town of wilson's development review board there are four items on the agenda for tonight we're going to start off with d p fourteen dash zero six amendment number one for mr this is a request for a discretionary permit or a proposed amendment to a three lot residential subdivision located in the areas using object properties located on hard stone lane which is accessed from a golf course board has reviewed this request the applicant is proposing a change to the previously approved site plan which requires a discretionary permit meant because this shared driveway was recently renamed to hart stone lane in september twenty seventeen we've included a chart just to avoid any confusion between former addresses and current addresses the pre application review for the three lot subdivision was conducted in february two thousand and twelve march twenty third teen this project didn't receive ministry of permit to build a house the projects located in the area z d however the ten point four five acre paired parcel is just below the ten point five acre threshold of  the seventy five percent open space requirement thus it's not consider no open space subdivision lot one at six point two five acres contains the existing house and is not affected by this proposal to a lot three each a little over two acres or new building lots approved or created by d p fourteen zero six the applicants proposing to increase the size law to building envelope from twenty two thousand seven hundred twenty square feet to twenty nine thousand nine hundred sixty six square feet which brings it to thirty two point five percent of the two point one acre lot he's proposing to enlarge the building envelop by shifting the southern boundary of the building low and the lope further southward the applicants proposing to increase the size of the lot three building envelope from fifteen thousand four hundred fifty seven square feet to seventeen thousand one hundred twenty seven square feet or eighteen per eighteen point seven percent of the by condition number nine of d p fourteen and six so the applicant stated that the proposed amendment wouldn't have an adverse impact on the force that habitat identified previously submitted habitat to sturgeon success meant the assessment notes in the area of wildlife use in the northeast corner of lot three but the proposed change in building envelopes doesn't encroach on that area its planning staffs opinion that the proposed modification of the building and lopes both lots and the plot to and not three can meet the criteria of no adverse impact to the significant wildlife habitat area  as specified under wilston development biologic after twenty seven as far as comments from other departments apartment of public works had no comments for the project  wilston fire department had no comments on the williston conservation commission reviewed the project on october eighteenth of twenty seventeen and responded with the following  stands the w c c recommends the boundary of the know of the fifty foot no cut buffer a lot to unlock three should be monumental as a condition of approval that was carried over from the previous conditions of approval the proposed amended building envelope for law to should be adjusted so that it incorporates the circular driveway  the actual houses that were proposing to build them last three years while in the construction home lot two hopes to begin this fall were in agreement with the proposed conditions as written a discretionary permit to five lott residential development for building lots one open space lot thirty five acres  applicant an opportunity to submit a formal said a revised like plans in advance and we also obtained a second legal opinion from the town's attorney in response to the obtained growth management allocation this past march and now is in for potentially a formal approval of a permit to subdivide there's a couple of issues at stake  here whine is part of what the applicant is requesting is to create building lots in an area that was not designated to be built in back when this subdivision was approved twenty two years ago  some of the proposed lots as they've been configured in addition actually encroach into what had been defined as the no build area back in the original subdivision in addition  there's the question about whether or not the street as it exists fieldstone drive is brought up the terminus of it is brought up to the town's current standard which is to go call the sac it was originally built with a hammer had terminus which was allowed at one time is no longer the town's current standard the legal opinions both the ones that we have tamed from our attorney as well as the applicants attempt to address those issues and some of these issues were discussed at the at the previous d r p meeting suffice to say that the public works position in terms of that the applicant if this is approved would need to meet the current public work standard that's been adopted by the select board their position has not changed the planning staff position in support of that position has also not changed the town's attorney position on that is also not changed so we're all still agreement on that point the larger issue i think which is was raised by counsel going back to his original his original opinion is there's a serious question is whether this should be entertained at all and i think this raises some really serious concerns it attempts to break new ground that i think has  potentially very dangerous the facts and a potential precedent that could affect just what the town is trying to do in terms of our development in the agro zoning district which represents somewhere between seventy five and eighty percent of the land area of the town so so so i think there's a lot at stake here and you know our position i think is pretty clear we're opposed to it we've recommended that you that you deny it i mean we first i think i strongly disagree with all of ken's actives about how serious this is and how you know what a terrible precedent this would set you know this is a great little intell project regulations that stripped buildings in designated open space that structure has been removed and is not proposed as part of this project that was one discussion point that we had  as ken mentioned it was discussion last time lots seven and eight located very here they're building envelopes encroached into this nineteen ninety previously they did encroach lightly live building envelopes into the no bill zone that back setback lines for both loads and lots have been moved south so that they now fall on the no build zone so that there is no building before i think in september the septic rules have had changed where we need to deprive provide replacement mounts systems we don't need to do that anymore so we were left with an abundance of waste water there is that one being implemented so we thought why don't we add a few more homes to this development utilize those memphis and still respect the open space in the real character of the property so that's what you're