal in terms of the number of streets a pedestrian would need to cross and this alignment does bring the multi-use path along the neighborhood park a cabot lane block so this was where pre-application the grove was shown that design element has been eliminated but they did provide full specifications for a neighborhood park and are able to provide adequate driveway access for the residential buildings eden lane midblock green space so eden lane was reconfigured from the wide radius curved street to a 90 degree block angle this allowed the applicant to provide some green space near the middle of the block which aligns with the multi-use path and is similar to the muse element that was shown at pre-application for this area sidewalks are shown on the south sign of alpine drive and they extend to the property line with bsccu as requested the west side of bowdry lane near chelsea place also has a sidewalk extension and the public works department is permitting a 20-foot corner radius at that bowdry chelsea intersection to improve improve pedestrian safety intersection design so vermont agency of transportation v-trans is requiring a traffic signal at alpine drive with some turning lanes both alpine drive and route 2a and the other intersections throughout the development will have stop signs and what follows is more detail about the eden lane layout removing front yard parking for the apartment building that was not permissible and in response to hack comments they've updated the townhome architectural design so originally the townhomes did not have front porches facing the street they had a flat roof and the applicant has revised the design to include a pitched roof some gable elements and as the hack requested front porches facing the street to improve pedestrian friendly design and neighborliness growth management the project scored 54 points and received 173.5 du we at growth management a du we is a dwelling unit equivalent whereby a one-bedroom or studio apartment is half a du we and a unit with two or more bedrooms is a full dwelling unit equivalent overall compliance is anticipated with the growth management score the drb should discuss the score and the changes made to the neighborhood park so as requested they provide full design of the neighborhood park which is designed for the residents of the neighborhood it has a community building pool house an outdoor pool garden space with the yard hydrant picnic tables and grills some bench style swings and an open lawn and for sustainable transportation compliance is also anticipated so they are required to provide 20 bicycle storage lockers to meet this requirement they're proposing 10 at the pool house and 10 adjacent to the apartment building solid waste trash recycling building the intent of the standard is that development support transportation sustainability by providing publicly available facilities and the drb should discuss if these two locations are practical to meet the intent of that standard access connectivity traffic studies so as discussed earlier they are working with the agency of transportation who regulates the design and of intersections onto state highways alpine drive will now include a traffic signal baudry lane at chelsea place this image shows the plot from the chelsea commons subdivision where a 60 foot right of way was given to the town to to the adjoining property so the street will connect through here public works did approve narrowing the corner radius of that intersection there's a raised multi-use path crossing there so this configuration would encourage vehicles to slow down and create shorter walking distance for pedestrians traffic study complies as proposed one was requested at pre-application and included they also provided a revised traffic study and uploaded following your packet mail out was correspondence with the trends and a traffic study addendum overall traffic studies look at level of service for vehicle delays so they're focused on if vehicle queuing is going to be at a level that necessitates slip lanes traffic lights things that improve how long vehicles have to wait as an intersection traffic studies do not look at things like pedestrian or cyclist safety traffic speeds on street parking those are handled by other select board policies like the traffic calming policy the town's road ordinance for on-street parking vehicle setting vehicle speed limits those are handled by the select board ordinance other select board ordinances baudry lane we are recommending that you approve this configuration with the condition that final plan show adequate driveway aprons for adjoining properties at 57 and 60 to 62 baudry lane the existing private driveway will be upgraded to a street typically public work specifications call for a right-of-way width of 64 feet on september 20th the select board approved an exception to the 64 width and allowed the portions that are 50 feet and 60 feet to remain as shown in this image within those reduced portions of right-of-way they are able to meet the street tree requirement of the bylaw typically the bylaw likes to see sidewalks on both sides of the street however they're able to provide multi-use path on the south side and we're recommending that you approve this configuration as proposed similar to how the sidewalk extends to the vscu property line when vscu comes into redevelop or do an addition they would be required to build their portion of sidewalk that would be a similar scenario here if those two properties on the north side of baudry lane were to come to the drv to redevelop the drv could require that section of sidewalk to be constructed which i measured to be about 340 feet from route 2a to the existing multi-use path off-street parking and loading complies as proposed there's not much opportunity for shared parking because the uses here are residential or senior living where they all have the same peak demand times and their bicycle parking both short-term and long-term replies as proposed guarantees and maintenance of required improvements so before the next hearing draft declarations of covenants articles of incorporation and bylaws must be submitted prior to the next hearing these documents must specify the prohibited uses of wetlands and buffers including mowing and limitations of tree clearing within a watershed protection buffer the documents must also specify neighborhood park elements required to uphold the growth management score including that the bicycle storage lockers need to be publicly accessible we ask for this very specific language because typically when a development turns over to a homeowners association it's important to show that lineage of why we have wetland buffer standards no you can't cut down the trees in the wetland buffer behind your condo unit and making it very clear in their documentation for the associations to make sure that future bylaw conditions are upheld on-site infrastructure overall compliance as proposed on however sidewalks the DRB should consider a condition requiring a sidewalk alongside townhome unit 87 to provide a pedestrian connection from Bodry Lane to the primitive trail where the multi-use path path was originally proposed the northern section of it went through wetland buffer and the state would prefer no incursion into the wetland buffer for a multi-use path they're proposing a primitive trail so you could connect from the public park northward to Bodry Lane and this sidewalk would encourage people to use the primitive path and avoid vehicle conflicts is that in a proposed conditions of approval that is correct yes bus stop Green Mountain Transit is not interested in a bus stop at this time there are existing bus stops nearby for route 10 along route 2a maintenance complies as proposed with the condition they have revised a lamp landscaping plan to show trash receptacles throughout the neighborhood in solid waste the hack has a recommendation to add windows for visual interest and ventilation on the solid waste building final plans must also specify rooftop mechanical equipment and utility installations that they'll be screened from view density transfer of development rights complies as proposed with the density of 7.5 du per acre this density analysis actually leaves a couple du we unclaimed that could be proposed in a future phase and no transfer of development rights is proposed design review so the hack reviewed this application four times their comment memos that are included as conditions are very brief because through each interactive meeting the applicant addressed the hacks comments the outstanding what comments left are add additional benches and picnic tables in the public park provide windows on the solid waste building and provide benches and seating along other sidewalks and multi-use paths in the original submission there were five benches shown on the path when it got rerouted those benches were omitted and they will need to be included on final plans overall the hack is pleased with the modern farmhouse style for the town homes and carriages and the front porches and balconies on the apartment buildings landscaping complies as proposed they've updated the plans to show tree protection around the existing trees particularly where it abuts chelsea commons and half moon circle as requested they also showed the existing vegetation along the property line with the half moon circle units the portions of these landscaping