right good evening welcome to the town of willesden development review board sure today is tuesday april tenth two thousand and eighteen and when i open the meeting at seven o three  as is customary we'll open the meeting with a public forum is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the board your address for the record please my name is paul heights i currently live at one of the seventy nine ponder crowed heinsberg but soon i'll be living in boston at three to five ok thank you so this is a request for a discretionary permit to extend a shared driveway thirty to fifty zero killed road and thirty two sixty six oak hill road the agricultural road residential zoning district  applicant owns both of those properties there are separate parcels that were subdivided apart from one another back in the early one nine hundred ninety s and b output has purchased both of them at thirty two fifty oak hill road lot one which is the northern lot on the site there's an existing single family home that's for lack of a more technical term falling apart and the applicant is proposing to demolish and replace that home with a new single family home deeper back on the lot the applicant would like to access that home via a extension of the shared driveway currently serves like to on the site and to do that the provisions about long driveways and most of where this lives in the bylaw is about subdivisions and it's intended to encourage people who are subdividing rural lands to cluster that development into not built sort of you know big big long driveways and what it says is if you're going to build a driveway more than one thousand three hundred twenty feet long you need to come to the d r b to do that and if you're  subdividing it it can reduce the allowed density on your subject property from the normal one per approximately two acres to one per ten acres so this case is a little bit different from that  but the staff felt that the implicit billett he was close enough of what what the applicant wanted to do to bring it to the board not do it administratively that the net effect of extending the driveway that serves the house on lot two to serve a new homesite on one will be to have a long driveway in excess of one thousand three hundred twenty one feet so that's what the proposal is in front of you there is no subdivision on the table at this time there is simply a demolition and replacement of an existing home so within your staff report you have the relevant bylaw sections that i just summarized  little bit of discussion about the platts and plans that go with this so when this subdivision was created originally you can see that the driveway serving the house on lot to actually comes across  when lot two was created there was an access easement for a lot one created but not in the same spot as where the applicant would like to put their driveway today so the staff is suggesting that final plans include a newly delineate d easement area allowing access to lot one exit him out of lot two in the place where the proposed driveway would be constructed so there's a description of those easements we did receive comment from the police or rather reviewed by police and fire and public works we did not get comments from police fire or public works other than a memo from public works stating that they had no comment to the conservation commission also looked at this proposal the conservation commission did not recommend that a habitat disturbance assessment related to chapter twenty seven be applied for or submitted in this case the conservation commission looked a fence to present prevent incidental mulling into that buffer and then recommended that the driveway location and length be designed to minimize impacts to wetlands wildlife and potential agricultural use on the property follow best practices related to the watershed protection chapter of the bylaws and vermont's low risk site and book for erosion and sediment control and then finally there is a discussion in the conservation commission comments of the future trail and so there's a trail easement that is a floating easement that goes back to the original subdivision in the early one nine hundred ninety s and eventually the actual location of that trail will need to be to determine the conservation commission say we'd like to consult with the owner when it comes time to do that so that said you have recommended findings of fact inclusions of the law and conditions of approval leading to an approval for this project and an authorization for the applicant to file final plans i would say that the most material conditions related to that are the showing of a new revised access easement on those final plans and also that the driveway serving the existing dwelling at lot one the one to be demolished be eliminated when the twelve one is demolished that's something that usually makes public works happy to and the other thing is your neighbors is all right with the fact that you'll be driving by there by the house now with the new law we actually own both of those properties the one where the driver goes across and we've got one as well yes so the attendant is ok with you do but have you read all of the proposed conditions i have and the concern with any of them i don't i will just add that when we purchased the properties our real estate attorney thought that the right of ways were sufficient to let us across one party to the other but since we own both of them it's really not a problem and i think maybe making that more clear is probably a good idea for the future so we're perfectly happy with remember digging into the length of limitations on driveways once and and and one issue that came up as was fire access you know if it was so long that and the proverbial tree fell across the driveway could they get their hoses back or not but if the fire tank down at the beginning of his new driveway and that the trucks would be turning around up in the water there with a line from there up to the house so i guess that the supposition is that a tree falls somewhere along the l when you go to the d or b it does trigger a review by those comedy departments as  lot lots of sixty acres so so the answer is no there's there's not a limitation being placed on the density of the site as part of this proposal as it's drafted and that's something for the for the board to consider we talked about that a little bit at the staff level and really felt that the density of limitation was more about subdivision design that and you know moving moving one watt if somebody came in with a future subdivision and proposed to utilize a length of that to this of what today is the proposed driveway greater than thirteen  hundred twenty feet so i'm going to access you know this house that house and it's it's going to have an effect of the pilot seems not to be pulling for i might look at recommending that reduced density at that point so but i but i don't know that somebody and further no ok we're going to close the p eighteen dash sixteen at seven seventeen thank you if you can i make an agenda ok staff is next to this is an application that came before us as an administrative permit and it's also a application for certificate of appropriateness the application is related to the house at thirty eight slate barn drive the slate barn house or the historic house at the corner of slate barn driving west and road and what the outcome is proposing to do is to suspend the rear portion of that house such that a new foundation can be put under some portion of it and this will i i