 everybody please make sure you sign in none epiphany you're epiphany it out I'm epiphany-free epiphany-free sound yeah are you able to suspend that on that wheel ah it'd be a nice nice talent to have turn it off I'd like to I'd like to be not quite a little red light great welcome everybody to the town of Williston's Development Review Board for September 24th 2019 we are going to bring the meeting to order at 7 0 3 before we get started anybody have anything they would like to address the board on that is not on the agenda no okay there are a number of items on the agenda for tonight one two three four items and one appeal there are two items on the agenda tonight that are going to be continued to October 22nd the it will be DP to 20 dash 0 9 Brian Cairns and DP 20 dash 10 Kasella waste management and we'll get into the reason hearings occur for them first up tonight is DP 20 dash 0 8 Deborah McDonald and Robert Gata come on up have a seat okay if you would stay your names and your addresses please for the board I am Deborah McDonald 1256 old-stage road in Williston Andrea Dottolo chudel consulting engineers for 78 Blair Park Road great welcome Malina the request for pre-application review of a two lot subdivision 9.78 acre parcel located at properties currently developed with a single family dwelling accessory garage and access driveway the proposed residential development just to kind of go over the purpose of pre-application review is to acquaint the DRB and its advisors with a proposed development site and its possibilities without requiring the presentation of extensive serving engineering or design data at this step in the review process plans for complex projects should be presented in an informal way that invites comments and the discussion of alternatives so this pre-application is the third time the DRB is reviewed a proposal for subdivision on this parcel in June of 2008 the DRB authorized a pre-application to go forward to growth management but the project did not receive allocation at the March 11 2009 growth management 2009 the project was submitted again as a pre-application and did receive allocation for one dwelling unit at the March 2010 growth management previously approved allocation has expired and that's why this application before you there's one existing single family dwelling on the parcel and the applicants proposing one additional single family dwelling residential uses are allowed in the ARZ being residential density and will calculated on the dwelling unit equivalent per acre basis and for the purposes of calculating density one dwellings defined as a dwelling unit of two or more bedrooms welling that only has one bedroom is or less is counted as a half a dwelling unit the applicant is proposing two total dwelling units in the form of two units with two or more bedrooms no units with one or fewer bedrooms after 19 density requires that lands with wetlands wetland buffers and slopes in excess of 30% be taken out of the density calculations and that lands with slopes between 15 and 29.9% be calculated a reduced density of one dwelling for 10 acres a formal wetland delineation has not yet been performed however the applicants consulting engineer did a cursory review of the site and vegetation soils and hydrology and based on the review has provided an updated site plan showing the kind of the worst case scenario scenario the maximum extent of wetlands on the site and it's that is believed to be an overestimate and is simply given for the purposes of calculating density so given that there are five acres of the maximum five acres of wetlands on the site with zero allowable density there's no steep slopes there is a total of 4.78 acres of unconstrained acreage on the site the allowable density is one dwelling unit equivalent per 1.83 acres so the maximum allowable dwelling units is 2.6 and then rounding down to two they are proposing to so Wilson Development bylaw chapter 31 requires that for residential subdivisions 10 and a half acres a greater a minimum a minimum of 75% be set aside as permanently protected open space this parcel is does not is less than that it's 9.7 acres so that the thus it's not subject to that provision for traffic staff is not recommending the DRB require a traffic study for this project administrative permits for single family for new single family dwelling include a transfer transportation impact fee for access chapter 31 states that lots must have at least 40 feet of frontage on an existing or proposed public or private road or drive the existing parcel has approximately 507 feet of frontage on old state road and the proposed lot one will have approximately 283 feet of frontage proposed lot two will have 224 feet of frontage meeting that requirement a new driveways proposed for lot two approximately 250 feet south along old stage road from the existing driveway this proposed access locations currently used as informal access on the property the establishment of a new driveway will require an access permit issued by the wilson department of public works the chapter 31 establishes property line setbacks front setback from a town highways 50 feet side setback and the rear setbacks are 15 feet and the proposed development appears to meet those requirements um there's a bit of flexibility in the buffering of residential developments in the ARZD it just the bylaw simply states that ample buffers must be provided and the DRB has discretion in determining the minimum width and what type of landscape buffer will be appropriate in a particular context side and rear setback of 15 feet has been applied to lots one and two for future development boundaries and the applicant states that existing vegetation will be retained to the greatest degree the greatest extent feasible the proposed dwelling unit will be located primarily within an existing cleared area the proposed septic mound will be located within existing areas cleared areas to the greatest extent feasible for water and wastewater the existing home on the property served by onsite wastewater system as will be the proposed new home the existing home served by municipal water and proposed home will be served by a private drill well system design and state permits are not required at pre application review phase however both the existing waste water system has already been permitted under state permit um w w 4 3 0 2 3 0 0 2 1 um the proposed new home will be served by electric utilities via an underground connection to the existing above ground power along old stage road um there are no state mapped class 2 wetlands on the subject parcel um however the applicants engineer suspects there are wetlands um on the property since this is a preliminary planning phase a formal wetlands delineation is not required and has not been performed um a wetlands delineation is required to be included as part of an application for discretionary permit the parcel is within a significant wildlife habitat area um and so the wdb 27 5 7 1 states a requirement for all development located within the significant wildlife habitat area that habitat disturbance assessment be prepared by qualified wildlife biologists or other professional accepted by the town prior to discretionary permit or administrative permit review since uh all the proposed development is outside the significant wildlife habitat area um staff is not recommending the habitat disturbance assessment uh be required and rather to avoid future impacts to the significant wildlife habitat area a building envelope should be established that delineates the location on the property where structures are um there as far as trail easements go there are no desired trail connections within the subject parcel and the applicant is not proposing trails as part of this project um growth management um wdb 11 2 uh dot 2 dot 1 states that one dwelling may be constructed on any undeveloped parcel that was and has continued to be in separate ownership since the town adopted its first first growth management system in 1990 um this parcel appears to have been established prior to 1990 um so the growth management exemption applies and the the applicant retains the right for one dwelling unit on that parcel and if so authorized will proceed with a residential growth management allocation request for one additional dwelling unit um residential growth management allocations the competitive process there is a possible exemption for minor subdivisions of which um this subdivision would be considered minor subdivision should the drb choose to exercise that exemption otherwise it's a competitive process and to obtain residential growth management allocation without obtaining an exemption project must receive a minimum score of 30 points um the project will be scored using the evaluation criteria for proposed residential subdivisions outside the sewer service area and more information about growth management scoring criteria can be found in uh wilson development bylaw chapter 11 and staff is um willing to provide guidance to applicants who have questions about the growth management process um no uh comment letters from the public were received by the planning zoning office at the time of mail out september 19th department comments from police fire and public works uh police did not respond to our request for comments department of public works responded uh stating that an access permit will be required and the fire department did not have any comments um conservation commission reviewed the application uh and made the following recommendations since all proposed development is outside a significant wildlife habitat area a habitat disturbance assessment is not recommended to avoid future impacts to a significant wildlife habitat area a building envelope should be established that delineates the location on the property where structures are allowed no structures are to be built outside of the building envelope number two the discretionary permit application shall be accompanied by a completed runoff and erosion control checklist that shows how the applicant will comply with the guidance provided in the current addition of remorse low risk site handbook for erosion prevention and erosion control and sediment control should be um low risk developments must also comply with the standards outlined in um chapter 29 um so staff is recommending drb authorized dp 2008 to proceed to growth management review in march of 2020 with um some recommendations for you to consider thank you what would you like to add it is your turn thank you melinda um i would just like to describe the proposed development a little bit further as melinda stated this is a 9.78 acre existing parcel um it is a fairly large parcel in comparison to those on this dead end section of old stage road we are proposing to subdivide into two parcels one 5.4 acre parcel and the new parcel will be 4.3 acres um that parcel size is much like the existing parcels on the remainder of the road uh development is proposed close to old stage road along the northwestern portion of the property we plan to maintain the existing vegetation that's on the property and use an existing informal access um which is currently used by the apple orchard which is directly abutting to the south um this field that the house is proposed in is often used for overflow parking for the orchard um it's fairly flat and should be an easy developable area we are proposing a building envelope on the new lot the building envelope is 0.5 acres it has a 30 foot setback from both sides and a 50 foot setback from the front as melinda stated this building envelope was proposed um to ensure that there would be no disturbance to the wildlife habitat um corridor area that's mapped everything that's proposed as well outside that mapped travel corridor um additionally we did want to talk to the board about the necessity for a wetland delineation on this property uh stated there's no mapped class 2 wetlands um there are some mapped class 2 wetlands east of the property um and it is mapped as hydric soil and i've been to the site and i'm a wetland scientist and have identified that there are a few drainages that would likely come up as class 2 wetlands however they're well outside our proposed development area and the proposed building envelope should keep any development outside any impact to wetlands or wetland buffers ask for your comment on that now if you have any no one's going to build back there right no one's going to build back there no so if we put a clause it says that if you plan on building back there then we're going to have a wetland study how about that that would be fine to me uh thank you we would appreciate that very much thank you that's that's not something the board has agreed to Paul you're out of line i'm suggesting that um that's something that will take up well we will certainly consider it when the board goes into deliberation um and we'll be happy to be happy to consider it happy to talk about it yep and i will just note that um that was something that we discussed with the conservation committee um and they were okay with the building envelope um being sufficient to protect both the wetland and the wildlife habitat disturbance area so you have your recommendations um as melinda stated there is an existing ww permit on the site so both the existing property and the proposed development is fully permitted with the wastewater department this layout is extremely similar to what has been previously proposed in 2008 and 2009 um we will go ahead with getting that access permit from dpw um and i just wanted to note that there should only be four recommendations i think that numbering got a little messed up in here all right any else that's it questions from the board so there's no desired connections like we reviewed something very close to this recently and required across the street and required a trail easement so is that more guidance on the town by the town staff on yeah there wasn't uh there wasn't a connection near this parcel that was across the road and the conservation commission looked at it and did not um see uh they just they didn't see have a desire to have a trail go through the parcel there and see how it would connect with other town trails so i think that i think the trail was at the um in the utility at the utility line yeah several properties away from us it let me ask the applicant if there were a condition if the board determined that that was something that was desirable uh how would you feel about that um i i think i would want to explain to me then how that would would work i'm not against having a trail access but how would that work in effect my neighbors because you know if you look at the map this is this is really what we're talking about because there's already an existing house on that proposed lot one so you're just talking there's a little space right here the trail to know that so unfortunately that's how the town obtains a lot of these yeah a little bit at a time yeah i'm not against it yeah jill are you think are you thinking at the back end of the property or even potentially the front end i don't i am not i'm not super familiar with we're on old stage this is i'm having a hard time you know we're at them zap okay yeah okay well here's the orchard here's the overflow but this is actually our side yard okay this is what we're talking about right so it's the continuation of old stage mountain view is mountain view is