looking at here  with regards to the hammer had to make sure we're all clear we're not proposing a new road this is a town road it was accepted in twenty fifteen we're just proposing lots with frontage on th road again if we were proposing to build a new road we certainly would agree with public works that it would have to be built to today's standards but we don't understand and never have the desire for that recommendation was not supported and that was part of your vision and you know the applicant moved forward with the understanding that that decision would be upheld moving forward so as you know after preamp that's when we start spending the big bucks and doing all that in a storm water waste water bottling property flats and you know as a result of that we move forward with this layout and since then we've got a state wastewater permit issued for the project we've got a state stormwater permit issued we've got a construction general permit that's been issued for this project we're just waiting of all the attorneys it's posturing we think you know what's said here undocumented it preamp is important and we took it for face value that we wouldn't change mine on on such an important issue as that roadway issue so we got it what we thought was clear direction that you didn't support public works so we moved forward  any research i can't imagine that this is the first project that's come in for subdivision that hasn't been part of a previous subdivision and i just can't believe that so i don't see what question that we've s  so so that's what we're here to do we know of no restrictions in the bylaws that say we can't receptive i this property staff hasn't provided any  documentation nor has the town attorney that we're in violation of any by law there's no sighting of any sections that this project isn't meeting it's simply speculative that they think they have a serious concern  you know no i'm not an attorney but that there just hasn't been anything sighted that would say this doesn't meet the bylaws in fact the tone and turning in of last review when or whatever you want to call  last paragraph says that you know there is really by a lot doesn't address this situation it's silent on and that you may or may not look at it based so that's part of the public record the town attorney seemed to indicate that that was still an open question and i don't know whether he was supplied with our stock club hylands analysis or not but certainly staff had  it so that's a little question we have is why didn't he comment we had to go buy it when clubs and else has already done it yet he still throws that up is maybe a test that you folks should consider as to whether we could subdivide this property but again i think in you know my closing argument or overview i just think what what's really significant here in all the town documentation the staff reports the legal opinions leading up to a night's meeting there is no cited references to where this project is open it up try to make it quick as they can and no times yes and first off i just one of the find out my lawyer jeremy farkas wanted to know if you guys had received his seventy five page document he asked me to ask you ok i'll be happy so i would just like to go over my comments on the stuff the staff notes with you and then after that a background summary of how the issues have gotten to this point from our perspective and but i just want to make a couple of quick points here you may have noticed in our lawyers letter from last month that mentions that crystal and i have about thirty five thousand dollar investment reasonably possible way to make this work if the roadway needs to be modified this is a decision that can have serious consequences to real on real people further  cristal i feel that the taxpayers of this town which are most of us here deserve to be treated with respect and fairness from the town to which it supports financially and to which it contributes socially crystal and i have been supportive to this town for over twenty five years and we will continue to be positive and are contributing source in both of these areas i'll try to go through this in an organized fashion from here on feel free to interrupt if i get ahead or if you need to answer ask any questions just going to project history second paragraph my comment that june eleven as to why we drop that i just wanted to explain that's what happened into the open space touch with what doug mentioned disagree with labeling the  no build zone as open space the nine hundred ninety five no build zone was not defined other than and its description as recorded on the platte which was boundary line of lot five land use restriction area no build zone north of this line that was the only definition that is ever been recorded for that no built zone and we are adhering to this description by not proposing any building or envelopes in the no build zone moving further the conservations commission's section just want to make clear that our current revise proposal it hears to those requests moving further to the public works section at the end before the fire department section i just want to say that last statement about the legal opinion i think it's arbitrary doug said we're not asking for street design approval we have pointed out exhaustively that we're proposing three new lots with driveway access to an existing public roadway ok so moving further down to the fire department section at the end our interpretation of this revised statement from the fire chief is that he does not require a pond or a buried tank no discussion section on the first set sense where he talks about we're proposing to further subdivide land that had already been  corrections the next sentence talks about the author's eight sub ninety five ten created three lots it was five watts and it says that there was open space area defined on the pl legal opinions at the end of that first paragraph my comment is both of these legal opinions were retained from both of the legal opinions of the town lawyer but retain from our receipt in review for several weeks until just days prior to the hearings leaving us with no time to respond and little time to prepare this is in my opinion just unprofessional and you do have time to prepare and ask that question again down the road  recommendations at the end of that paragraph before findings of fact just simply want to say we have jack to the recommendation crystal and i request the b to approve our current proposal to consider all of the points we may have made consistently with support of the public and which we have had to turns with throughout the previous two portions of this subdivision process moving on to findings of fact number one the correction three eighty six fieldstone drive is the nine one one address of existing lot five three eighty six down the number three findings fact believe this is irrelevant there was no expiration or time limits imposed on the completion of our subdivision or the roadway the fact that we took almost twenty years  complete was our parag and