assume look like an awful lot of work is going on when it's happening but the net impact will be that a few courses of the existing siding may not be replaced in the end in other words if one side goes very close to the to the ground right now that that would not be prudent to replace so given the that there would be a minor change in the exteriors appearance of the house staff did recommend that it be reviewed by the historic an architectural advisory committee they recommended approval of a certificate of appropriateness for it with a few with a few conditions basically holding the applicant to but  and thus it's before you as the issuing authority for a certificate of appropriate i've prepared one for you to consider to thank you so how is this portion of the structure currently suspended building would you know you basically tie into those posts and then dig down underneath to put in for us feels a slab garage and what's then what's your relationship and this process builder you know i am the potential buyer at a buyer ok process i'm basically looking to see if this is doable and that's a contingency in advance of the sale got it ok  that's that's where it gets thirty six blair park e p eighteen dash zero six please come forward road this is the parcel that currently includes the building where the post office is located as well as retail in the front of the building facing out on boylston road so this is a proposal to add that building to that site without making modifications to the other building on the site this project was originally reviewed by the d or b as a pre application on november fourteenth of twenty seventeen and initially as a discretionary permit on february thirteenth of twenty eight  at that time the dear be made some further recommendations in response to the design they were shown at that meeting and the applicant has since reworked the building design and made some changes in response to those comments which they are prepared to show you tonight the staff has also brought those changes back to the historic an architectural advisory committee for their input and i'll go over that in just a second but just to really really boil it down the primary concern expressed out of the deer be back in february had to do with the mass of the building in particular it mass as it faces williston road and so you may recall the original design had the four storey facade a little closer to williston road with a small covered entry just sort of in between that facade and lowest in the road so i'll let the applicant go through all the details of it but what they're showing there is the design you saw in february but what the applicants have rosenau is a two story element on the front of the building coming up to the setback line instead of the full foot four story mass that element includes some of the common areas of the hotel with some glazing a pitched roof element that wasn't there before and then a covered entry beyond that extending out to the edge of the set back at the edge closest to the multi use path there's been some changes in the arrangement of some of the exterior treatments as  keep in with that and the applicant has updated three dimensional renderings of the site showing just site with landscaping at a kind of certain level of maturity and with the leaves on them things like that for the board to consider so most of the recommended findings and conclusions and conditions are identical to what the board saw before we still have compliance on the basics standards of the bylaws we did before related to things like parking lighting building height reminding you that this is a four story building maxing out at fifty two feet above average finish grade and that's because it's taking advantage of a heightened sense of related to providing a minimum of thirty percent of the parking demand in a structure in this case underneath the building and so the updated review we did have a hack meeting the hack members in attendance at that meeting felt that there were no additional recommendations required i did have a member who did not attend that meeting who sent me some of his own comments after the meeting which i've attached because they're essentially like public comment from from anybody read we give them to you but they were not ones that full hack considered they are related to the design of your chapter in the board might want to think about some of those one particular thing that missed forest did notice was that there was not an airlock and i assume he means an airlock on the entry that faces willesden road so the board should think about that think about whether you would consider that a a principal entrance are requiring that iraq treatment the other ones are related to the variety of color materials whether any things of dead wall and the context and form of the building which i think is the main issue the board's been wrestling with from the beginning so you still have i front of you recommended findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval they would be based on the applicants revised submission tonight with any other changes the board wants to make or feedback the board wants to give the outputs about the revised design and i'll stop there and let you guys start getting into the details ok so where are the comments from mr morris that's fairly very final page of your packet ok so why don't you walk us through the design from the previous mean and machine just that you are proposing in response to the to the feedback that you sixty five sixty five feet wide and because of the fifty steps we created a two story bump except a building back another ten and a half feet and it goes up another thirty four story to kind of produce a mas facing two way we created more of a covered covered porch patio area around due to a we just first first drawing on the right don't quite see it but the covered covered porch entry was maybe back we had more glass we try to make it more pressing friendly by moving the lounge in the finish area towards route two so that interaction there works well so the first floor we kind of broke up the whole first floor is not a long ha lway we have we have  you'd be kind of show me where the vertical line of the face of the building was in relation to the main mass of the building now make a quick correction the the main part of the building is in the same place as it was before the only thing that has changed is that we put the covered porch on the outside so the the four floors has stepped back from the of just just to be just shift everything to of so i ve just to be clear so there's that so the whole building could move to feet right and in fact i mean what happened when we read vamps this footprint was that the whole thing got a little bit shorter so you living to tell you that i think this rendering is significantly more appealing concerns about lateral angles or access we didn't get any comments like that in this case and looking at the site plan i think you're closer to want to say you're closer to actually furniture almost maybe maybe not maybe you've got a little more proximity but between the existing building in the hotel you mean you do have a full width you know two way drive i've heard comments from people i know that say are they really going to put a hotel is it ever going to get on there to see how fluids as one of the plans i mean people we've taken comments from the public about this site over the years they've all been related to the vehicle access in and out of a post office which when people do that