always offer a public forum at the beginning of the meeting if if anybody has anything they'd like to address the board with that does not pertain to items on the agenda tonight anybody you want to take the stand now is your chance soapbox with that in with that in mind if you are here to comment on a public hearing if if somebody in front of you has already said or talked about the items that you wish to talk about you can just stand up and agree with them you don't need to necessarily state the same thing again we're going to start with d p nineteen dash zero three randy brown thank you very much for w point three acre parcel ursula's located at two twenty five rosewood drive and forty three fifty four errors the d the property is currently developed with one single family home and the posing to subdivide the single lot into three single family home lots sized at roughly two and a half acres each the applicant's proposing to set aside thirty eight point four acres as protect space subject parcel resulted from subdivision zero for seventeen approved by the dia her be on may eleventh two thousand and four and that subdivision was to divide the parcel of the town line and at that time since the portion the parcel in will stand i had one mobile home and no further development was proposed the subdivision was not required to obtain allocation through grove man on june fifth two thousand and seventeen the applicant received are the the applicant submitted excuse me and ministry of permanent erd and received in an administrator permit to remove this existing construct an access driveway and a new two bedroom single family dwelling located at forty three fifty four south for an all road under  wilson development by a law growth management a lot that's created prior to one nine hundred ninety s allowed one dwelling by right without having to go through a growth management review and since the applicant removed an existing dwelling then the applicants proposing a subdivision which will result in three doing units on fifty one point three acres of land where the maximum allowed density in the zone is one dwelling unit per eighty thousand square feet or one point eight four acres the williston development by a watch after nineteen requires that lands with wetlands wetland buffers and slopes in excess of thirty percent be taken out of the density calculation and slopes with between fifteen and twenty nine point nine percent be calculated at a reduced density of one dwelling unit pretend he ckers staffs reviewed the constraints analysis found it to be accurate  and satisfactory so subtracting the wetlands and wetland buffers and steep slopes we end up with a total of fifteen point five application submittal the wetlands had yet to be confirmed by the state well in the colleges but my understanding is that the state wetlands office has confirmed that there are the class two wet ones that were delineated are have been delineated accurately and that the additional wetlands are class three and not class two so this density constraints analysis so as a subdivision of a personal land ten and a half acres or greater chapter thirty one of the wilson development by law requires project to set aside a minimum of seventy five percent of the area of the parent personal as permanently protected open space and a new requirement as of this may twenty eighth is that that open space must be flat as a separate lot the open space must include steep slopes wetland areas and setbacks and any other resources required to be protected under chapter twenty  seven the applicants proposed thirty eight point four acres of open space meets the seventy five percent requirement and the site plan indicates that all slopes in excess of thirty percent are within the open space as required by  development biol chopper to thirty one there are proximately five point two five acres of land shown on a site planned as the location of previously proposed lots one through four lots that were proposed in last year's application and that land is near proposed for development nor included in the in the open  space so as it stands the applicants thirty eight point four acres of open space meets the minimum requirement of seventy five percent and the conservation commission has not recommended that this additional five acres of land be included in the open space the fact that it's not included in the open space means the applicant could in the future proposed development on these five point two five acres so the d r you may wish to recommend that this land be added to the protected open space within lots of six and seven there are class three wetlands shown and and so  i guess after i wrote this staff report they hadn't yet been confirmed by the state have been confirmed as class three wetlands wilson dome and by a large hafter twenty nine states that the d r v may upon the recommendation of the conservation commission require that those class three wet ones if they have significant functional values remain in their natural vegetation on you can also require that a functional assessment be done to to the class three wetlands to determine if they have significant functional values so the conservation commission is not recommended either of these two options so for access the existing home and propose lot five is accessed by recently so this would mean that requirement for driveway serving multiple dwellings the grades will not exceed ten percent the wilston department of public works has additional standards for private driveways and private streets that must be satisfied and i will get into a little more detail later on in my talk about department comments when the deer be considered  this proposal by the same applicants for the seven lots of division