areas some of the existing trees are on the eac property line are on eac property and they're proposed to be retained in addition to adding plantings to meet the buffer requirements street trees compliance is anticipated with the planting locations there is a species diversity requirement that must be shown on the final plans there is a note but there needs to be that numerical calculation that no more than a certain number of species is planted throughout the neighborhood conservation areas complies as proposed there is one very specific conservation commission recommendation for bird boxes this came out of the habitat disturbance assessment as a mitigation measure both the applicant and conservation commission agreed to that recommendation watershed health also complies as proposed as requested the hack the applicant conferred with the state of romont wetlands division the wetlands division said that they would prefer cabin lane and the malty use path to not conflict with the wetland buffers and that's why those elements were reconfigured the applicant also provided a functional assessment of class three wetlands and determined their value to be none or low signs in public art standard signs could be approved administratively in the future and impact fees will be paid on a per unit basis at time of administrative permit outdoor lighting complies is also anticipated and a commission is included for the townhome units those lighting specifications need to be included as well as for the pool house originally there were some ballards proposed along the malty use path and the d rb should discuss lighting and ballards in the public park so now that the path is moved away the lighting's moved away we're creating a public park that has a loop path and the d rb should discuss lighting in that area what follows is findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval with highlights where the d rb may make edits at the future meeting thank you Emily thank you great job Pete I'm so touched and I'm neglected to start the recording at the start of the meeting it is going out live on youtube and zoom so i'm just going to start it now if that's okay so we can document this important discussion okay recording in progress okay thank you Simon okay Chris and team um I'd like you to uh so there's three parts to my request so if you're an old guy like me you want to write this down so uh walk us through the the changes that have taken place since uh since we last saw you that the supplement what Emily did not not um not a direct repeat but there's been considerable changes and uh and you've reacted to our comments so thank you uh and then I'd like you to walk us through uh and in some detail the the public park proposed public park which parks which is part of the changes but I'd like you to do a little bit more of a deep dive on those and uh and again thank you for reacting to our comments and then lastly I'd just like you to comment on the proposed conditions of approval and if you have any um any things um that cause you concern that you would like us to consider changing and then anything else that you feel you is is applicable no problem certainly not limited to that yeah no problem oh great uh well thank you uh very much uh for your time this evening to review our application for the annex property as you can tell um there has been a lot of uh staff selected or drb hack conservation commission have all allocated a lot of time to this proposed neighborhood um and we do appreciate all the feedback and comments that we've received over the last several months I would like to comment on that as well and say that you know I think that it's very important to note that we have improved the project and I am very excited about what we have where we have landed um with this current uh proposed application uh we have made substantial changes uh and we have taken that feedback and I think in the end we do end up with a better neighborhood um and proposal here um and so I do appreciate those comments uh I will uh I had the plan of sort of discussing some of the changes in more detail so I don't know if uh Simon if you could pull up the uh concept plan um uh for the site plan or Emily sorry okay yes um so if you could I think there um Emily did a very good job of reviewing majority of the uh components that were discussed I think if we started Alpine Drive the first substantial uh improvement is the traffic signal that we've noted in the application uh at the intersection of 2a in Alpine Drive and I I do believe that that is beneficial for the proposed neighborhood and also addresses some concerns from some neighbors about access and also what would be the primary uh means and egress of the uh neighborhood as you go further into the neighborhood the public park has changed substantially um and we do have Michael Buescher here today to also be able to discuss in more detail what the ideas and themes were for the public park and so we'll certainly get into that discussion the neighborhood park uh is the next piece that uh we have more formalized and created and what that is is essentially a uh a pool some outdoor eating facility you know like some tables some gardening area gardening beds um and some other uh and then the pool house uh that would have some restrooms it's going to have a small meeting room probably a small little office for property management and then also some bike storage associated with the uh as as required under the growth management um and yeah there's a better view of all the ideas that we have added into that space um and uh excited about formalizing that area as a neighborhood park uh I think along with those substantial changes there's the elimination of Cabot Lane is probably a primary component uh of this change uh of this submission or updated submission and that was brought upon both by uh through discussion with uh the state with regards to crossing the wetland or wetland buffer on the western portion of the property um and also uh helps us uh stay out of those buffers so by relocating the uh path there what we did is we realized that we could actually eliminate the cross road uh that was between uh Boatry Lane and Alpine Drive when we did that it created the neighborhood park even better uh it also allowed us we flipped the senior housing building which is the center building there um in that building uh used to access off-cabot and so we were able to flip that so that is now looking out over towards the neighborhood park um and along Alpine Drive the next piece is um the adjustment of Eden Lane by the apartment buildings and those uh eliminating the uh curved road as Emily noted before created several changes um that actually I think improved the overall project layout so Eden Lane is now a 90 degree bend and the it allows the sidewalk along Eden Lane against the apartment buildings to be more squared up and then it also created this open space in between the townhomes uh that are to the eastern side of that in the area that she just highlighted so I think those pieces are all good things that have come of the result of um some of the feedback and comments that we've heard from both drb hack members staff and the conservation commission uh those are really the substantial changes and what I would say is it really doesn't change the overall feel of the neighborhood the focus of the neighborhood the product types within the neighborhood but just change some of the road configurations and improved all of those components the other changes that we've updated is also the architectural designs of the townhomes and so those um townhomes uh this was based upon some comments from both the drb and the hack uh with regards to what the visual is along Alpine Drive and so we shifted the um decks that were located over the parking area to the front of the homes and I think it does create a much better streetscape uh we are a bit challenged uh with height in this product type just because they are three stories um and the roof pitch so the roof pitch is is it's a slight roof pitch and then it's going to flatten out and peek out because we can't uh we are limited to 36 feet there is a we're following the the regulation saying that uh there's actually parking in those units on the first floor uh and we're not counted as structured parking because I guess there's some discussion about whether or not uh any parking would be structured but we didn't want to veer too far from uh what we thought was reasonable so we kept the parking on the first floor and we realize that the height is is the challenge there with the roof section but I think in the end by following more of the aesthetic of some of the other home types within the neighborhood was more important than figuring out the roof section like really making taller roofs so I would I would like to I don't want to interrupt Chris but um I'd like to have a conversation in this forum about how we could um classify that parking and if it would allow for a slightly increased pitch using asphalt shingles with limited pitches and and our climate is risky yes and so um let's have a conversation after after you're done Chris yep absolutely uh so I think you know those were really the uh big pieces uh in changes that we made to the overall neighborhood um in the site planning associated with it any questions about the proposed changes that we've made no uh I I don't um other DRV members no