it could be looked at as admirable from the standpoint of slowing the growth consistent with the accepted overall philosophy of growth in vermont and w a number for just a correction again has explained earlier there's not an existing lot there was just an area on lot five defined on the flat as in  number five another correction here the proposed design is consistent with the language of the plat number six correction it's not a lot five lot eight it's a lot six and modified lot five are located near the end of the roadway we point out that although this hammer design is no longer the standard for new roadway design and willesden we are not proposing any new roadway design conclusions of law section at the end we disagree with the statement of honored and it here to all of the current standards that apply no specific sections have been cited even further the conditions of approval so want to point out in the still and correct as we pointed out the last meeting the correct net minimum number is twenty six point five eight acres which we have met not the seven point nine five acres of the ten point six that's thirty five point four four item b we have jack to this condition of the public works come and ask that it be removed in consistence with the pre application improvement number ten number ten we concur we present non conflicting material that is consistent with the decision of the d r be at the pre application the both motion i just want to say i we have jacked to some parts of the motion if you'd like to take a note you're welcome but i just want to point out that line five  six requests to please omit accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law proposed by staff for the review of the d p sixteen dash twenty three more requests in that line six please replace the word deny with approved line six please add d p sixteen dash twenty before discretionary permit and finally on line seven please change five watt residential development to subdivision and i just try to quickly wrap things up with the background history and try to put a little light on why we're having these issues spring of twenty thirteen in preparation for the initial one lat  i choose and i'm going to skip down further to i choose to refrain from offering the details of this conversation in due respect to p w however his behavior was no way for a town official to present himself nobody deserves that kind of treatment i'm referring to myself here i was provoked and put on the spot to defend against his behavior in only a way that came to me at the moment i regret the way the entire conversation was handled dazed to follow f t met with town manager t m and planner t m was very accommodating and planner was also t m said that p w would be spoken to or something like that and it would be handled appropriately shortly after this meeting the planner or planner confirmed that fiel doctor approved roadway design was vested from the town standpoint and could be pursued the conditions of ninety five approval were recognized in effect including a requirement to provide a letter of credit and drafts of the roadway heat and dedication skipping further i'm going to skip a few things here to something that another incident that bears weight on this why we're here thin closings of sales of lots three and four fields non drug mr maddox asked f d a to go to the town after the meeting and asked planner if he could do it a ministry  change on an easement was shown on the plat once again this is my comment i choose to refrain from presenting the details of that discussion out of due respect to the planner but i can summarize by saying that the planner was angry speaking loudly in close proximity to others in the office i did not engage or retaliate but simply put both hands up backed away said that it was ok and left we haven't spoken to each other sense except earlier tonight when we walked in we set off so that was nice now here we are at the discretionary permit hearing tonight trying to make sense of some of these issues that have gotten that hand after this verbal presentation of my testament i submit a plea for the d r v to approve our d d sixteen dash twenty discretionary permit with the corrections that i have offered and also request to the town not to engage in further legal actions sincerely frank and crystal th i don't recall john afraid yeah now if they wanted it at the end the very end because they didn't want to why they didn't want that no they didn't want the wise disturbed plowing purposes they wanted at the very end at the the v of the on did you did you say that cul de sac so forget about money and the back of the background and the issues is the culdesac itself the design the layout of it i thought you said it kills the project or something why's that public works ever stated while why or if there's anything other than it not being the current standard why the hammerhead is not acceptable they have trouble plowing have trouble i mean yes it has to do with with plowing and turning vehicles around and that's that's why the current standard is it is a culture that  for what it's worth you know other other towns continue to have the hammerhead is it as their design standard i'm the last question that i guess is is i don't i don't fully understand what the problem is mining in this so called highlands kind of out there but it seems like that was an issue that came up like a fifty and i guess it would be helpful to understand why you can't reopen a subdivision was what went on the plot when you look through the record it was discussed as a type of open space and so it was it's clear to me when you read through the record that was the planning commission at the time we didn't have to be they were looking for you know to to achieve some sort of preservation of open space as part of the approval and it was also contemplated that there would be this area where somebody might be able to build something like an extraction and so with the application is requesting now it's there they're sort of chipping away at that and and i think that goes to the heart of comments which is that you know you had conditions of approval that were public hearings there were no there were no appeals and so these things may seem small but they were all part of an overall concept and approval the town's regulations clearly were not exactly the same as they are now but a lot of what we have today is the seeds of them go back certainly to the you know to the ninety's and things i would characterize them have evolved over over the years so so to me that's a that that's an important question is that somebody that the wisdom of the planning commission in the regulations that the time was here is the building lots here is these areas that are going to be protected begin to be protected as open space for any number of those this area where we're going to you know reserve for somebody might put some type of an outbuilding on it and now it looks been requested now attempts to undo that's and so and you know my my concern is that the whole