twenty seventeen some concerns were raised about whether or not the applicants have legal means of access the arrows would drive at that time staff recommended that the applicant produced documentation of legal means of access for review by the town's attorney at the time of discretionary permit application submittal in fact i believe the applicant has submitted some documentation was submitted last march at the time of growth management but the town's attorney has not yet reviewed the documentation  rosewood drive crosses over the town line into shelburne any changes to this access road or any other proposed development in shelburne may require a permit from that jurisdiction and the applicant is advised to construction rosewood drive was required to obtain a state highway access permit this proposed development may require additional permanent from vermont a o t and the applicant will need to submit a letter of inten guarding the proposed addition of two new dwelling units to be served by a rosewood drive and permits for new single family homes will have to be accompanied by impact fees including traffic impact fees pre application is stage of review where the deer beacon asked for a traffic impact study if they desire staff notes that this proposed development additional single family dwelling units would produce two point zero two new pm peak hour trip ends and therefore we do not recommend the deer be request a traffic study for this project fifty highway right of way the side and rear setbacks must be at least fifteen feet and chapter twenty three states that open space residential developments in the air sea they must provide ample buffers but doesn't specify minimum buffer with the d or b is allowed considerable discretion a term in the minimum with and what type of landscape buffer will be appropriate in a particular context police fire public works department reviewed the project the police department had no comments the fire department submitted attatched comments regarding driveway specifications for emergency access  and they list several things that they would like to have done this development staff recommends that the applicant meet with the fire department prior to submitting an application for discretion permit the department of public works submitted attached comments regarding public work standards specifications and requirements and the department of public works comments know the public works standards for a private driveway in that a maximum of two rear lots without public road from the edge may be served by a private driveway additionally private driveway may replace direct road access for to a budding lots with existing public road front edge that so it appears that the proposed access driveway rosewood drive may not meet the standards a private driveway and may require that the driveway be upgraded to a private street staff recommends the applicant meet with the director of public works to clarify the requirements for the proposed access driveway prior to submitting an application for discretion permit this proposal was also reviewed by the wilson conservation commission and  habitat disturbance assessment be prepared by a qualified wildlife biologist and submitted with the by the applicant as part of the discretionary permit application on the protected open space must be plotted as a separate lot any future development or subdivision of areas outside the open space and not included in this proposal namely the the five acre area  that was previously proposed for development twenty seventeen but it's not this time around that any purpose future proposal for development shall be reviewed by the conservation commission for impacts to natural resources including as part of a application for discretionary permit using existing trails where appropriate and working with a conservation commission to determine a desire plan that shows how compliance with the performance standards of chapter twenty nine will be attained both during construction of a of the proposed development  staff proposes that all town department and board recommendations be adopted as the recommendations moving forward and staff is recommending the d r be authorize the applicant to proceed to growth management review in march of two thousand and eighteen and have concrete included some pre application recommendations for you to consider that's a pretty comprehensive document that the staff has put together have you read it i only know i'm like what else can i say i don't know when we're going to ask you what else would you like to say hello i don't know really i mean you know we just really wanted to develop a couple of pieces of property to kind of box that some of the cost them the the whole parcel and the house that we built up there and that was pretty much it i mean the four lots before we're going to be for our children but we were you know on the shot last year so that didn't happen know if you don't put it into the open got any questions about what melinda just went over now i have been talking with emily today to find out when we should go to see the director of public works and the fire department and all of that and she said just before march you know well sometime early next year to talk with them if you want you have you have obviously a professional engineer if you showed your dad t c e helped us last year and we haven't hired them again yet i think we will have to do something at some point right they didn't think we needed to to get to this get here yes at some point you but you definitely will get one yeah we would have to do that space or retail i do not want to and not at this time  or they found anything so i'm just kind of curious about that and then the second thing i'm curious is can