south of them yes okay so it's the continuation of old stage up that way okay okay i was envisioning this closer to the village the trail connection is like three or four parcels to the north on old stage road and it's an east west access from ledgewood to yes towards north williston road yes it goes parcel yeah i believe it runs through the utility um under velco's utility yeah okay but you are correct there was a other subdivision on that larger parcel on the north end of old stage road where that connection will link through yes on that east west access yes okay there enough other question i'm just curious why you would put a well in and instead of tapping into the municipal water yeah so that's an excellent question i'll respond to that because i can only understand what i was told initially that a very small two inch pipe was put in and maybe i see that john adams is here and he might be able to speak to this too because he was part of that we weren't owners at the time and that the pressure was only enough to feed the five houses that are getting water and that was all that was there that is my understanding yeah they're currently outside the mapped water service area and uh the water service does not come up does not come up no just a few houses that are even with that nice new tank sitting right up there no and we didn't we didn't even get better pressure so sir the water comes up to my house and it goes to private line from this the south side of my property it turns out just so you're aware that the pressure is extremely weak okay okay all right and uh just at the time my my property was basically at the same elevation as the tank and uh four houses got together and paid for the town to take over a line that went to my property and then once that was made to specification for you folks then we put the private lines into the four other houses for a possibility sake in the record would you say your name and your address please sir john adams i only were treated one one six eight old-stage road thank you thank you now we've got that all right okay so could you point out more or less where the wildlife habitat line is that we're sure that we're not approaching it yeah and if you know that wilson over the map it's the large black hatched square hatched area but the wildlife habitat already comes up like this and then circles around the house and as far as my wetland line based on the topography as well as up there i don't believe that the wetlands go past the 550 contour line and i'm not saying that this entire area is wetland but i would say that there's no wetlands outside this box that was my five acre max i'm sure there's no i'm sure there's no wildlife here in the orchard any questions from the audience comments from the audience on this uh on this thanks for coming your consideration you're going to close vp 20-08 mcdonnell and gata subdivision mcdonnell yeah so now the new year yep so you'll get some especially oh yeah that's okay okay next up is dp 20-09 brian caron's uh requesting an discretionary permit for 323 industrial app we can open the hearing at 730 um so i made an i made a comment at the beginning of the hearing that we were going to continue two two hearings yours dp zero dp 20-09 and dp 20-10 to october 22nd the reason for the continuance is because the the board did not receive a elevation of the proposed projects either one now now i'm seeing one here on the board but that is the first that we have seen of it uh it was not provided to the board through the initial submission nor did we get one from kasella so we'll talk about that so the board would like the opportunity to review the elevation um us the reason for the continuation until october 22nd so we're still going to have the hearing um it'll give you an opportunity to get that to the staff and they will in turn distribute it to the board for that hearing um so okay yep all right great so emily this is a request for a discretionary permit to reconstruct a 70 by 45 portion of an existing building located at 323 industrial app the property is currently developed with vermont home and marine on the western half and the shamp plain oil fueling station on the eastern half project history this is the first time the drb is reviewing this request previous development on the parcel was approved as follows uh site planning conditionally use permit in 2005 to construct the fleet fueling facility findings of fact proposed use the applicant proposes to maintain the existing use boat sales and servicing are categorized um under any ics 441 and allowed use in table 36a proposed structure the applicant proposes to construct a 3150 square foot approximately 70 feet by 45 foot addition on an existing slab the structure collapsed earlier this year it will continue to be used for storage the proposed structure will be 80 square feet smaller than the previous structure the proposed structure is below the 36 foot height limit access no changes to access are proposed the development has two existing curb cuts on industrial app and a service access to curb cut on avenue b setbacks for chapter 36 the setback from the road is 35 feet portions of the paved area along industrial avenue are existing non-conforming landscaping the existing landscaping is shown in the site plan the subject parcel is adjacent to three public ways and one heavy commercial industrial parcel the northern boundary does not comply with the landscape buffer requirements a few trees are shown along the northern boundary the same as a landscape buffer as approved under site plan 0512 the drb must decide if the development proposed must meet the landscaping standard a type a nine-foot type three buffer would be most feasible it could be reduced by offense um what follows is the landscape buffer table and their definitions staff will know that that landscaping buffer is also existing non-conforming and no changes are being proposed at this time street trees street trees are existing and shown on the site plan in compliance with chapter 26 outdoor sales and storage are existing on the site as seen in the applicants photos an aerial image below but it's not shown on the site plan Vermont home and marine sells new and used boats and provides boat repair maintenance services for chapter 36.7 excerpted below outdoor sales are allowed in the front yard but not outdoor storage boats are parked on the paved area in the front yard between the building and industrial af some of this area encroaches on the front yard setback the red line in the photo is the approximate location of a 35 foot setback due to printing in black and white bonus points if you can locate it but if you look between four boats over there's a little indentation so that's some of that existing non-conforming pavement that's been on the site the drb must decide if the development activity proposed replacing an existing structure on replacing a structure on an existing slab warrants the removal of the existing storage and or sales from the setback final plans must designate all outdoor storage and sales areas the drb may decide to draft a condition of approval traffic and parking the reconstructed building will be used for storage no increase in employees or activity are proposed the project does not generate a requirement for additional parking or traffic study outdoor lighting outdoor lighting is proposed and a lighting plan is provided the lighting plan must be modified for final plans in compliance with chapter 24 for example maximum illumination is five-foot candles whereas the plan shows a hot spot of 12-foot candles what follows is the outdoor lighting table staff has identified unknown components that will need to be shown at final plans they have provided their notes on timing uh luminary orientation and security lighting in compliance with the standards of the bylaw signs no new or changes to existing signage are proposed as part of this application wetlands waterways and conservation areas are not present on the site no changes to utilities water wastewater or stormwater are proposed snow storage areas must be shown on final plans in compliance with the requirements of 16.6 solid waste two dumpsters are shown on the site plan near avenue b without screening final plans must identify screening such as a six-foot tall wall or fence as well as a concrete slab in compliance with 16.7 and lastly this project is not subject to design review it is in the izdw on industrial road where design review is not required comments from police fire and public works um public works had no comments police department did not respond the fire department submitted a memo on august 28th it's copied here most are standard building signage access requirements uh public comment no comment letters or emails were received at the time of packing mail out staff action recommended action staff recommends approval of this discretionary permit staff will review final plans for compliance with the drb conditions but the drb can also choose to retain final plan review by modifying the motion final plans must address the following designate outdoor storage and sales on the site plan lighting in compliance with chapter 24 dumpster enclosure in compliance with chapter 16 and snow storage as required by chapter 16 as well the board has decided to continue this hearing for elevations and the board must also decide if a condition of approval is necessary for the landscape buffer along the northern parts of boundary um if both parking in the front yard and front yard setback is outdoor sales or storage um and listen lastly if it can remain as existing or if it must be modified but follows our standard conclusions and additional approval thank you thank you emily have you read the staff notes i have had the staff notes there's a lot here yes yes thank you then the last one so there's a there's a lot to go over um i'm assuming i'm assuming you're brian i am brian yes no i did not ask for you to state your name brian karen's each day yeah so you will do that for the record please yes brian karen's you gotta do it well yep andrea dottolo chudel consulting engineers for 78 blare park road so it would probably have been better if your building did not fall down it would have been the roof was uh didn't take the snow load so so andrea why don't you why don't you start there is a there is a fair amount here that staff has identified yeah identified with the property the you know the the chair will note that uh it's his opinion that you know this has been a free for all location for a long time you know good or bad and this is the town's this is the town's opportunity to try and help you and the town bring it closer to compliance so i know you don't want you probably don't want to hear that but that's that's kind of that's kind of the process where i understand it's a specific specific user um you know in the boat sales service they get boats are coming and going all the time i think the board understands that all that stuff so i understand the board's opinion on that yep okay good andrea yep i'm just gonna flip this over to her and i didn't realize that you guys did not have the belly I only reviewed um this is a 3.2 acre parcel within the industrial west zoning district um it's home to the vermont homen marina along the western portion and champlain oil company's terminal along the eastern portion um this parcel is sandwiched between industrial avenue b and avenue c and it does about another industrial use to its rear or the north abutting property um as we move through the staff report there's as you mentioned a lot to talk about um i'll start with the rear landscaping buffer and setback um i believe if we were to propose a buffer in this area it would likely be the nine foot type three informal planting um again this proposal is for a building that fell down we are proposing exactly within the same building footprint um so there's no changes within this rear setback um i did it's a little hard to see but i did draw a red line on the back that shows where that nine foot buffer area would occur um and we do understand that we could reduce that buffer with a fence um at this time we're requesting that the drb does not require us to change this non-conformity um due to the existing business that's operating here and would ideally continue to operate as is however we do understand this as your opportunity to get that setback um moving on to the outdoor storage outdoor sale conversation um i also drew the 35 foot setback from the frontage along industrial av and i will note that that existing non-conformity has pavement four feet into that front yard um there are boats that are currently stored in this location you can see that your staff report um applicant would wish to continue to store boats in this location again we're only four feet into that front yard and it's an existing non-conformity um i don't believe that you'll be asking us to remove four feet of pavement and i don't know that it makes sense to enforce that they park boats four feet off that curb um i'll also just looking at that area the landscape berm in front in that section of the front yard is raised up relatively high um if you look at the fourth picture on the existing conditions photos you can see that that landscape berm is raised a couple feet above the road elevation so the impact from industrial av looking at the site is less um than your standard grass to pavement i'm going to have a blown up photo if any of you want to look at it can you hold just hold that up to make sure we're looking at this yeah so it's the fourth fourth photo in your report and then i can come oh i got three on the first page and two on the next uh it's this section we don't have we do not have that picture in our packet that picture is not in your packet it's um these pictures are combined to be panoramic but the panic panoramic view looking northeasterly shows the raised landscape berm on the right side the point being just that you know this four foot non-conformity is more or less invisible from industrial av due to the the raising of that berm so does the berm does the edge of the berm go to 35 feet and then you're just back in the wheels of the trailers up to the grass and that's it that's what's extending off the back into the four into the four yes that one i'm getting out of this okay all right okay comment on that on that topic these boats are for sale there there's boats that are for sale used or new not new boats i don't believe maybe some new boats um but they are for sale the ones on the front yes typically okay so my question is specifically yes those are for sale those are for sale yeah and i will um just getting into the definition of outdoor sale and outdoor storage um for the bylaw the definition of outdoor sale reads it includes the outdoor not under a roof or and within three walls the display of merchandise or any other item for service or sale typical outdoor sales includes automobiles and other vehicles and nursery plants um i would describe this as outdoor sales rather than outdoor storage which is listed as things such as stockpile and gravel sand or quarry of products firewood this is a vehicle that is either for sale or for service and we do understand that with final plans we will need to identify our outdoor sale areas there appear in the aerial photo to be boats parked on the adjacent parcel um and i will just note that that is our tax map parcel that boundary