preservation of open space in this zone in district for any lot greater than ten acres is a key and core principle of what we try to achieve and how we review and approve residential developments residential subdivisions so so so so that's so that they have it is where my you know where my  preserve another thing i just had to add was in ninety five we were restricted to five watts because one hundred fifty test pits or better were dug and forty four acres and that was it we could only get ten and we needed ten for five lots we wanted to put seven or eight lots on their own lawn so when you talk about the ninety's in the intent yeah that was our intent our intent with that of a neighborhood like that and something like this i'm sure what it came out of it i mean probably not even as good because the rules of straight and now i mean you know and let's not forget the permitted density on this property is in so staff is over exaggerating that they were raping and pillaging this poor little property and we were providing more than seventy five percent open space and the rest of it is  saying is that what's being proposed is attempting to undo some of the elements of what was approved as part of the whole of that s u v ninety five ten so as doug has correctly pointed out there is the no build area there's also that area that i mentioned just a couple of moments ago that was reserved for out buildings and now we're talking about carving out building lights in that so that's a different thing and my point would be that all of these things were designed to go together and you don't cling the layout of the street you know all those things they were you could look at individual components of it but all that stuff was designed to go together  so that's that's really what i'm referring to is that so we have on the one hand there's we have lots to portions of to propose lots to encroach into what was designated as the no build addition both of those lots are being proposed in areas that were never conceived to be for building areas for houses that was for outbuildings and given then the now on the plot it seems clear that those were really thought of as being in support of the open space or the no build zone which i which i believe may be prime maxwells as well so so that's really that's where the area here where anything could have went in there anything this was a thirty five acre fire and that designated to be a fire we're proposing that lot right no buildings are going to be there these people right here who are going to be part of this association are going to have preserved distant views forever because this is protected and they've expressed that to me a number of times at this that's very important to them as mayor of fact i had to put it in the deed for a lot for that there couldn't be anything in his view shit so they're elated that this is going away and we're just taking a small section of it and we're just like we said over and over i think we're just improving things out there really anything green hansing the intent of the ninety five and i just go back to you know that the byline is the rulebook for you folks you know where does it say in the violence that we're doing something that shouldn't be done it doesn't doesn't exist or staff would have found it going against washington board if this were to be improved we're centrally subdividing single want five as a new subdivision into four building lots and maintain the open space from the initial approval what happens what about the rest of the land is the open space a separate lot is it the first of all there there was no original open space was totally private well with that with that area that they couldn't have no build yet no that's fine we he's building a house and all right and susan green live in lot for three and four had a meeting with them before we decided to do this you know proposing the open space and i suggested i said hey look i think i want to turn a lot five into common land most of it you guys want i mean what do you think and they couldn't believe it they wanted to know if i was going to ask them for money i'm like nominate asking you for my i'm just asking you if you you vacant right now still we own that that's two that's a lot three and that's a lot for ok this entire thing here currently is lot five but this is probably not having what i'm in only having open space to those for lots that's fine too i mean if somehow legally we can't accommodate them but they'll be happy anyway knowing that it's a non built zone so the homeowners association with this neighborhood well officially it's hasn't been until the approvals been issued it won't be it hasn't been registered with the state but everything's been prepared bylaws and e one member from each lot so if there's eight lots total there's going to be eight members that's the proposal and right now i'm the crystal and i are on lots one two and five and steve and i run the other two excel there's three of us basically so the each way would be the owner of the common lands that the homeowners association would be the wood on the common land is that a lot nine sort of separate law it's labeled c c one thing there is to see one k are owned by lots one two three and eight and the plaque clearly shows that all four of those lots have an easement over that entire parcel for future maintenance ne i'm going to ask you again given choice you can we can close the hearing and or we can continue probably another four weeks and you can yet to shunpike road if you are headed north northwest on marshall avenue the proposed building is currently designed seventeen thousand one hundred forty five square feet includes all of the things that you would expect come along with a new building parking signage outdoor lighting and other appurtenances we are in the industrial zoning district west better area services is in allowed to use in the zone in district subject to site plan approval by the development of your board in any conditions on that approval necessary to generate compliance with the bylaws quick note this is a pre application meeting this is intended under our by a law to be a concept level review there are a few things the d r v can decide to request that the applicant bring at the next stage of review as part of their pre application recommendations and weapons delineation functional assessment shared parking study traffic study  there's a few other determinations i've listed there that are really political this one related to in field of elements transfer of development rights or specific plan that the deer be can also apply at pre application this property is currently undeveloped it's a big open field the subject lots currently have the same tax personal id number in the western system so certain maps if you were to go look for them they actually show up as one but there is a dividing line there and it's a line that was created as part of the original production park subdivision in the area as i mentioned the proposed use is an allowed one in the i was asked the building is a