I don't either okay um we're we're gonna we're gonna get the quick question but there are changes in total number of minutes for phase one and two are provided or is the total unit count the same to butterfly form uh Emily the total unit count is the same as before there was a typographical area error where it said 273 in units um and was corrected to 276 but overall the same number of units for the yes thank you okay continue Chris yep so uh so those are the changes so that's item number one that you had questions on item number two I'm gonna let Michael Bush or speak to that and with regards to the park because it is kind of a fun in different park I think it is uh unique uh and uh I can tell you that I've not seen anything designed of this um and pretty excited about what it looks like and how it could be utilized uh both by the public but also by the people within the neighborhood so Michael you want to speak on this sure um hi Michael Bush or again with TD Boyle Associates um so uh the Snyder companies asked us just to come in specifically provide some some insight and design for for the park itself um so we've got a couple of different things going on the path no longer goes through and respect the wetlands um and what we've ended up with is uh is a high point that's surrounded by wet meadows more or less um it's pretty much a field around there but the area of high ground is fairly wooded at the moment right now so the idea would be that you come in off of the roadway and we've incorporated a series of art placements as well as interactive play areas and then we've also used a entrance gateway to try to help bring people into the park so when you're on the road there's going to be one piece of art installation right near the road to spark interest and captivate people's attention try to draw people and make them understand there's something back here that's sort of interesting um then you you pass through a more or less entry structure um yep and it's got some seating in it so again pretty visible from the roadway you continue along the path and there's going to be locations for two more art art installations and we were really thinking of more of a natural theme it's a very natural area surrounded by all the wet meadows but not just to keep it as a look at aesthetic art but to create some interaction into it we we've identified really four locations of a sort of a calm play areas and there's hopping stumps there's boulders there's balance beams there's vertical poles we envision that all the wood in these installations would be black locust readily available in the area it's been used a lot for this type of use it's highly rot resistant there's no chemicals to deal with both the wood installations as well as the stone installations also provide additional seating areas gathering spaces within the project we we've dispersed them between areas that are fairly wooded within the park area and open areas we've also provided some more standard seating some regular benches a picnic table some screening plantings to some of the adjacent uses and and hopefully one of the things that we talked about is doing an annual mowing in the wetland buffers which A&R's is acceptable to just so fully grow over and get really enclosed in the space we'd like to have some visibility into the space ongoing and that's sort of where we landed obviously the art sculpture pieces are just placeholders we would engage with local artists to create sculptures for each of those locations we have some there's some really great stone mason artists in in vermont nationally known and snow being one of them so these are just ideas and I would assume that there would have to be some sort of a process when we get the actual design of the actual pieces that would be installed um that's really the overview of it are there any questions and my only concern is the wood art projects in there and the longevity of them and like the maintenance of them who would be doing that and stuff like that if it's wood it's not going to last forever so this the entire neighborhood is going to be managed and maintained by homeowners association so it would be under their you know responsibility to to maintenance and repair as needed and if there's something needs to be done for one of the art pieces it's going to just be part of their you know art and landscaping and pathways and stuff like that are going to be part of the HOA responsibilities and how are you denoting where the buffers for the wetlands are in this part so that's a good question because that is always something that is comes up and we have talked about doing some delineation with well on the western side you'll see it's right on the buffer line there's some landscaping so that would be in that location in the other areas I think in the northern section there's an existing tree growth and that would be you know maintained left as is on the southern portion in eastern portion I would think that we could either put in some rocks or boulders or something like that that delineate the edge of that buffer yeah any other questions DRB members for in regard to the proposed public parks yes Pete I have one go ahead so I'm looking at this plan and the trees that are kind of outside of the wetland buffer two of the little groves are inside of the loop path are those existing trees that are going to remain yes they'll be planted no those are existing trees back in that area there's a fairly dense grove of evergreens um there there is some there is a proposed water line that will go through that area so there will be some disturbance to that but uh it would be to save a lot of that that existing vegetation so okay one quick follow-up so the water line is the set that where it's marked FM there or oh no where's the water line on here it's a storm drain line oh I see that's the D so and what's the FM what's the FM line that I see on this plan towards the west I'll I'll leave that to um the tree now but I believe that's for Spain all right that that's underground as well that's from a sanitary pump station okay great great great so back to the trees though um well so those are those are thick evergreens you say are they going to be cleared out at all will there be ability for people to kind of walk with walk inside that grove under the trees or is it going to be yeah I'm sorry if you go out there today they're they're pretty limbed up since they're mature um the nature of evergreens is they they tend to drop their lower limbs so I would anticipate that there would be some cleanup of that as well and that would be the idea is that on the ground plane it would be fairly open that there would be a canopy and and all the different stems for the existing trees would would play in with uh with uh with vertical um wood sculpture play areas as well right so that essentially becomes another and additional kind of activity element it seems like yes yeah that's great that's all I had to okay thank you john okay Chris anything else on public parts I think we're satisfied okay now I have nothing else on public parks uh okay I just do it on the pool from the parking for the public the pool area where will that be so there's uh well residents hopefully will walk to it but then also in the front along alpine drive there are I believe eight parking spaces identified along the front of the pool now is there any ADA parking there uh we cert I would assume that we would have uh or one or two there there's not proposed right now but we could create some ADA parking yeah yeah that'd be that idea yeah anything else Dave that's it for that okay proposed conditions so proposed conditions we have reviewed them and I just wanted to do one I did one quick little check in here um and we are uh have no changes to the proposed conditions um that have been outlined by uh the staff right I would like to say that I I do think and I understand you started out the hearing saying that I that that it was going to be continued I do believe that uh I'm not sure how much how many like I guess I don't understand uh or what are the items that the drb and the staff feel that are outstanding or that need to be discussed further and so I guess I'd prefer if you closed the hearing tonight but I understand that if you choose not to that's fine like this I think we've done a pretty uh reasonable job pretty good job getting all the data and all the information is required since our July hearing together so just a request you've done an exceptional job I don't say that lightly it's strictly a matter of allowing um Williston departments the way in yes and so it's nothing about your prepared package it's about allowing uh adequate time internally to get feedback from uh department of public works and uh fire department and so um we need to give them time they haven't weighed in this is a big proposal um we've checked in with them uh what Emily has and we feel like uh they can meet they can provide comments which would be done um with the stipulated time frame to get them to you and we'll have an opportunity just to discuss those um on october 11th and the plan is that those will be available we can have a discussion that night that probably will be limited to whatever input they provide um and the drb will deliberate that night so that's that's the reason your your package was we recognize the amount of work that you put into this yeah absolutely our team was where is the snow