is not specific are you talking about in the rear sir okay yes and the screenshot when the tax map is overlaid on the satellite very rarely is it correct so the boats do appear to be over the parcel boundary yes i'd like to an accurate map that shows the the property line relation to where those boats have been sold yeah and again um for for our final plans we do understand that we need to identify our outdoor sale areas um so for the final plan we can include an aerial honor let me jump in as well yeah let me jump in as well the the site plan that you provided us is i assume this is the old site plan from when this was a garden center it is so and i will note that the landscaping was updated um we did not redo a survey so i think i think that's probably the first place to start seeing is how ryan how far back does this well the marina's been there a long time it has been it has been so the the portion of the gorses grass and to the right of the building retail store that is just parking lot and that's where they obviously you can see in the aerial that's where they store the boats it was that prior i got so we're going to want to see boat storage yeah right just grab we're you know we're right now we're right boat storage screened refuse um for sale for sale um product uh listed as well use this time to tighten up your setbacks and and i missed the comment i missed the so there's the the aerial that we have with the boat stored along the northern property line is is that your property on the other side too it we own we own both parcels yes we own both parts at least home marine and we lease to global partners all right well we are we are talking about we are talking about this this parcel only not the one to the north comments from the board only the to the area where you say which is i'd like to see a site plan for a boat sales business and not for a garden yeah we can we can just designate that front area sure and i okay moving on all right the lighting outdoor outdoor lighting outdoor lighting yes so you can update that you know i'm yep and there's a couple things going on with that lighting plan uh this state first off that the maximum point the 12-foot candles that is an error that's a maximum point that's actually within within the light structure it should have been masked on that review but it wasn't our true maximum for candles is 7.4 i do understand that's still over the maximum illumination we will be revising the lighting plan we can provide fixtures that have a lower wattage and can easily be below our 5.0 foot candle maximum i did want to discuss with you the lighting plan as to whether we need to comply just for the new proposed lights or the entire site there are a number of existing lights on the site some off the back of the retail store that don't comply with the 5.0 foot candle maximum so this is another area if we're just looking at our proposed area or if we're looking at existing on conformities you think right right off the back of the store off the back of the retail store yes there are two lights that do not that are over the five i think it's 5.9 and 6.2 would that be those two circles with the diamonds in the center up in the middle of the end yes yep um there's also a streetlight on industrial av that i guess is oriented towards the parcel and that has a high reading of 8.6 foot candles however that is a streetlight and we don't propose any changes there but i do see a 7.2 or something behind the proposed addition yeah and again we will be revising that lighting plan to use fixtures that are a lower wattage to get below the 5.0 that 8.6 on the street lamp right by your main entrance is that a there's a number of street lights it is yeah it is located outside the property boundary and within the right of way i'm not positive we did those or most of right you paying the bill on them you must i'm sure the town's not i'll just give you a little background we've had the experience on a couple sites where the power provider will offer to a business owner or or a residential customer hey there's a pole adjacent to your site how about we put a light on it you can you can pay for it and it's a way that non-compliant outdoor lighting sort of shows up in williston without any review it's it's happened in a couple places in town so i'm i wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't our light and i wouldn't be surprised if it just got there as a result of green mount power offering it or whoever the provider is there we can find out from bruce if it's our light why don't we do that okay also on this light plan just again for our consideration of whether we're looking at full site wide compliance or just compliance on what's currently proposed i do just want to note that there is another non-conformity with the lighting which is that we have these zero readings in some of the parking areas or the bylaw that uniformity ratio of 20 to 1 would require that we have the parking fully lit which would mean adding lights along the front section of the property questions or comments as far as through storage areas we're happy to show those on the final plans not a concern there we're also happy to provide the correct dumpster screening and pad i did want to talk about parking and traffic in the staff reports there's a note that there's no change to the traffic or parking on the site and then this project doesn't generate any requirement for that however when you read through the conditions condition eight asks the parking table describing the number of parking spaces be included for final plans and i just wanted to verify that that is in fact required despite the fact that we are not having any change in use and no change in parking is required per the project there's no parking spaces at all on this on this there's no striping no currently no striping there's no striping i don't believe but they do park in front of the small in front of the office space which is the small structure in between the two larger ones or the one we propose in the larger one and then the rear is where the staff parks so the board will talk about that the board will talk about that clearly you know if you've got outdoor sales if you've got outdoor sales the the area is going to have to be delineated given that you know given that these things are on wheels the boats but they're on trailers i can't imagine it would be too difficult to um i can't imagine it'd be too difficult to set up a set up a some form of system that shows lost my sheet um from the aerial i'm where the you know it appears i mean it appears on the aerial that the outdoor sales in the front they're being one you know they're being lined up nicely and a little less willy nilly than they are in the back the back is because they're moving around i think it's because it's main it's out front sales i'm you know they're moving them with the you know with the track lift and tractors and so that's you know snapshot i think the board understands yeah okay that it's a that it is a working site sure um all right and i just want to point out it is gravel in the in the rear so you can you can point that out on the uh point that out on the floor though it is gravel on the rear part yeah there's a line there's a maybe payment here but let's go question for the board i'd like to just understand it looks like it sounds like from what you've said that you're looking to take advantage of some of the existing non-conforming sort of status of this property and so i just want to understand um when was the building destroyed is it what's there right now is there anything operational right now so the structure previously was a the old it was an old garden center going back to i mean gardener supply and they used it for both storage in the winter time and it had a plastic roof if you will um for like a garden like a garden center would have the snow on top of that eventually it caved it in uh we took the structure away it was like in february i think january february of this past winter um and right now it's just the um slab the cement slab so the structure was parking but it's on it just but this is just a slab the structure was removed in february of 2019 yeah this past winter yeah somewhere in there don't quote don't i don't know if it's exactly february but okay that's fine i just i mean i i assume that there are some provisions in the bylaw that deal with existing non-conforming structures and what happens in the event of destruction yeah if something's destroyed you get a year okay to to put it back in the year yeah so you know and and what we usually mean by non-conforming structure is it's taller than the bylaw allows or it's closer to a required setback than the bylaw allows um is that one year to complete the construction or one year to start the construction one year to get i believe that's correct you know and so then that some of the leniencies that they're looking for in terms of setbacks um that's something that's contemplated by the bylaw so the the matter before you involves a site that has a number of existing non-conformities in terms of the way things are placed on the site um typically when the board has done a site plan review for for anything that rises to the level of needing to come before the drb there's some addressing of well what are the non-conformities on the site what's the magnitude of being what's being proposed and some attempt by the board is made to balance those two things in other words just because you're sort of touching the site doesn't always mean you have to fix every single non-conformity on the site but if you're doing a substantial amount of work you may need to fix a substantial amount of the non-conformity and it's been a judgment called by the board over over the years that we've staffed you folks how much of that to do so from the staff perspective what we try to do is catalog as much of that as we can so we can get it all written down make a decision and then we can also call back to that decision the next time something's proposed and say well here's what here's what we took care of last time here's what we might do going forward what would have happened just in curiosity if they had elected to just replace the fabric that broke could they have done that so if you just put the fabric back over and we wouldn't even be here if your roof breaks and you want to replace your roof that's a maintenance activity and it does not require a permit under our zoning in other words if they had just decided replace the fabric roof that was there we wouldn't even be here yeah i mean under under some circumstances you know if you have a simple structure and that structure is completely destroyed you're going to replace it with the exact same thing you may not need a permit for that under the theory that it's essentially a maintenance activity yeah we've we've stepped beyond that in terms of the proposal we have in front of us tonight somewhat by some degree and that's that's part of what the board's here to have a look at tonight oh no i was just asking for the theoretical aspect if they just turned around said they don't put another one of the plastic one of those metal arched plastic buildings up here that would be basically a maintenance issue and they would just get a permit from you right once the structure is different from what came down in some substantial way we're going to we're going to require some kind of permit but if your your roof falls in and you replace it with the same roof again same dimensions that sort of thing that's a maintenance activity doesn't require a permit from us thanks so i think what i'd like to see is is an attempt in the vision of the site plan to to really show us show the board what the site is going to look like after this repair of the building that fell around so things like where the boat storage would be um for sale um striping on the pavement where people would park because there is there are there are cars parking on that site um identify the non-conformances that you're looking to maintain and correct some of the non-conformances that um that that are out there so that it's it's uh it's it's a good neighbor balancing act here that's what i would really understand but i mean going back kind of the gentleman's comments about if we just replace the structure i mean this the it wasn't worth fixing uh and i wanted to do something better for the tenant and for the building in the town so that's kind of why we're here we didn't even even consider trying to just i think the board is the board is but i understand your point of view and what we need to achieve the board is flexible the board is flexible and how that you know and how we come to an agreement you know that we understand that this has been operating as a you know from on home and marina has been there a long time um i think pete summed it up well um you know you're going to be back in a month uh you're going to be back in a month uh as it is this gives you an opportunity to tighten up the site plan um i think there are you the board isn't going to issue a ruling on this tonight seeing it as it is be continued but this board will certainly give the staff some direction uh that we would like to see it go and you can check in with them tomorrow or the next day um you know for some of those some of those points yeah and we appreciate that i mean you know we're using this old site plan because we're trying to fix a problem and without your opinions we weren't sure what exactly would be required and so we went with the easy route and gave you what was previously approved um i do want to ask just because we are not changing any use no increase to building size on these properties is parking striping required by the bylaw what the striping on the parking a requirement well in in particular some way of delineating whatever outdoor sales and outdoor storage is allowed and therefore also understanding what what is those things and what is parking so um it really helps the staff when there's something placed on the ground to help us understand what the site plan required um so can that be a can that be a painted box on the on the ground as opposed to you know where the trailers can come and go from it can be it can be lots of things i mean we've we've done sections of fence we've we've done boulders ballards paint paint works fine um you know it lasts until somebody repays but it it gives us something to go on for quite a while well we can definitely delineate outside sales that's pretty easy parking for customer parking and employee parking we can you know designate that too i did want to talk about condition 11 which reads prior to obtaining any administrative permits the applicant shall provide full payment of any required impact fees and i just wanted to verify that we are not increasing any traffic on the property and i was wondering if those impact fees were required a lot of these are standard conditions that don't apply to the level of development proposed we're going to have a building permit and there will be a fee assessed for that yes of course yep but no traffic impact fee any questions on the on the you know on the conditions that are as written um i was just curious condition 4 and 13 read as repetitive to me but i they're slightly different both are regarding town guarantees for public and private improvements have to come up with a development agreement for a replacement of the existing building only if