little under eighteen thousand square feet at this point we don't have a whole lighting plan nor would we expect one but the staff does know that outdoor lighting will require a complete lighting plan photo mentor plan showing compliance with all of the maximum intensity no light trast pass uniformity ratios at set or at their required under our bylaws in terms of setback in landscaping i've tried to identify for the board in the applicant what the likely allowable landscape buffers are for this project in most of williston side and rear yard offers are determined by a combination of the intensity of the proposed use the intense of the adjacent use and the amount of landscaping that's proposed to be planted so the more alike two things are the smaller the setback the more you are willing to plant in a buffer in terms of density of vegetation the smaller the setback i have identified adjacent uses including vacant land that would be the other lot that subject to the boundary line adjustment public way marshall avenue where we're looking at just a street trees scenario and a typical zoning setback of thirty five feet warehousing to the south that's the fed ex facility i have identified lands to the west as residential there is kind of a mix of uses back there one of those uses is residential and that that's the one that generates the greatest demand for a setback so that's the one of identified in the pre application dose for the or to consider if there is also a requirement that we're identifying at this stage parking lot landscaping so there's a requirement that a minimum of five percent of the area of any parking lot in the landscaping and that that landscaping includes shade trees that provide shade over the parking lot there's no proposed outdoor storage at this stage outdoor storage is typical in a lot of industrial uses probably not typical for this use and we wouldn't necessarily expect the applicant to need to identify outdoor storage areas on a plan like this in terms of access the applicant would be proposing to access by a new drive on marshall avenue it's a town a road and we would look for public works to review and approve a recommend approval of that access under their standards there are new vehicle trips that are expected with this new use some of those would be during the pm peak hour which is the design our use by the town in assessing its transportation impact fee this is also the stage of review where the deer be made to term and whether they would like to see a traffic impact study or other traffic impact information submitted by the  as part of the discretionary permit and i'd i'd recommend the board ask the applicants about what they're in to support a trip generation is what their operation looks like during that pm peak to try to get a feel for whether you want more information or whether you just are comfortable with an administrative fee happening when a permit to build is reviewed there are parking requirements in williston's bylaws and they are expressed as generally both a minimum and a maximum meaning there's generally one correct number of parking spaces for any site for use and that that number can then generally be reduced or increased based on compliance with a couple different elements of the byelaw in the case of what the applicant has shown here they've shown about eighty five parking spaces that uses a medical office standard to generate the parking number of provided the deer be with a table using the veterinary clinic standard which is significantly less and i put that out there you know i use the term compliance summary in my parking table but really we're having a pre application discussion and i think it would be good for the d or b to take any testimony they like and give the opportunity direction they'd like based on whether the parking generation at this type of clinic looks more like a traditional that clinic or looks more like a higher volume of human medical u so with that we have both required baseline parking spaces handicapped accessible spaces outdoor bicycle spaces long term bicycle spaces and of trip facilities meeting commuter showers all of those things are shown in the applicant's preliminary floor plan and there's generally showing provision of more of all those things because again they're using a higher baseline parking number than than i might apply just looking it up in the book there is no shared parking proposed there's there's no other user on the site or nearby where you would expect a shared party arrangement to work if if the lot next door was being developed or being developed the same time there might be an opportunity there for shared parking but we don't have it today the opt in is proposing connect to municipal water and sewer service and in the public works committee member you know that water connection and sewer connection fees will acceptable circulation around the site when we get to discretionary permit this project will be subject to design review so our design review district which we normally think of as being things that are either here in the village or down in taft corners does actually also cover properties that have frontage on marshall avenue so there will be some review by the historic an architectural advisory committee related to that generally design standards for a building like this it needs to have a couple of windows facing the street entryway needs to have an airlock no dead walls i can't think of anything in chapter twenty two that would be problematic districts development agreement a complete draft development agreement guaranteeing all of the required public and private improvements will be required as part of the discretionary permit application there there is a boilerplate development agreement in our bylaw the applicants can make use of if they'd like and i just know that because sometimes it takes people by surprise when they come in to submit the discretionary permit that's simply a way of talking about bonding for those improvements and guarantee that they get done in to this town standards we did receive review from police fire and public works for this project there were no comments from the police department public works and fire comments attached and generally show serve typical comments from public works show all utilities provide documentation related to storm water permuting pay water and sewer fees the there is a discussion of the twenty foot wide bike head easement along marshall avenue and the need for a right of way permit to access the town's roads and the fire department generally knows that the project will be subject to their play interview standards and calls out a few of those requirements going forward so i have prepared a recommendation that this be authorized by the d or b to be moved forward to discretionary permit review i did leave you with a  shower shall not recommendation related to the parking number i don't think the board and the op could need to nail it down to an exact number tonight but i hope that what the board gets to see  discretionary permit and