storage piles going to be for these uh a little brown development the townhouses yeah where where where's the snow uh storage going to be for that wow another uh so there's there's definitely some areas in between you know the four and six unit buildings where there's islands that protrude out um and the reality you know there's some snow storage on the eastern side of the property as well right where Emily's got her uh arrow right now um there'd be some snow storage there there's some snow storage in between the different buildings and then you know probably some in between the in the that where the recreational path is you know there are some areas throughout all those spaces yeah and we we've called that out on sheet c 10-01 although we didn't call out all the smaller areas we kind of pointed out the bigger areas there but as chris stated it would be kind of in between the driveways kind of where the multi-use path is and along the ends of the on either end of the development eden lane and bowdry lane and house Paul um yeah no john comments if he's talking he's muted i'm sorry i i i was muted okay i was talking before so i thought i'd spare you um the uh no i have no no for the questions here okay thank you john okay we're going to transition to public comments at this point oh do we want to do the structured parking uh yes yes thank you um okay so uh there is a provision in the bylaws that allows for uh additional height um chris you're very familiar with that and um and i wanted to have a a review of what the bylaws say not in the spirit of of dramatically increasing the height but maybe um maybe looking if the bylaws allow for a few more feet to allow a little more pitch on those roofs um which i just think is um something we should we should consider so so Emily uh walk us through the bylaws if you would please yeah what one quick piece before talking about that the other component that's really playing into this discussion as well is the utilization of the uh we we take the grade from the sidewalk in front is that correct it's averaged across all sides of the structure it's average finished grade so when we have a six unit building and it's uh 120 feet long it's the middle so we're gonna have this like the there is grade in the road that also plays into this and we may uh so i just think that height is also important because we've had to take that into consideration to sort of peg it so that it's not we don't have a building that exceeds on one end and actually might be lower on the other end do you see what i'm saying so it's the average it's the average it's the average and that's what the bylaws state so if you have a group of six correct me if i have this wrong but well why don't you just read yeah sorry and and no that's important yeah and because if you if you took if you if you didn't take the average we we might be able to um we might be able to accomplish what i think you and i both want which is to slightly increase the pitch of the roof a little bit so uh the bylaw for taff corner zoning district says the height limit will be increased from 36 to 52 feet we're perpetually affordable housing and or structured parking are provided for the structured parking provide 30 percent or greater of its parking requirement in a structure resulting in a commensurate reduction in surface parking and loading areas so the staff interpretation focuses on commensurate reduction in surface parking and loading areas typically a basement level shared garage where you no longer need a surface parking lot for all your parking you can serve it um underground and sharing a loading area i.e. one point in and out whereas townhomes duplexes single family homes they don't share the same loading areas and it's not necessarily resulting in a reduction of surface parking because in front of every garage there's one to two parking spaces so the staff interpretation has been to look at basement level parking not individual garage units building height is defined as the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the finished grade immediately adjacent to the building to the highest point on the roof and a building is defined as a structure that is permanently tied to the ground by footings or foundation and that has a roof so we would look at that grouping of four to six units as one building because it shares one foundation okay so so chris between now and october 11th you and your team please look at what the average elevation is and how that relates to the roof pitches because based on the regulations we don't have the flexibility to consider that to be structured parking agreed and so i mean it just doesn't fit the definition and if we were to get creative in our interpretation which is not the way we do things here we would be opening and subjecting ourselves to some problems on other applications and so so i'd ask you to to do a thoughtful analysis of how you're calculating the elevations and we can continue that discussion on october 11th standing seam is very nice for semi-flat roosts um what is what is the roof pitch right now as it stands uh so i think it's a five in one for a certain distance and then it basically flattens out from there and it's probably going to be a rubber membrane or something like that in that flat sections so the so what you see will be that little section but then it's flat and you won't really be able to see that so we haven't finalized all the little details but we've had to work through it quite a bit and what is the average height of the floors so they are eight nine and nine okay so eight is that uh i'm sorry nine nine and nine so first first floor is nine foot which is the garage right so it's a not a product that we see a lot built in a three-story product um with a garage underneath and then second floor which is living space is nine and then third floor is nine so yeah we we we don't try to design things but i i like i like where paul was going on that is uh for you to think about think about standing seam which is which is better for slower pitches are those wind i'm sorry are those windows and the underneath the balconies are those the the back end of the garage so that's actually uh like living space or square footage um and then the garage is so it's like a office study maybe a bedroom and then living space above that okay so those are real windows into a real living space not that's correct not to see someone's garage no great okay thank you how deep are the balconies there looks like maybe four feet five feet i think they're five feet out to the outside edge john okay it just you just have to be careful it's a great spot the balcony it just if you're gonna get too big it it becomes kind of this deadly shaded shadowy space underneath that nothing wants to grow in okay that's all check it okay um so i think we've um i think we've explored the uh the parking and uh in the bylaw review and chris i think you and your team have homework assignment if uh if i could be so bold as to no problem have homework assignment uh you know give out homework assignments but i think that would be a good one to do and uh so we're going to transition to public comments now before we do that i want to turn it over to emily to uh just give us a little refresher of what the drb can influence and what is outside of um of our area of influence so emily if you do that please yeah uh so the drb's focus is on the unified development bylaws which uh have mandates around you know what we've been talking about building height number of units per the density analysis landscaping outdoor lighting some design review and the drb's authority uh tends to fade out when you get to the street design so they're guided by the public work specifications in terms of um intersection design uh street and lane width and then where uh roads interact with a state highway in this case route 2a those streets and intersections are the jurisdiction of the vermont agency of transportation initially in this application process staff on behalf of uh the town commenting department's public works fire submitted a comment memo to v trans asking that they look more closely at the intersection design for alpine drive and budgerill lane with they have which they have and that intersection was upgraded to a public street uh to a traffic signal um and those streets um are beyond the drb's jurisdiction to influence their design um the bylaw does call for connectivity between neighborhoods um and here the drb has very limited authority because chelsea commons when that was subdivided had a plat um that gave that irrevocable offer to the town for that right of way to the future property um so gated access or one-way access those are things that are not in the zoning bylaws or the public work specifications that the drb could require and things like where on street parking is and is not located vehicle speeds other traffic calming measures those are other slack ward ordinances and policies that the drb does not have jurisdiction over okay thank you emily so uh so let's segue into the public input phase and uh if you're on zoom uh raise your virtual hand uh and simon will uh unmute you if you're here here uh in the room um please uh one at a time come forward to uh to this chair here uh where the public placard is and uh we want to hear from you but we ask that um your comments be limited to something that is supplemental to any written uh documentation