there are required improvements so if an applicant wants to do something and let's say they want to replace a building in the drb says okay but you need to do a berm in a landscape buffer that's a required private improvement subject to the requirement of a development agreement establishment of a letter of credit to guarantee performance so the answer is sometimes there are required improvements if there are then a development agreement is generally required if it's a small amount of required improvements a few plantings here and there uh the zoning administrators use discretion in the past to find other ways of guaranteeing performance we we do a certificate of compliance inspection on these and for small amounts of of required improvements simply with holding that certificate if those improvements aren't in actually works pretty well similar staff can button up these conditions belt and suspenders scott was that it's belt and suspenders okay here the staff will tighten this up any other questions on that any other questions on the board questions from the audience thank you thank you thanks for coming the uh get to the right page here um dp 20-09 vermont allman marine uh in the discretionary permanent october 20 seconds all right have a good night thank you okay next up is dp 10-20 cassolla waste management yeah you said 10 20 all right okay dp 20-10 what did i say 10-20 deep thank you for pointing that out dp 20-10 cassolla waste management we're going to open the hearing up at 8 10 for the record gentlemen if you state your names uh state your names and your addresses please bick smith limerone dickinson 14 morris drive us uh john gay cassolla waste management 1855 vermont route 100 hide park mike asela great thank you for coming um as mentioned with the last hearing and referencing your hearing uh the board does look for a elevation for um any proposed buildings on the site uh over 20 seconds which in terms of who's up i am up that is up all right so this is a request for discretionary permit review of a proposal to add a 19 700 square foot building addition to an existing structure at 217 avenue c and 220 avenue b in the industrial zoning district west uh the property where the addition is proposed is currently developed with an 18 000 square foot office and industrial building the subject parcels are a portion of four adjacent parcels owned and operated together by the applicant cassolla waste management the applicant stated purpose for the building addition is to accommodate the processing of recycled material demolition waste and food scraps or compost or soon to be compost this is the first time this proposal is to be reviewed by the drb a pre application was not required for this project of the scale of the proposed project it being an addition of to an existing building that is understood to be an architectural extension of that building prior development on this project was reviewed by the drb on a couple of occasions uh back when the williston unified development bylaws allowed for conditional uses in 2004 the drb approved a conditional use to allow the use of the building at 217 avenue c for waste materials processing and in 2010 the drb approved dp 10 43 allowing for the addition of natural gas fueling stanchions for garbage trucks on the site and that um approval was amended in 2011 by the drb to allow for additional natural gas fueling stanchions at 333 avenue c adjacent to the subject parcels and um i'll let the applicants sort of orient you to that stuff on on the site but those were that's the the approval track here we see the existing use on the property as waste management that's north america industry classification code 5621 those are all allowed uses in the industrial zoning district west and no change in use is proposed the new structure is a 19 000 square foot building addition onto the building at 217 avenue c there's site work associated with that you'll see grading and paving reconfiguration of the landscaping and other site work related to stormwater management drainage management on the site proposed and associated with the addition there's currently no subdivision or boundary line adjustment proposed and uh staff calls this out as a matter for the drb to pay some attention to as the proposed addition would extend across an existing boundary line between two parcels of land wiliston and the drb and myself and my predecessors as administrators have been fairly strict that um a boundary between two parcels generates a requirement for a setback and that therefore uh you you can't build a building on both sides of a boundary because it's in the setback the exception to that that has been allowed for by the drb is where there's some sort of easement allowing um a structure to encroach over a property line um you know and allowing that in essentially perpetuity but um as staff has at least informally recommended the applicant in the past as i recall from the 2010 review dissolving some property lines out here would would be an expedient way to eliminate that setback question particularly the line that this addition is proposed to extend over um we understand why somebody might not want to do that um currently the parcels are understood as being separately conveyable and um people like flexibility but um there we do see that as a challenge in terms of having the building go over the line we'll stop right there for any reason not to do that great okay um there are some changes to outdoor lighting proposed and the applicant has submitted a lighting specification sheet showing brightness brightness levels fixture mounting heights and uniformity of lighting in compliance with the requirements of chapter 24 of the bylaw in terms of setbacks and landscaping there is an added type three landscape buffer proposed along the rear of the proposed building addition um you know i will i will note since we just spent a lot of time on another site in the industrial zoning district uh i've not made a full assessment of all of the um landscape buffers on all of the existing parcels that might be touched by this application and like most sites up on the lettered avenues there's not a full landscaping buffer around these parcels as you might see if they were developed brand new today there's no outdoor storage proposed as part of this application there is existing outdoor storage on the site we don't have wetlands or waterways present on the site the proposed development will be accessed by a shared driveway from avenue c and no changes in access are proposed there is some pavement replacement proposed on all four of the parcels where they come together to accommodate the truck turning movements into the proposed addition um so you sort of in you'll see on the site plan in that area where they come together some uh pavement replacement and and reshuffling of things to allow for maneuverability on the site the proposed expansion uh sorry it says parking expansion should say building expansion um is expected to generate 12 new pm peak hour trips transportation impact fees will be assessed by the zoning administrator at the time a permit is applied for so heads up to the drb we don't have a traffic study for this the applicant is telling us 12 more trips um i would make the determination uh how to assess a traffic impact fee at the time that the application for administrative permit comes in um in terms of parking this is another element where parking happens not on the subject parcel uh or the other subject parcel but rather on one of the other four castella parcels um the applicant has made some representations about uh the adequacy of that parking to serve all four parcels and no changes to the parking are proposed there are no proposed changes to signage uh as i mentioned there's some new impervious surface as a result of the construction of this addition in some of the paving changes there is a new stormwater infiltration basin proposed at the rear of that proposed addition to help handle that um the site does have municipal water service and on-site wastewater no changes in water or wastewater are proposed as a part of this application we do have existing utilities shown we are not subject to design review because we're in the industrial zoning district and we're not fronting on route two or marshal avenue um and in terms of public comment none was received for this application at the date of our distribution to the drb which was september 19th uh no public comment on this application has been received since then either we did ask for a review from police fire and public works um we received uh no comments from the police department the public works department did submit comments in a memo uh requesting some additional details about stormwater treatment on the site and for total amounts of impervious surface on the site the fire department submitted comments in a memo dated august 28th 2018 uh essentially reciting their plan review standard and typical standards that might be applicable to a project like this a building addition so talking about lockbox utility shutoff placement and uh directory signage that's required by that standard and compliance with the requests of those two memos has been made uh part of recommended condition of approval number two so um staff understands the drb would like to see building elevations here for this addition um the staff report has been written to recommend approval with a set of draft conditions for the board's consideration these are essentially our boiler plate conditions with the exception of referencing those two uh departmental memos and condition asking that final planes include a boundary plate eliminating the property line we discussed before and i will leave it there before you start just so my understanding my understanding under the no new parking this is a building or a facility where your packers are going to show up drop off their drop off their material and out the door right okay so what would you like to add to matt synopsis sure i'll just uh orient the board here up to the north and along here this is where we're referencing natural gas fuel any any um other parking or the other parking areas uh there's some parking area on the front here this property is currently um at least parcel so actually all this parking will become available to cassava when the time has moved out so as far as i can also be in that increasing parking across the side the existing storage area is almost completely within the building footprint uh right now it's roll off storage essentially in that area all that is going to have to go away and then there'll be access um is entirely from this end of the building here and that's also where the lighting is proposed and the rear is where you'll see the infiltration basin which we've sized for the 10-year storm and we're also going to have to probably get a state storm water permit for this so i think we're going to meet all the requirements from the tower as far as that's concerned is that is that is that from is that uh catch basin from the exterior water only coming off the roof coming off the site is it any any any gray water coming out of the inside of the building that gets dropped off from packers or anything like that yep so the um the infiltration basin is going to take this little shed roof essentially all to the rear so that large basin in the rear will take care of all of the roof runoff there interior waste that is going to get actually collected within those roof or excuse me floor drains there so then we're going to have interior storage tanks that are going to be you know all that will be removed as necessary we've also proposed a dry well actually down in that uh parking parking ramp on the south side of the building there the dry wells generally and is what you're going to see across this entire site anyways for a storm water treatment treatment and infiltration so it's nothing out of the ordinary and that also is going to be able to handle more than the time you're organics and uh cardboard and cnd would be tipped inside a building on a concrete floor with containment and double wall storage tanks for any wastewater that's collected questions from the board how many people will you have in your administrative area basically full-time employees so this would not be an administrative area this would be processing area and there would be I would say probably two attendants at the organics processing area and then be an equipment loader operator managing the construction and demolition debris and probably one attendant with a cardboard maybe four five it's kind of cold when you look at the operations so if you think about it this facility is really handling so we're handling most of the material in the one facility right now and there's 600 tons a day sometimes going through that facility and we're talking about looking at really the organics material and that cnd material kind of moving those out so it's kind of shifting some of those resources that we already have in one space managing it over here and then processing some of that food waste into a slurry so then we can pump two and we'll make digestion so it's it'd probably be about two two and boys two and three depending on the volumes and the tons but the facility is actually going to be handling a lot less material than our guys are kind of normally used to handling so it's actually going to be operating at a small capacity when we start you describe this as being the proposed addition would be for processing recycled material demolition of waste and food scraps are you currently doing all of those things we are currently not doing food waste okay so food waste is addition is that the composting it's compost it's packaged compost material as well as what we're really looking at so if you look at like grocery stores and even that's like heads of lettuce other things that you know it's a lot of weight and a lot of food product in there but they're wrapped in cellophane or other packaging they can't be compost at a compost facility so you have to separate the packaging from the food and what we would do is we'd put it into a process it's a turbo separator and they basically beats up the food waste gets it out into a liquid slurry and then we pump that into tankers and tank that to an analogic digester so they need to try to recycle the container or if we can't recycle it it'd be managed as waste i'm going to i'm going to switch gears for two seconds just to to traffic and then what we can get off of traffic but will anybody from the public be coming to the site to drop off their composting or anything like that this is going to be all from your trucks and does he help? he's safe at home i was going to blame that on jeff nick so yeah this will be just our our trucks currently and in some sense it's actually redirecting some of the material that we're we're already receiving at our our site so if you think about some of the grocery stores most of the lettuce and other products are already mixed into our containers because they can't get the food waste from the the packaging so technically it's just going as waste this will now let us be able to process it and reuse it so it's not a public space in any way now will all the processing be handled inside the structure or will there be anything happening outside the structure it'll be all inside so we're not going to have any cycling bins or any anything outside the structure no just