what the applicant hears back from them isn't a total surprise based on some preliminary discussions about parking you can have tonight and i'll stop there thank you very much telling your  maybe a dozen staff members then absolutely i think that's that's appropriate and the coming in guns are in the day that we have you know probably sixty five staff members that stand twenty four seven and we're the only hospital that's open on sunday to receive emergencies saturday afternoon so much heavier volume and parking during those times you have an existing say down we do we're on commerce street and for me it really does seem silly to build the last twenty really sure you can use them so that we were trying to provide proof to you that we could build them if the demand really was there we would we could accommodate everything in the se but we're trying to regular clinic and you have specialists as a chip leader training for chemo at the treating for surgeries or other things that are going on you don't have those kind of things happening a regular petrone office doing it seems like if it's it's still seems like it's going to be under the haiti that we were coming up with simple have a look at let's see if we can nail that down a little bit and i think you know the peak hour aspect of this business ask for it so you need to make some sort of determination on that as part of  requirement by their hands he barked i was looking at you know the type one and two buffers i think it is on the north and south side of the property of the rear of the property which is to get my orientation there on the left hand side that that's the zigzag of existing vegetation there so that and that's quite a distance of that size of buffer there seems less of an issue a lot of the planting is really just and hence in the building of the property you'll see there's a heavy dash line running around the property it's really sort of a walking path her clients and staff you know the animals that are in the hospital don't have a lighting plan lighting the parking lot and we do have a question here and it's probably in the regulations but on the rear of the building which is the north side of the building i was saying there because it is a twenty four hour building they're going to  when someone is out there at two in the morning i think the town would support that we don't require people to turn lights on their parking lights could limit how bright they can be and that it's keyed to some sort of hours of operation and you know maybe it could be that that like let's say you may have part of the parking lot that know i'm sure somebody will talk about in terms of you know for the staff at midnight you know what do we want to light at that point right because you want people to feel comfortable coming in the building with the staff to feel comfortable but we may move things around  manufactured you know the drive up to the building and park there and this little one usually want to be sure you know what's out there it's somewhat screened by the projection of the building over there but has the potential to meet the requirements of the by law provided it's not in the step back area and it scream from view it's a parking lot a loading dock well i think that the bigger question i would be inclined to say it's it's it's a it's a piece of accessory equipment at the question becomes i think one of the questions is do you calculate the area of that is part of the metric by which you evaluate everything else another words as if you said well there's sort of an assumption that ordinarily that would be in the building and so you would size the building for this piece of equipment as well as the space you would need for the pats as well as for the staff and all the other examining rooms etc etc so you you're you're externalizing this piece of equipment which is essential to the operations so it suggests to me that somehow it should that square footage should be used as part of the calculus and then afterward say as long as there was some sort of you know screening to soften the view from the periphery of the property i don't know that we would have any objections beyond that as i said the worst case as you call it outside storage in the by law allows if it were indeed part of a building that you were then including in the in the footprint and the area of the building then it seems to me that the screening is what's required for the site and for the rest of the building so your nine foot buffer would would suffice to screen that piece of the construction it would have to be included on the elevations and the building that we would be commenting on as part of  that but still allows you to pull it out if you need to with this be attached to the building with the there being a connection so you get from the building into the you have to go outside with nothing now i would also point out that at the moment that function is inside think some human hospital shared the m r i they moved it every week between two different hospitals so it's it's not mobile so if you had people parked in those two spaces that are marked as bases how would you know you'd have to have to have a way to pull it right out you know hospital and we're specialist so it's nice to be able to bring in local community of veterinarians and do talks and generous and you know things along those lines to educate them a just too flat so that was always thought of as one that's going to be infiltrated anyway and obviously needed new permanent so that it doesn't make sense it is shit shit it's a bit of strength permit will be required proposed development would add a thirty would add thirty one one bedroom units to the site which is currently developed with a fourteen thousand square foot office building and associated parking et site as well as how much growth management allocation is needed to go forward to a discretionary permit so you might have thirty one front doors off that in terms of the welling unit equivalence when you start to assess it for density and growth management is the first time the d or b has reviewed this proposal development was originally approved under site plan approval ninety five dash to s and was later amended a few times after that including the addition of a master sign plan etc there were two building footprints on this site previously approved and partially constructed you can see  the squares on the north end of the site those are those are foundations or frost walls sticking out of the ground that don't have have buildings on them and that's the general location of where this building is proposed  as i mentioned before this is pre application it's a concept level review in the case of a residential project the purpose of both authorize the applicant to move forward but in this case to growth management district this new building containing thirty one communities thirty one one bedroom unit cost a little bit before and below this is understood as fifteen and one half to well in unit equivalents for the purposes of determining residential density