that's already been submitted uh and and keep keep it limited to things that the drb can influence please um so with that uh who would like to go first thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my name is carol laws i live on 244 dunmore lane wiliston vermont and i am on a butter through the annex project um i want to talk about three related topics energy conservation infrastructure ownership and maintenance and i realize that some of these things don't relate exactly to drb so hopefully you'll give me that opportunity to briefly discuss those um the second is traffic on route 2a and the third is traffic on dunmore lane slash chelsea place the access to and from the annex the first item is energy conservation infrastructure ownership and maintenance i would like to read you an email i sent to emily on 9 9 22 emily has responded to these 10 items and i'm sure you have a copy of her email and some of the items i know do not pertain to the drb so before you do that uh this is part of our this is part of the public record correct um so a few if if you would please summarize and not and not read them verbatim that would be appreciated i'll do my best thank you um this email was written on 9 9 22 to to emily it's entitled annex and my primary purpose of writing this was to point out things that have come about as i live in finney crossing that might be of importance that could be done different or better in in the annex for example are there 100 amp charging devices for evs being provided in all of the units and if so is the electrical distribution transmission grid sized accordingly solar individuals home should be given the option for solar panels multi-family multi-story buildings should have solar panels building envelope ceilings and walls of garages should be insulated triple pane windows at doors should be provided on all exterior past doors one of the things that's happened in finney crossing is there were no to my knowledge storm doors provided and probably more than half of the community has put them in at considerably more expense than had they been put in by the developer public streets and private streets we have several private streets in finney crossing and my concern about those is that you're asking homeowners to maintain and replace these streets and they probably aren't qualified to do it and if they do do it they probably will not get the best price so i don't i'm not in favor of private streets i think that in a development like this that all the streets ought to be public streets for example one of the public one of the private streets in our development doesn't have any curves and it's on a slope and what tends to happen is you get washouts at the edge of the street and you get snow clouds plowing the the sod away from the edge so you know at the very least if you're going to put in private streets build them to the same standard as the public street so that these kind of things don't happen we have a wastewater pump station it's on a private street it serves five or six units and i'm very much aware that the town's policy is if you that the town will maintain and repair replace pump stations if you have 200 hookups or we don't have anywhere near 200 hookups problem here is that again we don't have people are capable or talented to maintain these things and and our pump station did overflow and it went into somebody's basement and it cost $30,000 to clean it up so my hope would be that in a development like this that pump stations could be handled by the town rather than by individual owners. Street lights, i'm not sure what the policy is as far as street lights are. I live on Dunmore Lane and there are no street lights it's a very dark street and i would encourage the drb to put street lights in on as many streets as you possibly can i would encourage you to look at solar street lights which are used a lot in part of the country which probably are less expensive to install that pretty much covers that aspect of it where i'm talking about energy conservation i'm talking about things that you could do in a development to make it more less expensive for homeowners to to to live in and and better all around. The second thing i want to talk about is traffic on route 2a. My email to the drb on 71822 questioned the conclusion of the traffic consultant that no traffic signals were required at either the alpine drive or the baudry lane exits on to route 2a. I'm happy that Chris Snyder recommend recommended and i believe v-trans and the town have agreed to install traffic signals in a southbound left turn lane at the alpine drive exit. I did make two recommendations above and beyond what v-trans was recommending and those are uh it's easier for me to read this is fairly quick i have several comments regarding the attached report from christopher clow of v-trans mr clow has recommended post monitoring of baudry lane at 50 and full build out i would also add alpine drive and zephyr road for that monitoring i would also recommend a northbound right turn lane at alpine drive the reason for the above two recommendations is because of the extremely heavy traffic on route 2a and as many of you know if you've traveled it it's not unusual to see almost solid traffic from tap corners to five corners so i think you need to do everything you can to ease traffic and that additional turn lane at alpine drive could certainly help that so that covers my thoughts on the route 2a intersection the next thing i want to talk about in some detail is the dunmore lane chelsea place access to and from the annex the revised traffic study dated 9 12 22 with traffic signals and southbound left turn lane at alpine drive as expected increases traffic onto route 2a and decreases traffic at the dunmore lane chelsea place exit the peak hour traffic pht changes are as follows baudry lane original 15 revised 22 so the traffic count went up alpine drive original 77 new revised winter 110 a significant increase in a number of vehicles that probably will use alpine drive and consequently and nicely the chelsea place went from 68 to 32 and dunmore lane went from 24 to 14 the 32 and the 14 were not provided by the in the revised traffic report so i simply interpolate those from the original report to get the 32 and the 14 this is a welcome reduction as far as dunmore lane and chelsea place but it is still very high and unacceptable chelsea place would be a would would be one vehicle every 30 seconds in dunmore lane one vehicle every four minutes as i've said before many of the chelsea place trips will change to dunmore lane as there are many vehicles parked on both sides of the street at chelsea convents i've also said before that the way to solve this problem is to limit or eliminate the dunmore lane chelsea place exit i've been told several times by emily speaking for the town that this can't be done i spent considerable time researching the town rules and regulations and must respectfully disagree with this conclusion i offer my email to emily dated 9 13 22 which i will read and i apologize it's fairly long that email is entitled the annex and brackets dunmore slash chelsea access close brackets begins hi emily i am attaching a three page report concerning the dunmore slash chelsea access where respectfully i must disagree with some of the conclusions you speaking for the town of made based on current traffic projections for the annex there will be a very substantial increase in traffic infini crossing and chelsea convents creating in my opinion undue levels of traffic congestion and unsafe conditions on our respective streets i strongly believe that our street systems were not designed for the for these traffic volumes that are projected there is a major difference in traffic volumes for a church versus a 343 unit residential development and i has to please pass this on to the drb so this is you'll have to bear with me if you will please here is the three-page report that was sent to emily and consequently the board hi emily i want to discuss three items relative to the dunmore lane slash chelsea place that allows you you're not you're not intending to read three pages of of testimony that's already in our that's already in the public record are you well i am and the reason i want to do it is because there are a number of people listening on zoom and there may be some people here in the audience who haven't seen this or heard this and so it's a way to inform them i'll be as rapid and quick as i can i appreciate that but i i think what we what we tried to set the i've given you great latitude okay because because i'm a wilsonian you're a wilsonian we're all neighbors it's it's it's uh i i try to run these meetings in a very respectful from outway um but we but but we as a body the drb cannot influence the the the traffic um the the traffic reconfiguration that you are referencing and uh and and we specifically asked that that we make that we keep comments to things that we can influence we're going to summarize it in a couple of sentences please please do that um i have read and reread the regulations that pertain to this and the regulations over and over and over again say this should be done this is a goal they do not say it must be done and i've written many specifications in my life and there is a major difference between should and must and shall and so as i read these regulations decisions have been made and and under with these