another quick question on the merger or i'm i sort of interpreted the comments about the fact that the building is proposed to be on the boundary or do you contemplate a boundary line adjustment or do you contemplate a merger of the two lots probably just dissolved i would assume would be easiest there's not a long area to really adjust that correctly so we we own four rectangular parcels all contiguous to one another i suspect we'll dissolve the two interior crossing parcels and just have one the entire site will be an opportunity to to bring all four possibly into one depending upon you know what we discussed but certainly that the one that's straddling the building that will definitely be likely to solve okay so you wouldn't object to it a condition or some discussion with that i think it's a condition already maybe number 12 or it is okay and then i guess i would i would want to know the basis for your um determination that uh that this new construction would only generate 12 um new uh trip ends thank you so um that actually i mean this is just going off of the 10th edition for trip generation um based on the area of expansion it all takes into account as a square footage of an industrial use in this case um it may actually be quite less and we may look into that um in the future here just because like you know like we were talking about on these vehicles really are already coming to the site as is and they're just separating the waste material essentially into a different location so um it's something we're going to look a little bit farther into and actually will likely be decreasing from what i understand we think that's a very conservative with the the materials we're managing are coming back to the site most of the materials we're managing are coming back to the site anyways rather than going to the transfer station they're going to go to this proposed building so if we might look at the numbers it might even be less okay and there's no existing or prior traffic study that would look at what you're currently generating for vehicle trip ends other questions from the board any questions from the audience important i guess i do want to just follow up like a or proof the previous applicant on the parking table requirement i know it's just a standard patch all kind of um really required if there is no change to parking i mean we can provide one but it'll look pretty boring so okay so that's that's what i figured i just wanted so so my statement for the last applicant who goes for this as well this being continued till october 22nd the board will not not be issuing a ruling on this any direction that the board uh feels that it needs to or would like to provide to you will be given to the staff and you can check in with them okay thank you thank you thank you so as stated this uh pp 20-10 castle waste management has continued to and we lost one of our board members has everybody signed in if you haven't if i see how some people who came in late you have not signed in thank you mike if you have not signed in please do so we'll get going in one second we lost one of our board members else that i'll set all right okay uh next up is dp 20-03 free application for america real estate company and u-haul international we're going to open up to hearing at eight thirty three gentlemen welcomes names and addresses please and you roll emerald dickinson 14 moist drive sx levi parameter u-haul company seven channel drive bolston lake new york levi yep the record my company does do business with andy roll um okay we'll end up this is a request for pre application review of a proposal to develop a moving and storage facility with access drives outdoor lighting and other appurtences at 49 64 wiliston district west the subject parcel is lot three of the robert subdivision the applicant america real estate company u-haul international proposes to build a two-story moving and self-storage facility i'm a controlled controlled interior storage interior exterior drive-up access storage secured rv and boat outdoor storage and a retail area to sell moving supplies and rent moving equipment um this is the pre application uh phase of review um the purpose of which is to acquaint the drb and its advisors with a proposed development site without requiring presentation of extensive surveying engineering and design data plans should be presented in an informal way and that invites comment and discussion of alternatives and pre applications a basis for discussion is neither approved nor rejected and creates no vested rights the drb will adopt written recommendations that should be reflected in the application for discretionary permit the drb may also require that certain information be included in the application for discretionary permit um the hearing was opened on august 27th 2019 and continued to september 24th 2019 the drb asked for the following information to be shown on the site plan an updated site plan showing all proposed elements which has been provided updated elevations of all buildings specific to this particular site and consistent with the site plans revised elevations are provided showing the standalone mini storage unit buildings the exterior stairway on the south elevation and we can't be over the rv new brook storage on the south side of the building um three a rendering from the front of lot two on wellaston road facing west toward lot three is provided in the site plan in plan set four drb requested the applicant the applicant's representative to communicate with the fire department requesting their comments on a proposed project the applicant's representative met with the fire department on september 3rd and september 6th to review the site plan elevations and clarify the fire department's comments um so previous development on this parcel was reviewed and approved by the drb as follows on november 13th of 2018 the robert subdivision creating the subject parcel was approved by the drb under dp 1821 um on december 21st of 2018 the drb approved a final plat for the robert subdivision and final plan signed by the zoning administrator and um prior to that house has existed on the subject parcel since around 1800s um um is for the proposed use the applicant proposes a moving and self storage facility which falls under rental and leasing services n i c s n i i n a i c s code 532 this isn't allowed use in the i z d w the applicant is proposing limited retail sales um in the art in the i z d w commercial uses are limited to space extensive retailing and generally would not contribute to on the street vitality of a retail shopping area um for new structures the applicant is proposed to construct on the site 106,640 square foot two-story building and four mini buildings totaling 8,550 square feet none of the structures are proposed to exceed the town's 36th limit on building height staff notes that some of the details shown on the floor plans are unreadable at the scale the size of the shown and recommends the floor plans be enlarged um and shown on separate sheets so as to clearly show all required elements um new site work the property is currently occupied by two-story home with a detached garage both of which will be demolished the site would be cleared graded and paved as part of the proposal no new subdivision or boundary adjustments are proposed as part of this application um for access the proposed development will be accessed by a curb cut on williston road and an access drive utilizing a 55-foot wide easement to be shared with lot two staff notes that condition of approval number 25 for the robert subdivision requires a shared use path to be constructed within the 25-foot the 20-foot wide easement on williston road at the time of development of each of the individual lots the applicant has requested their preference to construct a sidewalk rather than a shared use path due to topographic constraints bicycle lanes do already exist on williston road and pedestrian facilities at this location are not called for by the williston comprehensive plan nor by the williston development bylaw the williston department of public works has stated in their comment memo that either a shared use path or a sidewalk would be acceptable to them staff is recommending the drb allow a sidewalk to be constructed for outdoor lighting outdoor lighting specifications are not required at pre-application the applicant will have to provide a photometric plan showing compliance with the requirements of williston development bylaw chapter 24 as part of an application for discretionary permit the applicant is proposing security lighting the wdb chapter 24 discourages uh requires the minimization of of security of night lighting for security surveillance and encourages instead the use of motion activated lights as an alternative wdb 24 7 6 4 states that security lighting along the perimeter of a property must be motion activated all applications for discretionary permits that propose security lighting shall include a security plan which eliminates the area to be eliminated for security purposes outlines the need for and purposes of the security lighting the proposed project does include signage since the proposed number and our size of sign succeeds the threshold permitted under wdb 25.a a master sign plan is required as part of an application for discretionary permit staff is recommending that the curvilinear design element bracketing the your storage place wall sign and the diamond pattern background be considered as part of that sign and included in the signage area calculations setbacks and landscaping this project generates a requirement for landscape buffers as described in wdb 3 the proposed use industrial and the adjacent uses are shown in the table below and indicate the requirements that will apply a complete landscaping plan will have to be submitted by the applicant as part of an application for discretionary permit at the previous public hearing it was noted that the subject of the subject parcel abuts a residential parcel to the south when abutting a residential property the minimum width allowed is a 23-foot type 2 dense planting buffer and can be reduced with a berm or fence if the drb authorizes it at the last public hearing the abutting landowner david steady expressed concerns that the location and alignment of the proposed access for lots one two and three would result in headlights from tractor trailers shining directly into his house and requested that additional screening be required above and beyond what the town normally requires so as to block the headline beams the drb can require an earthen berm per wdb 23 staff is recommending the applicant work with mr steady to ensure his needs are met with regard to screening the proposed development street trees must be provided along the wilson road frontage the applicant has indicated their willingness to comply with the minimum spacing standards of four street trees of one every outdoor sales wdb 46.6.8 defines outdoor sales as the outdoor not under a roof and within at least three walls display of merchandise or any other item or service for sale typical outdoor sales include automobiles and other vehicles and nursery plants and other landscaping materials the applicant is proposing outdoor stale outdoor sales a display of a fleet of rental vehicles and designated parking spaces along the wilson road frontage these parking spaces must be labeled clearly on the site plan as being designated for such a purpose outdoor storage is permitted under 36 7.2 but only within rear and side yards that are designated for that purpose the applicant is proposing outdoor RV and boat storage to the rear of the property the applicant states that return rental vehicles will be queued on site to the east of building a no streams wetlands or conservation areas are present on the site for traffic the applicant has presented trip generation estimates similar you all facilities generate 31 weekday trips and 53 weekend trips the traffic study was done for the robert subdivision under dp 1821 which found no warranted improvements created by the overall subdivision and traffic impact fees will be assessed by the zoning administrator as part of the administrative permitting process brb um request the applicant to complete a traffic study specific specific and submit it with an application for discretionary permit um for parking the applicants proposing 11 parking spaces two of which are handicapped accessible industrial uses are identified in um wilson development bylaw chapter 24 as generating a range of parking demands starting in a baseline of one space per 1000 square feet the project um also generates a requirement for short and long-term bicycle parking and commuter end-of-trip facilities showers the drb has requested the applicant specifically document that the number of spaces being provided on site is adequate to meet the demand um for stormwater and onsite stormwater treatment and retention facility shown on the site plan um rooftop runoff is proposed to be piped underneath the pavement and infiltrated project will require state stormwater permit must comply with state standards as well as what wilson public work standards um the site plan for discretionary permit will have to show proposed snow storage areas that are in compliance with wdb 16.6 um the applicant proposes to connect to municipal water and wastewater service utilizing existing connections to the house on lot three water connection fees will apply um the site plan for discretionary permit will have to show all existing and proposed utilities and all utilities must be buried underground this project is subject to design review the wilson historic and architectural advisory committee reviewed this project on august 6 2019 and provided the following recommendations building a should have true windows on the elevation facing the wilson road uh architectural accents um to define the customer retail entrance and storage access windows slash architectural accents to wrap around the northwest and northeast building corners and additional landscaping against the building and along wilson road um the application was submitted to the police fire and public works departments for review um the fire department submitted um comments and a memo dated august 3 2019 they had a number of comments related to access and signage and distance requirements um and the applicant's representative has met with lieutenant ryan proudy of the wilson fire department to review their comments on the site plan elevations site use and operations um the applicant's uh representative stated that the fire department comments will be addressed as plans are further developed no major issues were identified with the plans as currently proposed um a new hydrant will be needed for coverage behind the building and the fire department truck access to the rear of building and between the mini storage buildings will need to be confirmed using their truck template but this is not anticipated to be an issue um a memo from the department of public works requests a written response uh to the following show show all utilities show sidewalk slash multi-use path water and sewer connection and allocation applications and fees will be required a uh t 111 t 1111 from v-trans um permanent will be required um the wiliston police chief expressed some concerns about um safety um accessing from wiliston road however wiliston road is a state highway and the town doesn't