and growth management allocations there is new site worked related to this the site has to be reworked both to locate the building as well as to create some grease space around it sidewalks and access so moving on to residential density we're using this dwelling in brooklyn looking at the size of this lot we have two point zero seven acres none of the acreage is one buffer or is it in any kind of steep slope which means all of the acreage counts toward the maximum allowed density on the water so under the taft corners requirements there's both a minimum allowed density for  residential development and not allowed density and a maximum allowed that you could only get by transferring development rights in from the rural part of town and so that middle number the net allow density based on a growing equipment is fifteen point there are some general site planning elements outdoor lighting will require a lighting plan setbacks and landscaping will be required in this case for an attack corner zoning district with a general requirement that buildings will be pulled up to the sidewalk  and that landscaping is more of an urban or street tree type gratian i did have a conversation today with the applicant about the possibility of the trees on night lane maybe being relocated into the greenbelt between the sidewalk and the street because there may they may not work between the building the sidewalk that would that would put them in the right of way of night lane and there's a there's a conversation to be to happen with the public works about whether they're willing to accept that in their in their right of way or not work concept level here so it's suffice to say there need to be some street trees exactly where they land are bylaw accesses to the sidewalks along those streets and in between the commercial building and the proposed residential building in the parking lot of proposed residential buildings so those are all things that are accessed chapter wants to see is good downstream connections from all of the building a traffic impact be for this project related to the pm peak hour vehicle trips generated in this case you know six multifamily housing in our by lot is expected to generate a little over three quarters not seventy five or more you might look for a traffic study group are down around a third of that here terms of parking as i mentioned before you get the minimum and maximum amount of allowed parking if you get that one that one perfect number that can then be adjusted under wilson's bylaws we do have some parking challenges on this site in that you have some existing office uses i did use the office use calculation for the existing building on the site came up with demand for that office use forty nine spaces half per thousand square feet for the fourteen thousand square foot office building and then our multifamily residential standard is one point seven five per  so we have this dwelling unit of brooklyn that we use for density that we use for growth management we don't use it for parking so you can have a two or three a for a six bedroom detached well when you get it generates one point seven five parking spaces per unit you never one better more studio today are by a lot generates the same exact parking demands my calculations are based on that thirty one units times one point seven five is another fifty five parking spaces for a total demand hundred four so right now the applicant is looking at eighty one spaces proposed there is some ability to reduce the commercial parking demand based on proximity to transit in this site but you know i think this is one where the deer being the output will have to talk about coming up with an agreeable number on parking that supportable by our bylaws in order to move forward with adding something of this size to this particular site there are requirements for bicycle spaces long term spaces and different facilities etc those are shown at this point this is pre application we would expect to see those as part of discretionary perm so in terms of signage there's no changes to science proposed there is some storm water treatment on the site  have to be identified firmly as part of discretionary permit and we will need to know about locations for trash and recycling containers and how those will be screened as part of application for discretionary permit a potential elements of a project chosen from until you get up or until you get up to at least five very briefly multiple uses including at least one retail and at least one retail office or residential use of shops on the street facing side of a retail space greater than twenty thousand square feet watching a residential uses structured parking multiple stories wide sidewalks public artwork gets incorporated into an urban park on site renewable energy generation generating twenty five percent or more of the estimated demand of the development or just a standalone urban park  identified a few of the key criteria there the applicant will need to meet in public works as memo asks about showing utilities are providing documentation about stormwater permitting noting that water and sewer allocation fees are required and public works so i have i have prepared recommend ations for if the application and authorization a motion authorizing the applicant to proceed to residential growth management allocation  suggesting that the applicant needs to obtain those fifty and one unit of work once counted or this is a lot no residential use today comes with one unit by right and that's why i've rounded the point five unit off of that so the proposed building had square footage of a little over ten thousand square feet it's roughly about sixty by one sixty you know fairly standard shape and size for the use of building thirty one one this property that the corner of night and day just a little side note only street i've ever named when merv was doing what nervous doing the right way that hey you got a name that some tweaking we can do we'd like to discuss with you whether the one point seven five spaces is an appropriate number you know for one bedroom units or whether the board would consider allowing us to use a lower number to see if we could get a little bit closer to the requirements of bicycle parkings long long term bicycle parking will meet all those who apartments not a concern for us the other issue would like to talk to the board about is the location of the building as it up with the buildings on either side you can see the common you know buildings basically about the same dimension of the right away as the existing commercial building and what's known as a lot too across the street from de laine so we just kind of looked at that visually down through there and kept out of office in the same spot we would object to sliding it a little bit closer you know whether or not that would and we did not submit that as part of the package we just got that the other  existing foundations that are in the ground right now if they could be built as proposed would the size of the trees that have grown there now