 Chair of the DRB, this is a virtual meeting on Zoom. All members of the Board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before the hearings are opened. If Zoom does crash, this meeting will be continued to August 24th, 2021. All votes taken in this meeting that are unanimous will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Paul Christensen. Present. Dave Saladino. Present. Dave Turner. Present. Pete Kelly, chair, I'm present. That's four members present out of seven. So we do have a quorum. Next up is staff to walk us through Zoom instructions. Yep. So welcome everybody to the DRB tonight. I think everyone is signed in, but you can rename yourself on the participant section of the toolbar for the public record. If you're intending tonight with a laptop, please turn your microphone off, your camera off, as well as the speaker to prevent feedback. Participants, there's a lot of features on your toolbar. Your video camera is optional. You can turn that on or off as you wish. Please keep yourself on mute when you are not speaking. If telephone participants join tonight, you can make a public comment on something that is not on tonight's agenda. So if you have something to say to the DRB or the staff that is not on tonight's agenda, this is your opportunity. No comments and no raised hands. Okay. Moving into the public hearing section, we've got three applications tonight, two certificates of appropriateness and one discretionary permit. First up is HP 21-05, Laura Willett and Aaron Kegel. Who is present for representing the applicant tonight? Both of us, Aaron and Laura. Oh, good evening. You would, for the record, state your address, please. 16 Whitney Hill Road. Great. Okay, staff, you're up first. So this is a request for an administrative permit and a certificate of appropriateness to replace the front deck and expand and replace the fence. Staff recommendation is this complies as proposed and the hack did not have any specific recommendations either. This is a 1949 Cape style home. An addition was added in 1992. The siding was replaced in 2009. What they are proposing is a white vinyl fence with a picket style, as well as a six foot tall privacy screening fence in certain locations. All portions of the fence will be minimally visible from Williston Road and Whitney Hill Road. Current front deck is rotting, so they're gonna replace it. The railings will be white. The deck and stairboards will be brown and then the stair risers and the lattice will be white. The hack recommendation is this complies as proposed with the certificate as drafted. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Laura and Aaron, do you have anything to add to staff's report that they just read? No, I think that's a pretty good summary. Okay, great. DRB members, any questions for the applicant? I have no questions. Okay, thanks, David. Dave, Saladino, any questions? Flowing away on mute here. I assume the two pictures of the two fences, those are, that's the look you're going for or the style you're going for? That's right, yeah. Those are examples of what we would put in. Yeah, I think they look sharp. Oh, Christensen, any comments? None, it's straightforward. Okay, any members of the public? Any questions? No chats and no raised hands. Okay. Okay. I think that we are good. This is pretty straightforward. Thank you for your application. I'm going to close HP 21-05 at 707. Thank you for coming. Thank you very much. We'll be in touch, Laura, when the permit is ready for pickup. Okay, great, thank you. Okay, next up is a certificate of appropriateness, HP 21-06. Who is representing the applicant tonight? I'm here, Abby Derry from Trudell Consulting and Scott Roth, the applicant is also here. Abby, could you give your address for the record and if Scott could do the same please? Yes, Trudell Consulting is at 478 Blair Park Road in Williston. Scott, are you on? I think you're muted, Scott. Sorry about that. I was muted, 7570 Williston Road in Williston. Great, thank you and welcome, staff is next. Okay, so this is a request for an administrative permit and certificate of appropriateness to demolish the existing garage at 7570 Williston Road and rebuild a new larger garage with an accessory dwelling unit. The staff recommendation is this complies as proposed and the hack only had one recommendation that white or black window trim is acceptable. The house was constructed in 1935 and a second story addition was put on in 2001. The proposed garage is slightly larger in dimensions and taller and it will comply with building height and setbacks. I'm gonna jump to the elevations and renderings that were provided by the applicant as they're more fun to look at. So the existing garage, as you can see is a single story, one car garage with a back patio and you can see the neighboring garage on the abutting property is slightly larger. So what they're proposing is something similar. It'll be taller two stories, cementitious fiberboard siding, party plank I believe, a metal roof, a gray metal roof and then the windows will match the existing house with the six over one pattern. The man door will be gray or another color TBD and the garage doors will be white with a faux wood finish. So the recommendations were that everything complies as proposed and either white or black windows. Thank you. Great, thanks Emily. Scott or Abby, do you have anything to add to staff's report? Don't. Okay, DRB members, any questions for the applicant? One question to Emily. Is this gonna be on the sewer or is this tie into a septic adding the new dwelling? Is this on a, so that this is a sewer feed system? Yes. Okay, that's on you now. The wood columns that are shown, what's the wood that you're gonna use on those? We were gonna do like an exposed wood so we can do a cedar or we can even do something in painting. It doesn't really, it's not a big deal for us, whatever you guys think's more