have jurisdiction over v-trans has jurisdiction over access to state highways and uh this will be permitted through the 1111 um state permit staff's recommending that this pre-application be allowed to proceed to the discretionary permit phaser review uh with a number of draft recommendations below thank you melinda um so the the board would like to thank the applicant for providing us with the information that we requested um it helps um we've been through this once already um so uh if you feel like you want to walk us through the whole project one more time that's fine um how does what does the board think the board like to jump in with their questions right away i think they have something they want to point out to us i think you gave us a list of items to address we think we've addressed those who would be happy to answer any questions or we can go through the other options that were provided why don't you go through and point out the areas where you have addressed the items that we requested for hit that on the record one of the requests was to show the stair on the south elevation next area stairwell request for the elevations of the mini storage units was a bit provided as well and there was a rendering previously provided looking at the let's see looking um from the west from the west there was a request that similar to the old perspective there was a request that the perspective be provided from the east and i think one of the things that was discussed was the return of these windows around the corner so do you think that the board can chime in here does that satisfy the conservation commission comment about dead walls on the what is it the east and the west sides there was a request of the hack that the windows come around the corner dead walls are discouraged i think everywhere in town by the bylaw but i don't believe that they are inhibited and i don't believe that generated from hack either i thought hacks had used real windows and the dead walls showed up here right and i think the windows were already incorporated into the elevation right term the board just wanted to see the from the front of lot two the perspective showing that because it didn't quite wrap around pick up pick it up around there so are those fixed windows are operable those will be real windows they'll be they're not going to be able to open or anything of that nature but they'll be true windows so that's referred to as a fixed window the fixed window what's the length of that what's the length of the building what's the giving the building dimension the overall length is 360 and what's the length of the the that panel of windows typically those are five foot windows so one two three four five six 30 feet 30 feet the span of the say so your dead wall would be about 330 no i believe a dead wall natural elements doors oh i'm asking what's the east what's the the the length of the east elevation dimension east dimension thank you of the east elevation 160 so 130 but i understand but i'm taking out the windows 130 of dead space so what is in what is what is our problem i say do we have a do we pay so so two things uh the applicability of the of the dead wall rules for this project stems from it being in the design review district in chapter 22 if you read what it says um it discusses the the general desire to avoid dead walls in the design review district particularly in and then it lists a number of districts not including the industrial zoning district west this is like 22.3 um and and then if you go into those other zoning districts you'll see a reflected prohibition on dead walls so tap corners in other growth center districts and the dead walls any uniform blank wall 30 or more feet long but not in the izdw in the izdw and particularly for industrial uses that um that prohibition is somewhat relaxed i'm sorry i'm just bouncing between the definition and the discussion so dead walls this is from 22.3.6 are prohibited in the in the most pedestrian oriented zoning districts mixed use commercial mixed use residential tap corners but should be avoided in many other situations at the least architectural features including doors windows and detailing should offer some horizontal and or vertical relief from monotonous walls so have you got some relief horizontally or vertically from monotonous walls in the case of where this design there's no there is no uh there's no requirement there's no distance requirement in there no in fact in the in the zoning districts where that distance requirement is discussed it's done in the explainer box it may be also be a chapter 46 right it may it may be a chapter 46 definition too i'd have to look and tell you if it's also called out there i mean if you look at the elevations it does show this kind of um striping pattern and yeah yeah i i would i would make the case that that wall is not a dead wall the north elevation the east and west elevation east elevation it has two different colors it has wrap around of glazing it looks like from the best i can tell that there's a difference in the parapet elevation there's a man door that is breaking up that area that's not to say that there are no dead walls in these elevations i was just referring to that the rear wall is pretty dead despite the fact that there's three horizontal stripes and an uncovered stair but um i would even submit that the most monotonous elevation on here is by these even though they're full doors but if you take the true definition of monotony this is an absolute repetition of the exact same element over and over again with no definition of any kind that reflects on any kind of architectural design but that's my opinion it's a story here i know it is i'm just saying that if you want to talk monotony that's monotony i i would i would just remind us of the approval that we gave at uh more ways what's that no go ahead what'd you say i mean it's the first building you come to when you get into the town of willison the my my point is that the definition of monotonous is can be argued and it's not it's not really a black and white case it's a judgment subject yep i do have a question because i wasn't at the last meeting it probably came up there on the covered rv parking spaces can you explain what you mean when you say covered are they canopies or like a they're similar to a carport canopy so it'll be um post-structure steel structure with a pitched roof well are you any thought of doing solar covered roofing on those um we've certainly considered it we haven't made a decision on this one but it's you know we we certainly could consider it we haven't made a decision on this particular site and then one question for the staff does the 33 covered rp spaces in a role have to have an island because of the 24th requirement i would view what's happening there is as storage rather than true parking so back as you're dealing with an industrial site that uses pavement for an outdoor storage use as opposed to a parking lot that's there to support some other you know retailer residential use like you might in tap corners is there a reason that you set up all the rv parking in the back there so it's all blindside back in just just out of curiosity just for use of the site for navigating around and getting those particular vehicles back there so they can articulate and get in their spot without causing any congestion to the the retail area in the customer area what i'm saying is is you said there's boat storage as well as the boat storage going to be under that under that canopy the boat or rv could be under yes either one every one of those is a blindside back end okay just curious can i get the youtube access to that sure i feel like we discussed the having the site be traversed around the building without the i don't know i guess right now there it looks like there's a whole um section of storage units that makes it so that it's impossible to traverse the exterior of the building all the way around um were there any comments by the fire department about that it doesn't appear in the but was did that come up in discussion i know the board raised it as an issue last time that we met um yeah the fire department didn't comment on that the one thing the department added was they want a hydrant thousand foot which means that they get back in this corner you can't use the hydrants out here you got to be putting a hydrant back in that area that's what that's why they yeah that's why they that covers it they get a hydrant i did specifically discuss that with the fire department okay and that was the solution that the fire department came up with no um the fire department wasn't looking to dictate site layout when they understood that there was a building along the entire side of that building that would prevent driving around the building's perimeter we talked about circulation within that area of their trucks number one and number two uh getting access to the back of the building from the closest hydrant and there's a couple of hydrants along willison road however with the mini storage unit along the west side they would not be laying hose up to get to the southwest corner of the building they would have to come from the east side of the building hence the need for the additional hydrant in the back but the circulation uh through the rv in the boat storage building was discussed with the fire department and they have the ability to maneuver through that area with their truck they don't have an issue have you run the turning radii on that not specific to this site but given the the width of the aisles and the narrower aisles that were used between the moreway storage units both between the units and at the perimeter we don't foresee it being an issue you got a 40 foot swing all the way around in the back there right yeah yeah there's the scale this building is so great that it makes those those aisles like fairly narrow on this site exactly right yeah oh thank you for the other thing that you added you didn't mention was that you added the uh porch coverings to the to the to the building that wasn't that was an item that was requested by the board what are the colors of the storage doors it'll be it matches that color on the front elevation it's not called out on that but it'll match that color what's that corporate color it's here a sunset it's sort of like the shell comment about the uh so it looks on the site plan that did your as you exit the site you're you're going to be driving what is that east of the of the island there you know into the what I believe is to be a shared driveway with the adjacent parcel all right are you developing that driveway all the way up it's you're not showing anything outside of your property line but it looks like you're intending to use that there will be a shared driveway that comes all the way back there's a an easement that straddles the property line between lots two and three so that that driveway will serve both parcels and you're right in order to get the trucks out the driveway will need to be built all the way back so the so the handy the the access from a with a tractor trailer is that it is is it a counterclockwise the idea is that it is counterclockwise so it pulls in off of route two and then bears right around you know on the west side of that island and on and onto the parcel is that correct that appears to be the way it's drawn correct so so and then the and then you show up then you do show it you know a turning moment for the for a tractor trailer pulling out and then backing up means the light suppression has to be the berm has to be wider than the driveway so it's gotta cover the parking area is this kind of this is a good time to just talk about mr. steady have you been in contact with him since our last meeting we have not had an additional conversation since the last meeting but it's certainly something we you know plan on doing and it's it kind of clearly states that we got to come up with a we have a comment in the back of the room name and name and address sir i have spoken to the studies since our past hearing and they were pleased with what they saw to date and they just want as much vegetation as possible and so so far and i did invite them to tonight's meeting but they're not here so so they were so they were pleased but we really didn't come up with a we didn't really come up with a plan other than that a berm and some landscaping on top of it possibly a fence and and something something on something on this parcel than possibly extending into the second parcel as that is eventually coming before the board at some point so the so the board with probably the help of the staff will need to come up with with a berm size and length extending onto the second parcel which is not here so we're not really up for discussion but it needs to be thought about but certainly the the intent because there's an easement there giving rights to this lot to construct that driveway they certainly have the right to construct the screening to go along with it sure but you're also implying that the berm is going to extend and be into the u-haul part of the parking as well because of where the trucks now they're not coming all the way down there actually over what about 15 20 feet i don't i'm not i'm not entirely sure do you have does the applicant have a proposal on in terms of how far the berm will extend on their property along the rear property line not listed on the site plan to his property line so this i think the studies the studies said that their house their house was indirect if you pull straight in that they're they're you're illuminating their house with lights is that true it's in that general vicinity of the of the lot yes i'm at how far back again the steady property only runs along the portion of that southerly line their property line is here so i'm not sure okay i'd be more interested in my understanding is that it's actually to block the lights of a truck pulling into that driveway from their house you actually have to extend the berm further to the east and we have no guarantee my concern is that we have no guarantee that there will be a a development on that lot we don't know when that would happen and so you know if it were to happen in six years you're gonna have six years worth of trucks pulling in there and block your shining bright headlights on their house so i guess my feeling is that that really needs to be built now so through the the through the width of that shared easement you mean or are you talking along well that's what we're gonna i think this is a pre-application so we're you're gathering input from us but i think it's the applicants intend to construct it within that shared easement that i would not see that on this so can you right so um john brings up a good point um the easement is not shown on the site plan the shared easement at least doesn't appear to be on mine or maybe i'm reading it wrong but correct it's not shown correct correct um but the plan is to develop that shared easement all the way all the way to the rear to allow for the turning the entrance and exit of the trucks correct it will straddle the property so you've got and you've got an easement on that property you've got an easement on the neighboring property which means that we ought to be able to require you to build the berm on that property as well correct for the width of the easement definitely i think that the easement correct okay that's the applicant's intent yeah