because if you look at the canopy the way it is increased i don't think you could build the buildings where the foundations are know those trees are actually telling you to push the building away from them to try to save them but you know it would be probably good to get a better opinion on whether you can that we would even still have a chance of doing that or whether we need to save those trees that serve their purpose and we need to replace them with something else and that is it is possible that we could slide the building back some for sure but i think you know you should address in the in the in the lane which helps that which helps a little bit but i think there's on maybe six or eight spaces i spend a lot of time in my office on the weekends and the really scene that are you mornings and stuff you know no i mean it's a discussion that we're going to have as far as staff goes in i mean we are proposing thirty one units so at one point seven five parking spaces per you guys just had a pretty extensive discussion about having too much impervious surface in asphalt and the whole purpose of the the mixed use that we're trying to propose here is that is a shared parking situation which we have not taken you know the numbers that were thrown around are not taking into account any credits for for for she if you reduce the commercial building demand by twenty percent and you take a generation on the units from one point seven five down to one point two five per year right that's that's just me saying there's a there's a path it's not really dramatic to get there but the applicant will need to show you the numbers that back that up and there is an offset for street parking within six hundred feet of a building entrance so that and so if there's street parking adjacent a commercial you can offset some of the commercial that way evades for this project is not overbuild parking and we don't want to see it that this will absolutely and it's and we've done it we've done many i've done many of shared parking projects and  specially with the use it is here which is primarily it said in the commercials the daytime use which is it but it's and then the apartments are traditionally had a nineteen parking use i think it fits very well here with hours of operation for jazzercise but that there's there's plenty of time for that there is not a car in that line at all and so so we can certainly we can certainly do actual car counts in regards to to the uses that are there the other units that we have in the hammock project next door we are you know our units are it's actually i would argue substantially below market rates for one and two better in units and that's why we don't have any vacancies i mean there's still a huge demand in the task corners area for for apartments and that's why we continue to build them so it's the single there are the one using the unit there's a lot of them in for one bedroom so the other there really is a lot of the the a lot of the requests that we get are for one better on mine whether it's not that individuals are trying to save some money or they just they just don't want to means what you maybe it's a little bit of all in terms of the five of nine if you have a clear sense of what kind of to that you need but you have a sense of yeah yeah we do we need to be some discussions you know we've talked about i know  there there is a there's a fountain in the middle but i'm never seen water come out of it so so what what we are planning to do is we've actually contacted a local artist in town who does commission work and we're basically exploring basically doing and replacing the fountain with what would be a public piece of art is name is bruce mcdonald i listen pearlington and he does quite a bit of he does a lot of really neat it's that's also kind of falls in where we want to cite the building how close to the street are far away from the street and that's either going to take away some area in the back or it's going to provide more air in the back so and that's certainly a discussion that we can have not only with public works but we can have it with staff as well and see what their what their suggestions would be we've brought in a couple different sets of final plans for you guys to sign first one's a project you might recall at seventy nine and seven willis and rode the pin tear project  all of those conditions within the plan set there's a plan set showing that the building and the site centrally exactly the same way the board sought a discretionary permit there were a few conditions the board and area north of the rain garden to be open space there's just some some verbal stuff by the attic that i've also had to put a signature block on that should be a part of why they complied with all of that they provided the landscape buffers as specified by the board  there was no condition on the board related to relocating the building i did have the outlook and put the very specific language the board had about the height of the building being above you may remember this that we wanted to be sure that the height all right welcome back to the town of wilson's of eleanor review board is now ten thirty on october twenty fourth out of deliberation you have four items we have four items p fourteen dash zero six amendment number one novak and green do i have a motion yes as authorized by w d b six twenty six point many moved that the wilson development review board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials including the recommendations of the town staff in the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the wilson review of the d p t zero five and authorizes pre application proceed to discretionary permit review we will adjust a couple of the recommendations recommendation number one shall read the applicant shall adjust the parking calculations to reflect demand for a veterinary clinic as described in w d b fourteen the app that shall produce supporting data and calculate  shall produce and present to the board supporting data and calculations will add recommendation number three that can shall conduct a traffic study recommendation number for the applicant shall obtain all necessary stormwater permits and finally recommendation number five the aft shall use a consistent land use designation for all trip generation and parking calculations grade having reviewed the application submitted and all company materials including the recommendations of the town staff and an advisory board required to comment on the application by the wisdom development by law and having heard and duly considered testimony presented at the public hearing october twenty fourth two thousand and seventeen and recommendations proposed by the staff with a review of the p t o for authorize the applicant to apply for residential growth management allocations and we're going to add a recommendation them for seven c to this the applicant shall provide parking information for weekdays and weekends to justify proposed adequacy of eighty one spaces if you do have a second second so you by john