the tunnel wilston tell shelburne that they have to widen rosewood on their portion to meet our requirements of having those staging areas for the fire engines just of curiosity that's the other aspect that another jurisdiction so in other words potentially the things that we're asking for here potentially end on  initial question was because i didn't quite hear what you said when when the initial this initially came up back in october there was an individual who said that there were dumps there on this are you know they actually have good cards and all that kind downs on the site we did you know did some investigation with the state and asked them if there was any history of dumping on the site and they said there was no documented history of solid waste or hazardous waste on the site so you know we had investigated that and the other thing is that you know solid waste or hazardous waste is really something that's regulated by the state it's not really regulated by or by law and so that it with macon sisters all remember very well like it was today of the stuff in the can very well described with up there and not only a sap there are all barrels on january thirtieth of two thousand and thirteen that were taken out of there that were tucked in the woods and according to construction came up with a tandem a one and they came out with valve trucks full of barrels in that little taken out of there so when it came to satellite there was no nothing no it would be as melinda has stated a state matter department of environmental conservation d c if you have a concern i suggest that you write them a letter tell them what you know it is this is not the venue ok  in terms of a phase one or phase two this is also not the venue that would be the venue that would be the venue of probably a financing institution that would require that in order for somebody to come in and build a house that if there was a public record or if you had written a letter to the city and it gone in the file when their attorneys are doing a title search they're going to come up with they're going to come up with that record i assume and the bank is going to flag it and say that is you know we are we are here to implement the unified by laws of the town of wills and that has to do with plain zoning of which dumping while a is that it is old it is if the ownership is retained by the land over but the the future development of seventy five percent of the overall space is simply being placed into conservation yes but still would ownership is retained by the africans so the trails and stuff that are put on him for the for the use of the area that would be open to the public if and when this permitting went through and the  predecessor ok so with that said i want to make sure that that's being followed even before the korea patient so when we first met last year it was put off until december it's just to now at the end of our road and so december it got approval then went to march it got shot down and now here we are let's just do two houses at the end wilson our girls would drive because it's not going to affect anybody on soccer now it's not lot easier than a lot nicer in the sense of you know let me said i have no problem people who go on their property it's just when you see and the pictures are still in here there's two pictures on that they're not even part of this we're looking outside our poor we're trying to drive down the road and things are getting dark and cold again just a point of concern all her own so i get a little guess no column like in high school or it's like a grammar school when you  we as the neighbors have a right to know and you all are making sure that that is happening it's my understanding the second thing is that road drivers access  because it was so lazy and sandy and the neighbor down the only didn't give a hoot house here on the back of his truck and while his apartment is burning down now back home so that does concern me that we do need to have the access so i've been taking care dubois my neighbors to have her pick up the busses will not the town will not the school district will not pick up and drop off because they say it's too dangerous we're going south on them on done cleese for the safety of our kids but if i was just getting through to go through the city the people who were going to live there that's all i'm asking and i think these things should be done before it is sure go road that is controlled by the ok so with that said though the board's powell has to say yes or no to the preamp and i'm telling you right now  that all these recommendations that it's a it's a four letter are not being that are not being done and so i can see when that's where this is going to head so let me just simply say this in my nose i would request the board kosko the pre approval until the applicant has provided such documentation that they will have no this is your page on your website it doesn't show that's the property the state of vermont was vitals chapter twenty one we're talking about operators we're talking about which is for talking about roads we're talking about right of ways it does not and will not meet in additional house now this is all to hire attorneys and the higher civil engineers to find help that i'm not against people developing when i'm against the development encroaching upon my roads my responsibilities my share of concern over my family and now according to you what you all have minus what you don't hammer of which few months today so i guess if somebody gets an email just today i just was given this a day  just as a point of clarification this is a whole new here in the end it may not seem like it but i know you were here year ago there's a couple different times we are they the african