that's we intend to be a good neighbor to mr steady and mr steady we don't want to build a berm that protects one headlight and not the second headlight so we'll i get it okay questions from the board on that any further comments on the only thing i was making sure is that we keep talking about the berm for just the the the easement part and i'm saying that because the truck is coming in and swinging into the u-haul lot and then continuing towards steady property that berm needs to be moving you know we need that we need another portion of that berm not just to the edge of their property line not just on that edge but yeah all the way to the end of their property line end of the steady's property line where yeah and that's then that would solve any guy fiddle farting around there with his truck he won't he wouldn't shine light in there they'll hear him though um okay again comments comments from the board questions from the board regarding regarding that easement the berm landscaping on that area specific area is um is visit vegetation the right play there as a screen versus some type of stockade fence so i guess i'd leave it up to the applicant to show us what they propose and when they come when they come back well my personal opinion i lean towards the stockade because the winner you know if it's isn't if it's not you know nice green pine trees it's gonna gonna be letting light in there so the proposed the proposed berm which we've been talking about we have not been talking about a height of said berm nothing in mind do you have a standard is do you have a talking to the staff as well um assuming the berm would have to have a stockade on top of it because otherwise if it was all berm it would be really kind of uh in you know impinging on their on their property you haven't thought to that yet thanks guys and you've given any thought to that we have i mean it i guess keep in mind the berm that he enjoys on the other side of the property kind of defies physics a little bit um 23 feet sounds like a lot that's true um but if it's got a three on one slope for example um in order to put plantings on it it's only four feet high if it goes up at three on one on each side and you know comes to a point at the top if it's only going to be a 23 foot wide um so if it's three to four feet high with a six foot fence on top of it that would get a nine foot screening um i don't think anybody's going to want to look at a fence so there would most likely be some plantings a mix of higher and lower things to kind of screen the fence not necessarily screening the steady property but more screening the fence okay all right that's that that work yep i like that okay so let's why don't why don't you propose that gentlemen i just recommend that you talk to the studies in terms of talk aid fence material different people have different opinions on what would be the right look sometimes the the pvc is is frowned upon because sheen to it sometimes people want cedar but you can buy you can buy it without a sheen without a sheen but i just would ask that you consult them to i would i would also chime in and say that you know we've been thrown around the term stock aid fence i would you know i would propose or suggest that whatever is put up there is not something that is going to rot out in five years something that's going to stand in test of time um right well that's why i i i cited pvc or cedar yep so that it had someone long job it's part of me i guess it's part of being a good neighbor is just maintaining it yeah corporate color any port have any the port have anything any issues on uh outdoor sales any comments questions and i assume for me i assume there'll be a landscaping plan if it's because i yes there will yep you know the rendering here is kind of funny but it's pretty out we'll want a lighting plan too right yeah traffic study do you do you have any concerns with the lighting requirements in terms of the controls and when they're on and something we've you know we discuss a lot with storage buildings emissions sensors yeah i mean that we've read through it and i think we're you know embark on complying with it or something so let's um let's let's let's touch on uh let's touch on parking for a second um how many individual units are there on this property not and not just the ones in the building but the but the monotonous ones that john's just talking about and the individual parking me if you add up everything how many different individuals let's say that everybody let's say that everybody and their brother decided to descend upon you one Saturday morning between 10 and 12 how many how many people how many people could do it could show up oh let's see 953 oh 953 right between two floors and RV parking and boat storage and all those 953 is 11 parking spaces really enough you know i i understand that it's spread out you have long hours people come and go people come and go but you certainly you guys do this for you know you're your worldwide company you do this for a living i'm gonna i will put some stock in your you know in the fact that you've done this probably a zillion times before 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock or one o'clock on a Saturday morning has got to be a heavy time if you've got 950 ish different places is it really only 11 showing up at any given time it's not a whole heck of a lot more it's very rarely more it is it is they do not all show up at the same time some are there for an hour some are there for two or three minutes the exterior minis a lot of people drive up alongside of those you can take those out of out of the equation yep i mean you're you're right we have a lot of buildings that have this number of units and high occupancy in the parking and customer load unload areas are very similar and very workable and they they flow very nicely i want this i want the uh eliminate concession on the holiday on the weekend before people put up the christmas lights if you donate it to your local charity yep okay 953 is a big number that's that's if i get them all full assuming that you wouldn't be building it if you didn't think you could well that's an interesting question what is the average uh storage uh average average in vermont on the street in the country is that there's a there's a whole bunch well remember let's talk let's talk city because there's a slowly becoming one let's talk city what what's the average uh 70 percent 90 percent 70 percent oh 70 percent if you're going to use an average so no so no but okay so so we use 70 so that says your 900s really not 900 right you're talking you were talking that's everybody in their uncle actually loaded right so 630 or whatever yeah i'll think that that's that 600 630 is a a little more a little less shocking than suddenly 900 being out on route two so this part of the board thinks 11 versus that number is still light and i have no basis for same flight sounds it's not to me it sounds like i mean there's a wide discrepancy there's a wide discrepancy and parking requirements given to the board on something like this and this from a board that tends to want to try to make sure you're not putting too many spaces okay um anybody anybody have anything else on this they won't talk about yeah have we got have we got have we got any uh parking traffic numbers on like the uh driving storage there on south brown l i have never seen a i've never seen a car waiting to get in there and that's has like zero parking outside so just you know serve those self-service self-storage unit projects we've we've not um studied any of them in town but you know the board may remember in recent memory the approval of the more ways facility within this subdivision right there's enough space to pull up to the kiosk if you're there for the first time signing up and for one other person to be in line doing that everybody else is pulling up to the front of a unit when they're there um and having a site that's laid out that way and expecting it to operate without providing any parking means you're really expecting just a handful of people at a time are ever going to be there and so you know in terms of sort of a general feel it's a low it's a low amount of parking there are some other things happening at this site that that generate parking in retail um you know truck rental um things like that that are are worth thinking about but it's going to be hard to find national numbers produced by somebody like it that are going to be you'll you'll get a number but it's accuracy one way or the other would be questionable compared to just talking to an applicant about what their utilization is like similar to the way we once thought about traffic at car washes um the numbers come from places that are far more uh intensely used than williston sometimes so it's you know it's to the d rb to use their judgment on stuff like that we'll do we'll we'll try to collect whatever information you'd like to help you with that I just want to raise one other thing I had asked about garbage at the last meeting I don't see it I still don't see a dumpster or anything on site this is a use that just generates a ton of garbage there's got to be we don't generate we really don't generate a whole bunch of garbage we have a small two-yard dumpster that is typically stored in our receded dispatch area the garbage that we have is from our own waste and you know if somebody leaves something behind we pick it up and throw it in the trash but it's kept inside that corner building on the northeast side we push it in and out there it's inside yeah it's inside they're kept inside and then our self storage has what's called a community reuse center where if somebody has a used item they leave behind and somebody else takes it or reuses it and that seemed that seems to have worked very well for for us a lot of things get somebody's moving out of their storage unit and they decide they no longer need it can't fit in the new home we provide a small area next to our elevator which we can blow up on on the plan they would leave the item there and another customer would take it if it sits there untaken for amount of time we donate it to Goodwill or Salvation Army or something of that nature I mean you've maybe that's a two-yard dump whatever you've got on the south elevation and I can just picture garbage just piling up next to that what if it's in there are no dumps who's outside well there's a little tiny one in the south elevation next to the garage door maybe that's a door yes I think it's a door I thought that was a jumpster I'm sorry or fine with it if it's the dumps are stored inside best place for it we've been through the putting it outside it doesn't work no it doesn't work because that does happen good visitors and other questions from the board any questions from the audience anything else you would like to add just that we would be looking for a direction or hopefully you concur with staff on the recommendation for a sidewalk versus a path and we talked about it with staff just so that we're on the same page as the board the traffic study recommendation that staff was making was really trip generation information and not a full blown traffic study which was provided with the original rowbare subdivision certainly we'll provide the trip generation but just wanted to be clear that we weren't planning to do another traffic study assuming that the trip generation is consistent with what was proposed in the original track so so let's just let me just ask matt that something on that real quickly so the rowbare subdivision has a has a trip a traffic study this is a this is a use I have I would assume was not contemplated in the original traffic study that the roll bears did so and he can speak to that go ahead use was anticipated to be located on lot four when the traffic study was originally done the if you look at that original traffic study the use of your head up and down over there yeah okay the uses are a little vague and you know we didn't put you halls going here if you look at the trip generation for lot four in the trip generation for lot three in that original traffic study lot four was anticipated to generate 34 pm peak hour trips and lot three was anticipated to generate 34 pm peak hour trips again slightly different mix of use different different uses different building areas but just worked out that those two trip generations were very similar so moving from u-haul moving u-haul from lot four to lot three doesn't substantially change the the traffic study any other questions from the board anything else you wanted to add andy questions from the comment from the audience okay all right we are going to close dp20-03 at 930 okay next up is dp20-01 kevin and zoosanna for osho it's an appeal so scott um this is an appeal of a decision I made as zoning administrator so I am going to accuse myself from the staff table soon the audience and won't be participating as a member of the staff okay very good all right uh for the record if you would state your names in your addresses please it's on a brochure excuse me 76 sleep kevin brochure 76 sleep hard drive all right thank you um okay so I've got a statement to make before we get into this um do you have a copy of the letter from paul gillis the town attorney do we have copies of the letter that we received and requested in the staff report packet did they get a copy of it the brochures probably did if but can you state your name in your address sure ed edrian monning as far as usham 156 battery street okay thank you irlington okay so so so before we get going um the board and chair the chair aired last meeting in granting an extension and a continuance of your appeal through my error uh and thank the town and the board requested a determination from our town attorney regarding the board's actions on this appeal this is this the the response from our attorney as displayed in that letter is that the appeal that you have filed is solely for the purposes of making sure that the zoning officer issued uh the permit to the applicant as uh mandated by the board's permit so I don't know if that's clear or not so the board the board um um the board issued a ruling it was upheld in environmental court the permit the the appeal that you um filed is solely to make sure that the zoning officer followed the permit rules that's it nothing more it's not true it well no that's what it's true from this side not if you read what the appeal says it doesn't make any difference not my appeal if you read what the standards of the appeal are so so if you read your own standards of what an appeal is we are not reopening or the re-litigating um this permit at all at all we we and the issues that we're bringing up are are part of your appeal standards not to my understanding well if you read them they clearly state that they address the administrative permit and the and everything that it is approving only to the extent that the zoning administrator um deviated from the approval issued by the board that's not what that's not what your appeals that's not what your appeal process reads that is my understanding of it well I beg to differ I say that when you read it it addresses the fact that the you have the right to appeal an administrative permit and all of the uh authorizations that it allows for that is correct I believe you know that's what we're doing have the right the right to appeal it and that's what the appeal is solely based on the