appropriate. Yeah, I was just curious if you were going with like a dug fur with a marine treatment or... We would like to do something that's a nice exposed wood. If we, like I said, if we have to paint, we will but we'd like to put in something nice there. We spend a lot of time in the backyard so. Yeah. You'd sense it? Great, I'm certainly not gonna design but dug fur with marine finishes really, really nice looking. Yeah, thank you. But that's not really relevant here because any other questions from the DRV? You know, the only question I have and it's not really relevant either but is the railing going up the stairs to the door? Is it open railing like that that it shows or? We have a hard time with the render. I'm not professional on that but it'd be a wood railing with uprights and then it... Which bendles in it? Yeah, yeah. And then we're using a perforated metal tread just for safety because of ice and stuff like that just in case it builds up there. Okay. Yeah, David, if the railing was not as described it would not be to code and it would not be an occupancy permit. That's what they kind of figured but when I saw the rendering it just looked different. Yeah. Yeah, sorry. Any other questions from the DRV? No. Nope. Any questions from the public? Any further clarifications or comments from the applicant? Nope. Okay. Thank you. I'm gonna close HP 21-06 at 714. Thank you for coming. Great, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP 14-05.1. This is a discretionary permit for a modification to a building envelope. Who is present representing the applicant? Bert Kennedy is here. I didn't pick up on that. Bert Kennedy is here tonight. Good evening. Good evening. Could you give your address for the record please? 476 Lincoln Road. Great. Staff, who's next? Okay. The applicants are requesting a discretionary permit review to relocate the building envelope established on lot one of a two lot subdivision previously approved under DP 14-05. The property is located at 476 Lincoln Road in the Agricultural Rural Residential Zoning District. The property is currently developed with a single family home, paved driveway and two accessory structures. The applicants own both building lots approved under DP 14-05, but only lot one is developed. No development is proposed for four lot two at this time. Staff is recommending approval of this discretionary permit amendment with conditions as listed at the end of the staff report. So this is the first time DRB is reviewing this request. Prior approvals include DP 14-05, approved May 13th, 2014 is two lot subdivision creating these two lots. And then before that in 2003, SUB 0210 was a three lot subdivision. No advisory boards were asked to review this application. Department of Public Works and Fire Department and Police Department had no comments. No comment letters were received at the time of mail-out. So this is a requested amendment to DP 14-05. Final plan amendments are made using the discretionary procedure of chapter six, but skipping pre-application. The scope of the hearing in DRB action is limited to determining whether the proposed amendment applies or fails to comply with the bylaw. One note about subject parcel. So there's two lots shown, one and lot two both resulting from the subdivision under DP 14-05. Under the bylaw, these two lots because they are owned by the same person are considered a single parcel. So the use, primary use in the parcels residential, it's allowed use. I believe there's also backyard sugaring on the property that's also allowed. Compliance with all dimensional standards is expected and the proposed relocation of the building envelope will comply with the property line setbacks. Outdoor sales and storage are not proposed. This subdivision that created the subject parcel was an open space development and was required to set aside 75% of the parent parcel as open space. The approval for DP 14-05 preceded the current requirement to flat open space as a separate lot. The open space was simply designated as all land on the parcel that was outside the building envelopes. The applicants are proposing to relocate and change the shape of the building envelope but not to enlarge it. So the amount of open spaces will remain the same. Its configuration would be altered. The configuration will result in the wastewater system being located in the open space which is allowed for WDB 31.7.5.4. The reconfiguration is not going to result in any additional impacts to natural resources such as steep slopes, wetlands and significant wildlife habitat. And this is discussed further on in the staff report. The subject parcel does contain conservation areas, uncommon species, unique natural community, significant wildlife habitat area. The proposed relocation of the building envelope is not going to further encroach into the forest. It's not going to result in any additional or adverse impact to the conservation areas. In 2014, the Conservation Commission reviewed the original subdivision DP 14-05 and their comments were included in the conditions of approval for that subdivision. At that time, the conditions of approval stated that the building envelopes needed to exclude, they need to be shown on the final plans and they needed to exclude slopes in excess of 30% and avoid slopes in excess of 15% to the degree to the extent possible. And the building envelopes also needed to exclude any wetlands or wetland buffer areas. They also, the conditions also stated that there shall be no clearing outside of the building envelope, except for that required to construct the septic system in the driveway and that clearing within the building envelope shall not exceed one half acre. However, this applied to lot two only since lot one was already developed at the time of that subdivision. So the DRB could include a condition stating that all conditions of approval for DP 14-05 still apply or could make a more