regulations which say things should be done they don't say they must be done they over and over and over again say safety is a concern safety is a concern if if you do this right if you do this regulation safety is a concern so what my contention is that the town has held pretty solid that there's not going to be a change in the Dunmore Lane Chelsea Place road roadway connecting connecting the annex and they're saying it's because of the regulation i'm saying that regulation says should it's a goal it was made 15 years ago uh and it and the times have changed dramatically and really you ought to read look at it and that's what i'm asking you to do in as briefly as i can and i appreciate that opportunity the last thing i'd like to do is to uh read two short emails that were sent to the town expressing very nicely the concerns of residents of chelsea commons and uh penny crossing the first one is from cassie fodder she lives at 80 at 80 chelsea place wilson she says dear miss hayman my name is cassie fodder and i am the owner of 80 chelsea place property in wilson i am writing to express my serious traffic concerns related to the proposed annex snyder development at wilson i'm extremely concerned about the envisioned amount of cars that are expected and i'll briefly put this is a suburban development with kids playing basketball riding bikes people walking dogs jogging and the suspected increase in traffic which realistically may be even worse is going to ruin this neighborhood this is not what the residents want or need we fear this increased traffic in addition to ruining our community and neighborhood will also increase the risk of personal injuries and she goes on to say that she requests that the dunmore lane uh chelsea place exit be eliminated or if it's there there'll be some requirement some limitations on it the second letter is from stefanie and george barrett and it goes my husband george and i reside at 110 dunmore lane and own 176 dunmore lane where my elderly parents live we're concerned about the influx of traffic that potentially may run onto dunmore lane due to the proposed annex project this is a major safety issue we already have issues with motorists driving too fast on this road now we may have more to worry about my father an 89 year old walks with a cane and must cross dunmore lane to get to the mailbox i worry about cars racing through he couldn't react fast enough to get out of the way if necessary children are on bikes scooters and walking in the roadway and sidewalks they don't pay attention to cars i can't even begin to guess how many people walk their dogs through finney crossing and chelsea commons lastly most of the residents on dunmore lane are older and must either back out or into their driveway which again is a reaction time issue more traffic light allowed on to dunmore lane is a serious issue we ask that you please please consider not allowing more vehicles to access to dunmore lane via the annex project except for emergency vehicles signed stephanie and george barrett so i think i've demonstrated that the town has the right and thus the obligation to review the decision it was made some 15 years ago on dunmore lane chelsea place exit and if you agree with me then you can either eliminate it which i don't expect is going to happen but you could eliminate it or you can put some limitations on it and you all know that i've made some suggestions on what those limitations could be so thank you so much for for listening to me and putting up with me and i certainly hope that this board and this community is listening to the people in finney crossing and chelsea commons who have very serious concern about a significant amount of additional traffic that's going to come out the streets that weren't designed for it and that you will hopefully do something about it so anyway thank you so much for listening to me and and i look forward hearing your results and your comments thank you okay next member of the public who would like to speak good evening if you would state your name and address for the record please i'm carl fowler i reside at 178 middle run road in the middle run community i'm the former president of the middle run association but i am not speaking for the association tonight speaking to myself i wanted to start by saying that i think there's been a remarkable improvement in this proposal and many of the elements now are really very first-rate and i thank you for that and i applaud it and most of my comments unfortunately evolve into the areas that you sort of outlined as being offline as well but i think all of us need to think about these developments that are coming as a grouping not necessarily always individually the biggest problem that i see with the existing proposal before us has nothing to do with its internal design it has to do with the inevitable impacts of it combined with the 70 plus unit development proposed for the trinity baptist church property the 15 unit development posed by misho for the distance between the metal run neighborhood and mountain view the new development we just talked about that would go in with the golf course was as an aggregate all of these are going to funnel an immense amount of additional traffic into the interstices of mountain view industrial way in route 2a and yet we seem to continuously deal with the fringes of a traffic level left turn lane and not deal with the fundamental question is how much traffic can that infrastructure stand and should we proceed with this many projects until we've done something to upgrade the infrastructure to make it work it is not atypical at all to see traffic backed up from mountain view all the way past the credit union which would take it past alpine now if you put another light there you're going to create further interruptions in that and even further slow the traffic down boat relaying will be as it is now with metal run virtually impossible to exit or enter from depending on the direction of travel on route 2a during rush periods because they'll almost always be traffic lined up in front of it the metal run neighborhood is going to be opened up not as a cul-de-sac neighborhood as this will be except for the outlet down into chelsea place but will be opened up as it's through neighborhood when white river water is extended through the mesho development up to mountain view that will make us very similar to zephyr road which is an alternative to going through the lights at taff corners all of these are issues which may not be within the purvey of the development review board to veto but they ought to be within your purvey to make comment on and suggest of the select word that they ought to be looked at again and possibly select or suggest revisions or timing changes to try to deal with the impact of these projects my other comment is much simpler but it is one that i was deeply disappointed in i've been a public transit advocate for 60 years and i was astounded to hear gmt say as reported in the documents you shared tonight that they see no need for a bus stop at a location that's going to be serving a senior housing community and which provides access to the nearest shopping that's available without a car and which will be very difficult to exit on foot at certain times of the day i think we need to go back and say we want a bus stop there and whether or not again it's the development review board perhaps it's something this night or development should be doing itself if there's going to be senior housing there there ought to be provision from public transit those seniors could use with that i thank you thank you and i'm done thanks next member of the public that would like to speak if you're on zoom and you would like to speak please do raise your hand i'm not seeing any hands at the moment no hands raised on zoom okay very good thank you for those thoughtful comments from both of you drb members any final questions before we continue john no okay uh chris and team any andy there's a couple of items raised in the staff report that the drb wants to weekly quay tonight or weigh in via staff they increase the question uh it's both letting them off the path out of the public park i think the applicants the opinion of that is it's a relatively not a goal but the move from the development area it's not intended for use at night and we prefer not to have bother waiting on that area and then i think one of the things that's bad that very easy is just d rb comments on the number of benches and picnic tables in the public park as well as the number of benches along the path okay thank you uh anything else chris and team no okay uh so it is 847 we are going to continue dp 21-18 to october 11 thank you thank you are there your stuff thank you very much that's for thank you yeah right all right next up is dp 22-06 green state realty llc if you would state your name and address for the record please i'm a student at dino for green state realty for 626 wilson roll wilson ramon 05195 carl marchesaw leary burr 13 corporate drive sx junction from auto 5452 okay uh staff is up well done quest for grading in earth removal is required the site assert is currently developed in a single story multi-tenant building an unpaid storage lot the project was prevent presented to the drb on august 23rd 2022 and continued to september 27th 2022 to allow the applicant time to resubmit materials addressing several areas of concern staff