they do they really don't touch any of the rest of the site they drive into the post office they drive out and it just has to find a place where people are in a parking space for five or fewer minutes and there's a lot of turnover and there's a lot of vehicle conflict related to that none of that's proposed to be touched as part of this proposal through here and they have a small loading dock rate here where they would you know load in on those as needed and some of them would would park usually along here or they would park along this the side on the existing plan and then this is a two way so they can just go back out here or if they choose can go a long way to get the light gets a closer to get to quicker to get through to them but they have a loading dock here and the maneuvers they back into that dock yeah they well it's a it's like this one of the small ones not like a long loading dock or trail or anything like that it's like when those one that gets the progress that's all we see on there is mail trucks and they probably have probably five five or six of those lead part overnight and then they leave it on site and then they just kind of go in and out through here throughout the day it seems like this is more of an ascetic thing but it seems like the two got apples are too tight to the it seems like they really crowd out the it's like hidden how to get into the into the heloc if you could pull those apart a little bit more and  enough to support the troops from the hotel in addition to that town traffic impact other questions winter as soon as we can get our permit is the answer is there a separate science applications coming in for this or so you reviewed at the is identified uniquely in the staff's recommendations and i don't believe that's in this package that is correct we did it in the last packet we didn't prepare a new one for you so that's an oversight on part what i can do is i would recommend you have the applicant go over the changes we didn't have any recommended modifications to the last plan and if it's possible i can probably take a the numbers that have changed in relation to the report repaired last time and give that to you tonight if you want to consider it tonight that's fine if you if you would rather we bring it back to you at a future meeting we can do that too if  the changes are minor my recommendation would be to try to do it as a package with the cycling approval i agree with the changes are minor to or break into this package yes i will see if i can make something hotel sign just square footage of the words and at the time to be twenty four square feet we're now proposing those three to be forty two square feet right so what that does it is forty two three times forty you to each three forty two square feet so our originally our original sign area proposed was three hundred twenty three point seven square feet now we're proposing three hundred eighty nine point seven square feet we have an allowable maximum potential sign area of four hundred sixty point eight square feet so we are still under the amount allowed the reason we increase the size was to make it more in scale with the building and more visible from the road than the words at twenty four square feet were pretty small in the original proposal so on your elevation you can see a kind of fits inside of that break i do have a copy of the report we prepared for you before and what we would do without is in the recommended conditions of approval we would change signs to be from twenty four to forty two square feet in the table in condition three following we would change the total that same condition from three twenty three point seven to eighty nine point seven and then in the motion for approval we would identify hearing there were thirteen twenty eighteen and april and twenty  there are two more directional signs that we added sign are we increase the number of sign are from six point three to twelve point three square feet and we added a sine w but after i'd have to adjust that mack that complete total three to nine did your three to nine and count that includes that includes  sunny's i want to see the mass confusion when the people driving in both directions trying to i don't go to the main entrance specially in the winter feet we don't regulate content that's that's very intentional and keeps us on the right side of the constitution as well as hell and i'm not going to you know when when signs change in a property has a master  we do require an administrative signed permit for that and that's to ensure that things like sign lighting and placement and all those other things remain in compliance with the town's rules in the master site so you get a pink room with a yellow get out or c it's more likely to come up when there's a multi tenant property and you deal with a lot of you know you have a whole range of corporate tenants that all have their people a typical sign and it can be a little bit jarring if you know some of them a type of sign and some of them are you know some are a panel and some are individual letters and some are this and some are that and you know you can control it down to the point where i've been to a shopping center before where all of the signs had to be in the same font and literally there were no been that controlling the location and size and also having a prohibition on internal illumination has been enough to bring some consistency to the side packages we see ok so we've gone over proposed changes we've gone over a proposed building modification modifications to address the topics raised at the previous meeting is there anything else people just to stop and rest out or whatever  yes as authorized by w d b six point six point three i john have moved our move to the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted in all company materials including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards by staff for the review of the d p eighteen dash zero six and approve the discretionary permit subject to conditions about this approval authorizes the applicant to file file final plans obtain approval of th plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans of which this approval is based we would like to remove condition two as a condition number twenty one and condition number with the dates of the public hearings that you mention it was february thirteenth that's why i stumbled it was every thirteenth two thousand and eighteen and april tenth but i believe there was also a november date that the november date was the pre application and i think we we haven't typically put the table has been revised such that science to you and v are now forty two square feet six square feet sign s is twelve point three square feet a new sign w has been appropriate national appropriateness is there a motion yes as authorized by d v d v six point six three i didn't turn or move the wall to novell who are you board having reviewed the applicant application submitted in all company materials including the recommendation for the counts talked in the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the west moved by law and having heard and do we consider the testimony presented at the public hearing april tenth two thousand eight hundred except create a permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based thank you is there a second second john second to any further discussion all those in favor high post hearing on motion carries is there a motion to approve the minutes from the d or b meeting dated march twenty seventh two thousand and eight