adjoining administrator deviating from the permit that was approved by the board well uh no that's not true we're appealing all of the authorizations that the administrative permit is approving no and we are no well if you read your own standards that's what it says so this board will not hear that and at this point um you will have to take it to a different authority mainly the environmental court that's unfortunate unfortunate can I sort of maybe characterize this a little bit differently for you same outcome please please do so when the applicant received their approval at that time you had a 30 day appeal window and you exercised that 30 day appeal window and took it to I think first the drb and then that was appealed to the environmental court the scope of your appeal was set forth at the environmental court and you raised some issues at the environmental court and unfortunately for you the the environmental court did not find in your favor it found in the applicant's favor so when the applicant came back to get their permit it was settled at that point that the applicant as the original proposal and the original approval is entitled to his permit for that and so as long as he didn't change anything that he originally applied for then he would be entitled to that so even on the issues that you've raised you've talked you've sort of reopened some of the issues about this the size and the scope and the location and those sorts of things that could have been addressed initially at the environmental court level it it wasn't part of the scope or may have been part of the scope of your appeal but at that that appeal you unfortunately did not prevail so the applicant is entitled pursuant to the court to his permit as long as his request for a permit complies with what he originally got the approval for you've sort of already litigated that piece of it that's my understanding ed who is the attorney for the applicant would you agree or disagree with that characterization but let me just delve into it helping you connect the dots for one second a little bit beyond this the brochures actually raised so in in their appeal and I don't really want to dwell on it one time a judge told me when you want just shut up and sit down and I take that advice seriously but you know so there's no misunderstanding and so there's no question the brochures a century raised two issues on this appeal the spirit of the law and the letter of the law spirit of law is not the way legal items are decided so we'd ask the board even even if it was on the table to ignore that within the letter of the law argument they did raise those on appeal to the environmental court in their statement of questions that they later withdrew and it's in the court decision I'm happy to provide this is part of the record I'm happy to provide the court copies they specifically raised 42.8 in three different questions before the environmental court they withdrew them I don't know if it was for a tactical reason or what but they have the opportunity to raise it at that time they decided not to and as the chair stated they had their bite at the apple we need to put this to rest I think in all due respect we agree with the board a hundred percent but the brochures are really engaging what we believe to be a fearless action here so we want to put them on notice that if it goes beyond this point we're going to be looking at that as a potential claim so that's beyond this board's purview understood but as far as this evening goes uh board members finale's characterization was on point and we would agree so my only my only question and I think the only relevant question is has the location of the proposed structure changed since the original application so when the applicant sought this most recent building permit that was the subject of this appeal is there any difference between what was originally approved and already appealed to the environmental court and what was sought in the permit application unfortunately there isn't okay but you agree there was no difference too okay that's it for me in terms of you asked my question so is something up right here well it's the attorney's characterization that the it reflects that but I want to understand from the appellant whether or not they agree yeah well we chose uh we chose not to pursue these uh and because we wanted to we thought we had a good enough case with the other points but I guess what I I'm sorry to interrupt you go ahead thank you and so um you know uh I do know uh almost nothing about the law uh but I have been told uh that you are allowed to appeal decisions that are made by the drb you are and you did and that's that's the I think that's the part that I that perhaps is difficult to understand and understandably different difficult to understand um especially when you don't have a legal background and and and it's perfectly understandable but if you as long as his application hasn't changed if it had changed then there'd be a new application for which you would be able to appeal but because it hadn't changed because it hasn't changed over what he already applied for and what you already appealed you've you've had that opportunity to raise those issues already before the environmental court and because you opted not to do that at the environmental court level we can't just keep looking we can't just keep having these new opportunities to raise objections sure and you already had that opportunity and uh and but I do know how to read and I do know how to understand complex thought and if you look at the way the appeal reads about an administrative permit clearly states that you can appeal all of the approvals that it represents so with that in mind okay when we went through our first site and you're citing which what what what page I don't I don't have that because I wasn't prepared to defend whether or not this was an appeal because I'm coming here with the under the assumption that this is you're going to hear our appeal right and and and understandably because again um at the last meeting we indicated that we were going to hear your appeal so we've gotten new information since then um as the chair already indicated and um and also permit the issuance of permits can be appealed so again I think that perhaps you're taking out of context the appeal in this situation that it there already has been appeal of the drb decision um it already went up to environmental court and now the issuance of the permit um if there is no difference um we can still make that determination the board can still make that determination um as to whether or not we agree that um that you're entitled to prevail on this appeal and then our determination can be appealed and I think what um attorney adrian is saying is that the applicant would look at that um as a as an obstructive type behavior again that's outside the scope of our review um but you know we're simply looking at this as the question we're asking is did the application change from the date that it was originally submitted the date that the and and then the um determination by the town zoning administrator to issue that permit and if nothing changed in between that time then I think it's going to be difficult um for the sport to find in your favor although we will certainly um adjourn and and discuss it and make a determination and yeah so I mean that's the premise that I was working off of that if there was going to be another decision on an administrative appeal then we would have another another day in court to then argue our other issues that we didn't argue initially you know and and to be honest if you look at the vialize you're not even allowed to to give an administrative permit in the village so but that's that's that's I think you know I feel like you know uh that you know it's it's unfortunate that we're not getting the chance to now argue what we we want you to hear and especially this you know coming on the heels of um the conversation we had here last time which um clearly indicated that um you are ready to hear what our concerns were and I think we were pretty clear and stating last time the disappointment the disappointment that we've had with this process throughout and um I have to say that this last turn of events is not making it any more palatable for us um we we feel that um we're coming here with some credible legitimate issues and and we um have voiced those in the letter that that we submitted to you uh we feel that there are that there are um strong arguments that would suggest that the law was not followed the bylaw was not followed in this case and um so we find it really discouraging that you know the board would sit here and not hear that well what I will say is that this the the board has retained the services of its attorney and as you can see from the letter um we've been provided some guidance from the town's attorney that the laws you can see that it reflects the terms and conditions of the order the administrative permit reflects the terms and conditions of the order the drb should should not and cannot alter that and the applicant and the opponents are equally bound by it so you know I think that again while it's okay and and proper to voice displeasure with the board I think that you know I think it's um I think it's unfortunate that we don't have access to the um the actual piece of the bylaw that talks about what is required or what is um allowed under an appeal because um you know we both clearly remember that it did allow for what we feel we're here to do today and that it doesn't sound like you didn't didn't didn't you discuss this with your attorney when you went to the went to the environmental board the business about the the the whole concept of the appeal process wasn't this because we didn't have an attorney for the for you did not have an attorney one of the appeals we did not have an attorney for the second appeal we did the board's made its position clear no you have like from day one so anything else yeah actually I just you know for the record I do want to state that what we what we just heard from the um applicant's attorney I interpret that as a threat and I really don't feel that that's appropriate for this forum well that's between the two of you I would tend to agree that's not something we need to hear either thank you thank you for coming you'll be back nine we did east wall and west wall right on just to make sure okay pardon me let's see if I can get these things okay uh okay all right very good the town of wilson's development review board is uh out of um decorative session at 1135 um do I have a motion for dp 20-08 mcdonald and gata subdivision yes as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 i john hemmelgarten 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 24 2019 accept the recommendations proposed by staff for the review of dp 20-08 and authorize the applicant to proceed to residential growth management allocation review we are going to add a recommendation which will be numbered uh number two which says that the applicant shall provide an easement along old stage road for a multi-use path great thank you second Dave seconds it any further discussion all in favor i six i's no nays motion carries uh dp 20-09 brian cairns and vermont has been continued to october 22nd dp 20-10 casala waste management uh ink has been continued to october 22nd i have a motion for dp 20-03 pre-application for america real estate company and u-haul yes as authorized by wdb 6.6.3 hi david turner moved at the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials including the recommendations of town staff and the advisory board required to comment on this application by the wilson development bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of september 24 2019 accept the recommendations proposed by staff for the review of dp 20-03 and authorize the application to move forward to discretionary permit review with the following additional conditions east and west walls are considered dead walls they shall look at increasing the architectural oh yes architectural interest i'm like wow i can't read my own writing number 10 reconfigure site to include storage reconfigure site so individual stored units are not visible from route 2 number 11 tone down colors and use earth tone colors number 12 reduce massive building as seen from route 2 number 13 landscape brim at the berm landscape berm at the rear of property entrance to the property line of mr and mrs steady number 14 landscaping along route 2 shall have street trees at 20 foot spacing plus additional screening number 15 show onsite plan where you would put 20 additional parking spaces number 16 applicant shall introduce a greater diversity of building materials number 17 vary the height of the parapet on the front of the building i have a second second all seconds at any further discussion uh yes can you please read the additional parking spaces language again please 15 show on the site plan where you would put an additional 20 parking spaces should you should we say something along the lines of show on the site plan where the um where we would show and then show on the site plan should they be needed in the future should they be required in the future uh i i i would like maybe to suggest a word uh that says the um the future expansion of 20 parking spaces so show on the site plan the future expansion of 20 additional parking spaces okay okay so number 15 will be show on the site plan the future expansion where you would put 20 additional parking spaces okay okay is everybody okay with that still second it uh any other any any other discussion about this all in favor i i i six i's no nays motion carries do i have a motion do i have a motion for app 20-01 administrative permit appeal yes as authorized by wdb 5.4.6 i jill spinnelly moved that the williston development review board having reviewed the appeal of the administrator's decision all of the accompanying materials and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearings of september 10th 2019 and september 24th 2019 except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for app 20-01 and as modified and as modified below an appeal for the issuance of an administrative permit and uphold the decision of the administrator to issue ap 20-0025 the following conclusion of law is hereby modified to reflect that the zoning administrator did issue administrative permit 20-0025 in conformance with discretionary permit 15-06 conditions of approval and final plans as upheld by the environmental court decision in docket number 114-9-16 does that make sense how i read that i'm sorry yep so are we reading number two as well yes sorry and the following conclusion of law is also hereby modified uh the zoning administrator did issue ap 20-0025 in conformance with the procedures of the williston development by law chapter five do i have a second second john seconds at any further discussion no further discussion all in favor hi hi hi do i have a motion to approve the minutes of september 10th 2019 second second Dave seconds it all in favor so just for the uh as a as a note the the label on the minutes is september 20th but the actual days do we note it also i would also like to note that the with those changes everybody okay with that favor hi my six eyes no nays most carries i have a motion to adjourn the meeting at 1144 absolutely i can't wait for all this over time all right yowch