recommending that the drb deliberate and approve the proposed project with conditions as draft um so uh since the last hearing no boards have reviewed the project again a second time the hack did review it prior to the first hearing um the department of public works and fire department did not have any additional comments and their original comments are included one comment letter was received at the time of mail out the letter requests the applicant to provide a temporary construction easement along the front of the property to benefit lot 4 for construction of the sidewalk in this area i will get into that with um in greater detail further on um so there were i've listed the recommendations that were made at pre-app and the drb recommendations that were discussed at the hearing um on 823 um and the applicant's response um and i will uh get into those as um i go through the staff report um and i'm really just going to focus on the changes that have been made in response to the drb concerns yeah if you if you if you could do that and also focus uh so that we can streamline this if uh focus on anything that remains non-compliant sure um so outdoor sales and storage are now compliant by law um the applicant site plan is designating a six uh 6410 square foot area for outdoor sales um the for access connectivity um pedestrian access has been improved by the inclusion of a walkway in front of the building and also uh the comment letter that i referred to was submitted by representative um from sd ireland who is the owner and developer of a budding lot 4 they are constructing sidewalk along the frontage of their property as well as recommended at pre-application um and they would like to continue that sidewalk to connect to the detrans sidewalk um in order to do that they would have to cross through a portion of this subject property so they are requesting an easement for construction of that sidewalk along route to to connect to the plan sidewalk um okay so let's let's have a conversation about that with the applicant while that's while you're referencing that yeah uh do you have any objection to that i talked to nick from sd rland he contacted me i thought we didn't have a problem at all i just asked him how much room he needed and then just to let us know and we obliged and you know update the permit for you know the final and he said okay that's great so i think we're all set with it okay great uh the only note that i make is uh on proposed conditions of approval number 21 um i think that we ought to put the word temporary easement the word temporary in front of easement yeah because uh because that's not a permanent easement temporary easement for construction yeah yeah so we'll uh we'll clean that up yeah okay that sounds great thank you okay continue melinda please sure um so the for vehicular parking um the ad space that hasn't has now been shown on the site plan so that complies um the site plan now shows one long-term bicycle parking space and one end of trip facility in the interior of the building so that complies um the applicant has increased the size of the dumpster from uh 8 by 16 to 10 by 20 and uh snow storage area is now shown on the northeast side of the parking area um or act recommendations the site plan as i stated includes a walkway between front of the building and the parking spaces so customers can safely access the main entrance the floor plan includes an airlock at the main entrance um the other hack recommendations are not uh requirements of the bylaw rooftop mechanical if proposed must be demonstrated on the architectural elevations and screened in compliance with wdb 1812 um the landscaping the applicant has updated the site plan to demonstrate compliance with the standard uh now showing delineating the outdoor sales area in blue um calculated the square footage of that sales area and has provided um landscaping that equals five percent of that sales area and uh staff is recommending the drb not require landscaping along the western boundary which abuts another industrial site um and let's see i think that was yeah and then the lighting um the outdoor lighting can comply um the applicant has provided information about timing and duration of lighting um they are requesting that the lights um the lights stay on all the time at 10 power for security reasons so in order to for the drb to approve that they would need to find make a finding that the security needs of the site warrant um this security lighting to be on all the time um and i think that is all that okay great thank you all right um nice job with the resubmission well i think london was super helpful i got this email here that i could share with you on the 13 bullet points but basically we got an email representative of the board's you know requirements and you know i got 13 of them and i could go down through them but we uh we're meeting all 13 yeah on the lighting i talked to my client about it super important for us is uh and the preset is five minutes and i i could regurgitate exactly what's written but she basically took my email and copied and pasted and we can read it for the record if you'd like but here's the gist of it um if at two o'clock in the morning somebody's doing some mischievous to the cars the light's going to turn on full power and that's going to allow their security lighting which we're not telling anybody where it's going to be but the intention is we're going to pick up some bad guys if somebody's doing something to the cars now we don't want that but that's really the only way that security lighting works is at full power so somebody triggers the light the lights you know we're picked up so get you know towards the front of the building if there was going to be any bagel or anything like that not that we want that to happen anywhere in the whole area but that's the intention and after the light triggers how long does it stay on or goes back to the minimum it's a five minute preset and then it goes back to just five five minutes we can change that i would think you'd want a little more than five minutes just we can change it it's just just the setting on the light any movement have really re-repeated something in one of the other there's constant movement i think it's it's going to stay on the full power i don't know does any member of the drb have any issue with with being proposed i think it makes total I would say you want more time well the 10% is actually like it's just something that the sensor like it's just it's being requested on a lot of projects that we're working on it just so happens like all the guys at the office like oh you should do this because other towns like that's sort of the go-to thing this you know the sensor so anyways that's why I talked to my client we thought that was the best for you John John Hemmelgarner you good with this okay okay so you're 13 13 yeah we just had a discussion about the illumination you just heard that the board was in 100% agreement with your approach is there anything else okay so DRB members if you have questions Paul existing water service to be removed I don't quite understand oh there's a little water service that goes to the green building so you know we're basically gonna cut replace brand new to the new building that's it oh because I'm just saying the way that was written it's like existing water serves removed I'm going where are you gonna get water from that we're gonna cut you know we're at the valve and then we're gonna bring brand new more of a statement so so you're you're telling us you're a car dealership that's great no storage of damaged vehicles on the site yeah in the rocker no we're in agreement I mean number one we set it right in their car that's gonna show up in your yeah in your condition of approach cars yep no we're good with it okay we stated that right in the first bulletin yeah I don't know just make it for the record no no problems it's a great looking project yeah I really I really like the building I like it I like the effort you put into it I think it's gonna be a great improvement anything's gonna be an improvement it's just time and it's just don't sell just don't sell asphalt dump trucks there John any party comments no how could I talk for anything you guys okay okay okay anybody on zoom in the public that would like to make a comment please Steve and if you'd like to make a comment I think we just outlasted everybody else what happened nothing wrong go nothing wrong with going last everybody's asleep yeah so there's no raise hands it's too bad I'll have a tougher project because it's like him and you're 13 for 13 we're asking for anything okay so it's 901 I'm gonna close DP 22-06 thank you for coming thank you thank you okay Emily I need your guidance we have on the agenda the under communications final plans and other business final plan review for model tow group LLC yeah great so let's so let's do that now before we go into the deliberations is that appropriate yeah okay so this is final plan to review for the exterior materials at the player park hotel currently under construction the hack reviewed the revisions last week and provided comment that the hack the staff options which simplified the materials on the east elevation of the building that's the site that does not have the main entrance and the applicant has provided renderings in response to that comment and staff recommends approval okay it does just do DRV members understand