went through the whole process last year and first i suggest that if you believe that you have found areas of concern within the law you referenced a water system i suggest that you deliver it to the staff as your t a r z d that a parcel being developed dedicate seventy five percent of the open space to to open space not seventy six percent not seventy eight percent seventy five percent so they don't that's the law you can't sit there and say it's got to be more than the law it that's that's goes against what we all do how we all live our lives now the board can take that into account but this chair thinks that's pretty at a pretty unfair statement it's a it's almost a taking of land guess i'm probably way off the reservation here if the applicant decided to come back in and ask to have a permit that land then she would have to go all the way back and start over on that land you've heard craig's points valid or not the point keeps on his research and there are there are great issues there are well issues there are all kinds of issues that would need to be covered in order to develop it so just by the mere fact that she is not that the applicant has not that is requesting to retain control over her own land does not automatically mean that they get the permit or get they get to build houses on it so let's try and keep that in perspective and whom in my time really stems from the staff more or that was written in that they were leaning in recommendations of the war but i think they brought it to the i don't not necessarily ensure they made a recommendation i believe what they do they did they were get care as much about her property as you do about yours but there are there is a process here and we do try really hard to make sure that it's fair and that everybody gets a chance to  speak their piece and that we as a quasi judicial board don't do anything that steps outside of the lines of where where our jurisdiction lies and we try to be very fair in what we do it's not even a fair issue we try to uphold the law that's that's really the job that we do if you and if you don't like what we're doing you have the right to appeal you know to the environmental  this is why i will close here have to quickly because questions you know questions stem from other questions and people think about you know come up with an idea i try to i try very hard to make sure that that everyone gets a chance everybody gets a chance and emily emily can before you get started can i ask based on this hearing was continued from a prior date franked the board did request a number bottom right about some engineering the date that the engineer made the updates says yes thank you this is a request for a discretionary permit review of our proposal to establish an outdoor display area at forty seven zero five williston road in the industrial zone in district west this property is currently developed with an existing structure parking and related sing permits this hearing findings of fact i'll be a little bit brief on some of them that we covered last time the proposed use is allowed to locate harvest equipment at this property there's a list of certain develop back in activity that's not propose such as new structure site where are no changes to access or proposed and then the main topic of the evening outdoor sales and storage the applicant is proposing outdoor sales and outdoor storage these are allowed uses but only within areas designated for that purpose on an approved plan applicant must amend d p thirteen dash nineteen because the number location and configuration of proposed display areas are different than previously approved the applicant is proposing outdoor storage in compliance with w d b thirty seven thirty six point seven point two the outdoor storage areas are located on the north side of the warehouse and the east side of the building over all the september twenty fifth staff report miss identified this located sion as display area number three when it is actually a storage area the area will be contained and screened by a six foot tall chain link fence with green privacy science see photo two included with the applicant's narrative letter this fence is depicted on the site planned with a different symbol than the one used for the rope and ball or fence as requested by the deer be a loading ramp is also identified and photo three and is in compliance the applicant is proposing for outdoor display areas these areas are numbered in the staff report for the table and then on the site plan the display areas are also identified the first area is at the south western corner of the building a grassy unpaved area located in the front yard and outside the thirty five proposed the third area is located along the eastern property line it's a grassy area with small patches of gravel from when it used to be that the tombstone display area in the past  the site plan depicts three boulders to delineate the nine foot side yard setback and thirty five foot front yard setback boulders were chosen instead of fencing to outlaw access to the snow storage area at the last the board asked for a fence on that front yard step back and discussions of the applicant it made sense to do borders because it will clearly mark the setback areas for this display equipment but be more functional for winter snow storage  and the last area is at the rear of the property line along the landscape back buffer and next to the proposed dumpster enclosure this area is also identified for snow storage this is where burke's barbecue food  currently located and this area's compliance is propose staff note that allowing snow storage display in that spot doesn't void the previous approval for a mobile food vendor on the property  next in the finding facts as