specific condition related to showing on the final plans that the relocated building envelope excludes steep slopes and wetlands, draft conditions included, and listed the finding of facts and conclusions of law and conditions of approval for you to consider. Thanks. Thank you, Melinda. Bert, do you have anything to add to the staff report and are you in agreement with the proposed conditions of approval? I am, I don't have anything to add and I am in agreement, yes. Okay, great. Thank you. DRB members, any questions? The only question I have is, have you done clearing on the existing building lot that is going to go away? No, so the only clearing that we had done was for the sugar house and for the ship that we added after we moved in in 2015 and both of those are in, they were in the existing building lot and they're gonna stay in the, our building envelope, excuse me, and they're gonna stay in the new building envelope as well. We haven't done any clearing outside of the building. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the DRB? Have you checked to see whether the new building envelope meets those criteria that were laid out at the 30% slope and avoiding 15% slope? Have you done that check yet? So we have Trudel come out and survey everything but I don't believe they did a topo but everything is, looking at it by eye, it's not in the 30% mark. Everything is pretty flat. It kind of goes uphill on the driveway and then it kind of flattens out right where the house is then it's behind the shed and the sugar houses where you really get into the 30%. That's where the hill really goes on. I guess a question for staff, in terms of the requirement to building envelopes also must exclude wetlands or wetland buffer areas. Are we asking for a formal delineation or can just use the significant wetlands inventory mapping? So the prior site plan for DP1405 showed the wetlands on the site plan and when I, I did kind of a look over of those plans in relationship to where they were shifting the building envelope and to me, it appears that the shift will actually put the building envelope further away from the wetland buffer. I mean, technically wetland delineations are good for five years, but we didn't request them to do a re-delineation in this case. Yeah, okay. And just a point of clarification, I see in the letter, the request, the initial request letter that is also request to build a garage. I assume that that's not being discussed tonight, right? We're just talking about the building envelope. Okay, that's all I have. Okay, thanks. All any questions? Garage, if it's not occupied in the Agricultural Rural Zone District, we wouldn't comment on any how, as long as it's in the building permit area, because it's an unoccupied building and it's a farmland. I used to do it park a tractor in there and you could call it an agricultural barn. To know the comments. Okay, members of the public, any comments? No chats and no raised hands. Okay, Bert, any final comments? Nope. Okay, thank you. We're gonna close DP 14-05.1 as 725. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Okay, we're gonna go into deliberative session at 725. Okay, I think we're ready now. Welcome back to the Williston DRB for August 10th, 2021. We're out of deliberative session. First up is a vote on the certificate of appropriateness for HP 21-05. Paul Christensen, yay or nay. Yay. Dave Saladino, yay or nay. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. The chair is a yay. That certificate of appropriateness is approved unanimously in favor, not opposed. Next up is the certificate of appropriateness, HP 21-06B14-05 application. Is there a motion? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, Dave and Turner moved that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendation of the town staff and the advisory board required to comment on this application by the Williston Development bylaw and having heard and truly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of August 10th, 2021, accept the findings of factory conclusions of law for DP 14-05.1 and approve this discussion I permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from the staff and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, David. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Saladino seconds it. Any further discussion? No. Yay or nay, Paul? Yay. Dave Saladino? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. The chair is a yay. Motion carries unanimously, for and favored, not opposed. Okay, next up is meeting minutes of July 13, 2021. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Don't move. Paul makes the motion to approve the minutes. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds it. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Paul, yay or nay? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. Dave Saladino? Yay. The chair approves as well. Minutes are approved unanimously, for and favored, not opposed. Is there any other further business, Melinda or Emily that needs to be brought forth at this time before we close the meeting? Okay. We could come up with something. I'm sorry? We could come up with something. What's going on? So before we sign off the next meeting, is that going to be a virtual in-person or is it up to each of us to decide? I meant in-person for that one. It's a bigger app, a free application. The next two meetings are pretty big free applications where there could be some public attendance. Okay, that certainly works for me. I will be there in-person. If other DRB members want to do the Zoom thing, that's fine as well. But we'll let each individual decide. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? I'll make a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Dave. Okay, you have a great rest of your week. Appreciate your volunteering for this and we'll talk soon. Take care, everyone. All right. Quickest DRB meeting.