the little nuances here were you able to piece it together yes okay because I because I very much like what is has been proposed and recommended by the DRV it it ties the west and the east together there's symmetry on the east side nice building materials it's an important building I is anybody opposed to approving this I'm not I'm not opposed to proving it but I'm confused on what we're approving because there's a there was any original packet that I received an option a and an option B and then there was some additional information sent out today that also was an option a and an option B but they were different than the option a's and B's here so as far as I can tell but there's four there's four suggestions here and I'm totally unclear on what it is that the applicant is asking us to approve thank you John so the applicant had originally submitted options a option B the hack did not like the busyness of the proposed east elevation this cable is on a flat wall where is the the west elevation bumps out so the hack wanted the east elevation which is being shared now to be a sim more simple I mocked up a sketch with literally PowerPoint to help the hack understand what they're what they were thinking about and the hacks that okay go go for one of these options the main difference is where it splits from stone to the cream panel and then the applicant what you received today the applicant submit submitted of official version of that option one which is shared now splits the stone between the windows and then option to splits the stone along the windows right alongside I think the DRB is to decide between option one and two of what was submitted today I think I think it's important maybe now but but I'll say it anyway on the west elevation there's our guidance to the applicant was was to basically mirror the theme from the west side and if you take a look on the west side there's one band of stone that goes right along the edge of the windows and then there's thank you and then there's you see where to see where that band of the left of what we're looking at of stone no other side yet right there goes along the edge of the window then to the right which would be to the south it's it's a wider band correct thank you Emily and and so that caused a little bit of confusion but but the applicant based on a comments from the hack came back and offered options one and two that would you bring back up for clarity purposes please Emily and and that's the that's that's the driver for for what we're looking at here with the updated let's call them option one a and two a and and the hack is recommending one a which we're looking at now and I'm in agreement with that okay okay so that did that bring clarity to you John yeah I didn't realize that the hack that the second set was was instigated or was a response to the hack comments I guess my comments here would be that I I find either of these acceptable I'll just make a comment that that I'm not gonna hold up this application on but in general I'm not that comfortable with having applicants kind of give us multiple options and asking us to choose I think that the purpose of this board is to approve applications that have been submitted of what people would like to do and I would like the applicants generally to kind of make that decision of what they prefer and ask us to approve it in this case since this is a response to the hack to begin with I would I would agree with what I think I heard you guys just say which is that I would I would stick with the hack preference here which I believe is the one that's on the screen right now okay so Emily how I'm gonna I'm gonna do for the record I'm gonna do a roll vote and how would we how would we identify for the record what we're looking at right now option one submitted September 23rd okay okay so mr. Riley if you would make a motion please sure I'd be happy to make a motion I Scott Riley make a motion for the final plan or plan review of DP 18-06.3 for the Vermont hotel group LLC are requesting a discretionary permit to revise the building facade having submitted option 1a splitting the windows on September 23 the board the board accepts the that option great thank you is there a second I'll second it David thank you any discussion okay yeah or nay Paul yeah John Hemmel guard yeah Scott Riley yeah Dave Turner yeah and chair is a yay five in favor not opposed thank you thank you and that option one submitted yesterday or was it yesterday last week is approved okay with that the board is going to go into deliberative session welcome back to the town of Holston development review board it is 919 we are out of deliberative session is there a motion for DP 20-18 yes as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 I David Turner moved the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board required to comment on the application by the Wilson Development bylaw and having and having heard and duly considered test 20 presented at the public hearing of September 27 2022 authorized DP 20-18 proceed to residential growth management allocation in 2023 thank you is there a second second Paul seconds any further comments okay yeah or nay Paul yeah Mr. Hemmelgarn is refused Scott Riley yeah Dave Turner yeah Pete Kelly is a yay four in favor none opposed one recusal motion carries is there a motion for DP 10-34.6 yes be as authorized by WDB 6.6.3 I John Hemmelgarn moved at the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of September 27 2022 accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 10-34.6 and approve this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above this approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the finance on which this approval is based thank you John is there a second I'll second Dave Turner seconds any further discussion hearing done yeah or nay Paul Christensen yeah John Hemmelgarn yeah Scott Riley yeah Dave Turner yeah and I'm a yay five in favor not opposed motion carries unanimously next up is DP 22-06 is there a motion yes as authorized by WDDB 6.6.3 Eisenhower Riley moved at the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of August 23 2022 and September 27 2022 accept findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 22-06 and approve the this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of the approval above this approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based there are a couple of changes under conclusions of law number 6 the proposed illumination levels are supported by the site's security needs number 21 under conditions of approval the applicant shall provide a temporary easement for a sidewalk along the frontage of route 2 to benefit lot 4 and we are adding number 22 all vehicles stored on site shall be available for sale and be fully operable thank you Scott is there a second second second Paul seconds it any further discussion yeah yeah John Hemmelgarten Scott yeah Dave Turner I am a yay five in favor not opposed motion carries unanimously is there a motion to approve the minutes of September 13 2022 I move I move to approve the minutes of September 13 2022 as written thank you John is there a second second Scott Riley seconds any discussion yeah your name Paul yeah John yeah Scott yeah Dave yeah and chairs the a five in favor not opposed minutes are approved any other business to bring forth for tonight just one just one thing can you give us a quick update on for base code sure as folks probably have read in the observer of the for base codes been a discussion at the select board for the last couple months they called for a couple of substantive changes to the draft that staff has prepared for them and warned for a public hearing on October 4th so that's a week from tonight and they could take action on adoption of the code following that public hearing at the same meeting or at a later date we don't know for sure but they will have both hearing and a meeting wherein they could consider adoption on so we may be almost over the goal line with the form-based code but you do have a drop that day the number one well as at the point where we're a hundred and fifth I want to say 50 days out from the July 5th hearing the form-based code as drafted would no longer be treated as controlling on any developments everything would just be handled under the existing bylaw under under what happens today under state law both sets of rules apply in Taft corners which makes it really functionally difficult to approve almost anything big you can you can do changes of use and you know facade changes things like that but not no new buildings or sites really until until we have just one set of zoning rules again covering that area they do so it's not that it's not the first meeting coming up possibly the one yeah I I think the the hope is that they've adjusted things to their their satisfaction and that they would adopt we've had an awful lot of conversations about building height and setting setting some absolute limits as well as some story and roof pitch limits and I can quote roof pitches chapter and verse like never before as a result but I think we've gotten to something that folks could live with by having an absolute limit as well as the story limit see okay Andrew welcome yep that was what I was going to say welcome to the team anything else all those in favor of journey indicate by saying aye aye opposed hearing none we are adjourned thank you