set backs the subject parcel is adjacent to two public ways the front yard setback in this district is thirty five feet from the boundaries adjacent to public raise no display areas are proposed in the front yard setback the site plan to pick fencing and boulders to delineate the setbacks and contain the storage areas the updated site plan identifies the dedicated easement to the town for bro on the applicant site plan next landscaping and street trees because the subject parcels adjacent to two public ways into industrial properties the site plan identifies existing and proposed landscaping the applicant is proposing to plan for shrugs along the corner of the display area near the wilson road industrial intersection at the public hearing on september twenty fifth the d r p discuss the landscaping and street sure current the board requested landscaping along the display area fencing in lieu of street trees street trees can be considered a type for landscape for provided and by a lot  twenty secs planting trees outside the road right of way along wilson road and industrial would conflict with the existing parking areas as well as future heir t intersection improvements as discuss on september twenty fifth street trees with interfere with intersections visibility be removed by the state action structure begins by law states that shoot trees stand is parking the applicant is not proposing changes to parking the project does not generate a requirement for additional parking portions of the parking areas are existing non conforming as the original site plan was approved under an old set of regulations to parking areas are located in the thirty five foot front yard setback seven spaces along industrial and thirteen spaces along williston road the revised plan shows a dollar fence along the parking area and outside the right of way in response to the air to comment that fence is the same symbol for both of them barlow fence and it's right up on the edge of pavement lined so it can be a little bit hard to depict  see staff reached out to the vermont agency of transportation for comment because the parking is located in the front yard setback in very close to the right of way as planned upgrades for the industrial a intersections scheduled for twenty twenty david black district five administrator commented we need controlled access in the area until the project installs the the parking needs to be outside the state right of way if the existing curb is currently in the state right away or not functioning some type of temporary curb dylan years or vegetation needs to be and start to control the parking and they have satisfactorily met that comment by showing the fence parking lot landscaping additional landscaping is not required a traffic study required for the scale of this project designated storage areas are shown and in compliance trash or recycling containers are identified with as dumpster enclosure and enclosures comply with solid waste enters this project is not subject to design review because the applicant has not proposed a new structure major  start to public works police and fire for comment police did not respond the fire department commented and the applicant has met with the fire department to meet their labeling and access requirements the public works commented about burke's barbecue and we now know that that food truck will be removed in october the department of public works has no comment on the revised site plan provided tonight staff for a quick recommend approval of this discretionary permit with the recommended findings of fact conclusions of law a drafted thank you sir what would you like that pretty well stated there were just looking to move down the street and make sure permit it properly and in compliance  pavement for the paved access drive and then the landscape buffer behind it just that area is not like if you go over to where the drywall is that  different outer storage if you look in the satellite imagery you can kind of see the rows where the tombstones were and then it was sears hometown store so each of those different businesses have a little bit different of a set up and this is just a new permit so harvest equipment has their own layout approved so you're comfortable you're comfortable with the know the numbering in the american process that's listed on here yes this makes sense to us this makes it so we can walk out on the side now where the fences are no where the boulders are things are supposed to be very clearly this is probably looking through the history on it the best outdoor storage site planned done on the property so far i think sears hometown was hand drawn  advisory board recommended to comment on this application by the development wilson development dialogue and having heard gurley considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of twenty third twenty eight team except the this application by the wilson development bylaws and having and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of september twenty fifth two thousand and eighteen and october twenty third two thousand and eighteen in the findings in approval for these plans from stop and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based on well he said it i'll suck it up pete seconds it any further discussion with an amended to the minutes of september twenty fifth stating that there is a sentence fragment we don't know where it is  minutes which may affect some of the applicants oh here ok loading it states peter kelly asked if there was anything application or is that where is this ok so here's what we're going to do we are going to know on page nineteen of twenty four that there is a sentence fragment there is a sentence fragment on the page and simply leave it at that