Again, yes All right Good Well welcome everybody we've got a heck of a crowd tonight So again welcome to the town of Wilson's Development Review Board for Tuesday September 12th 2017 we're going to bring the meeting to order at 7 o 4 There's three items on the agenda for tonight. We're going to go a little bit out of order We are going to start with South Burlington Realty that should be an easy one get them in and out before All the yelling and screening starts Okay Sir welcome if you would state your name and your address, please My name is Tim McKenzie. I'm with South Burlington Realty. Our address is 85 Shun pike great Staff go first This is an application for a discretionary permit for South Burlington Realty at 85 Shun pike Road in the industrial zoning district West some of the members may recall this site has a somewhat lengthy history of changes and amendments Reconfigure and add to the building on the site to make it work for multiple tenants and In the course of doing the work already approved by the DRB the applicants added a temporary Overhead door to the east side of the building and in the course of their work found that it was desirable to keep that door and to make access to that door permanent to do that because of the amount of site work and the Overlying conditions of approval It's necessary for the application to come back to the DRB and be amended under this discretionary permit request So that's what you have in front of you The nature of the quest doesn't change the size or shape of the building It adds a door and it changes the site in that it allows a driveway to be paved across What would have been essentially lawn to access that door again on the east side of the building? There are no changes proposed to parking The project remains under any thresholds necessary to require a stormwater permit The kite site is currently served by municipal water and sewer and no changes to that are proposed We're not in the design review district. There are no changes to the approved outdoor storage on the site proposed The site has an approved landscaping plan that will still meet any buffering requirements occasioned by this minor change There's no significant changes to outdoor lighting or signage. You're not in a flood zone You have a stream unnamed stream on the western property boundary and that has been buffered already and there are no Incursions into the 50-foot buffer to that stream proposed as part of this change We did have review of this project by police fire and public works Their comments are attached stating they have no concerns about the proposed project We did not receive comment from the police department Staff has prepared recommended findings of fact conclusions of law and conditions of approval along with a motion for approval delegating the review of final plans to staff For the consideration of the board Thank you And what would like to add to that Don't have much to add to what Matt has said the door since the expansion went out the back of the building Access to that space needed to be provided on the east side So we could continue to use it and like Matt said After it was there realized it was advantageous just to keep the door as opposed to Getting rid of it From the board any questions from the audience. Thank you for coming. Thank you. Okay, we're going to close that hearing it 12-0 7 7 next up B16-20 Frank and Crystal DeVita Okay, come on in everybody sign your name so we're gonna open up the hearing for Dp-16-20 at 7 10 if you would state your names and their addresses, please Frank DeVita 290 Fieldstone Drive in Williston Doug gulette 240 Southridge Road Williston a couple pieces of housekeeping first Staff has suggested that this hearing be continued until either the next hearing or the hearing after that For a number of reasons you've read the you have read the staff notes and I'm assuming that this is a response to the staff notes So the board is not in a position to review this Until the staff reviews your responses So that's going to go to staff and that's not gonna that's going to have to get They're gonna have to look at that so it's not not appropriate for us to take a look at that until they do So we can we can go forward with hearing we can we can we can go through that go through your concerns, but I Think the choice. I think the the chair will recommend that this be continued until Two weeks or four weeks Well four weeks from now. We don't currently have anything scheduled for the DRB So unless something gets scheduled to that night either tonight or on the 26th There will not be a meeting on October the 10th so Two weeks enough time Two weeks is enough time for us to review it. I Guess the question becomes for the board as to whether or not you're going to be interested in the applicant making revisions to the plans in which case you may You may want to have open the public hearing tonight and then continue it to date certain But you know as we've identified in the staff notes We have serious concerns about some of the design elements of proposed subdivision This could be an opportunity for the board to get some, you know testimony information There's certainly one possibility as you may say You may say that it has to be redesigned It's up to you it's up to you But as you know, we've recommended denial we've recommended denial based on the submittal and So We're happy to open hearing we're happy to listen to the listen to the testimony Testimony will be or the we'll be working off of the staff notes not a little I Would recommend I would certainly recommend a It's your option Board vote on it tonight or it can be continued So we can we don't have to give me an answer on that. Okay, we're you know, I'm gonna recommend Let's let's move forward Staff is going to staff is going to walk us through okay the staff notes That we're in that you were provided with okay Okay, so this application DP 1620 It's a request for a four-lot subdivision of land approximately 35 point four four acres On field stone drive in the agricultural rural residential zoning district So What is being proposed here is to a re subdivision of a lot that was created by a subdivision over 20 years ago This in this particular request applicant so Fieldstone drive the road that provides access to these lots It was approved and created as part of SUV 9510 which is approved in December 1995 So There were five units Residential development that was approved as part of that request There was also a six non-building lot non-buildable lot I should say That was also there were any septic mouths that were going to be located on on that lot so as The age of SUV 9510 No doubt implies it was approved under A much earlier set of regulations a different set of standards that we have today Some of those standards are reflected in the standards today However, it was a separate set of standards and that has created a rub with some of the requirements that we have today As are discussed in the staff notes and that were also discussed at the time of pre application So there was another Pre-application that was before the board back in 2013 the applicant decided to withdraw that The pre-application for this request was reviewed by the board back on May the 24th 2016 Because it's a residential project it required additional growth management allocation the DRB Approved three units of growth management allocation Becoming effective as early as July 1st 2018 Actually, it should be 17 And that decision was made this past March March the 28th So some of the issues that the staff has raised with with this particular application number one Two of the proposed lots lots seven and eight are Proposed to encroach into what was defined as the no-build zone approved under SUB 9510 Our our feeling is there should be no part of any lot that has any building potential That is in the no-build zone that clearly was the intent under SUB 9510 So so we recommend that that any part of those lots be completely removed from there In addition to that the applicant has inserted at the last minute a note Saying that they could build a building on the no-build in the no-build area And that's completely contrary to what our regulations allow and how it is that we actually We actually operate So We have concerns about that note We believe that note should be removed from any if this is approved by the DRB that that note would be removed from the plans There's also a note in the staff notes having to do with public works So at the time of pre application there was a recommendation from staff That the applicant be required to meet the current public work standards And this really revolves around the hammerhead at the terminus a field stone drive Which was a standard that was allowed back in the day back in the 90s, but now we would require a cul-de-sac and So staff the planning staff made a recommendation in accordance with the public works Comments back at the time of pre-application that this road which We have an application today in 2017 our viewpoint is if you want to come in with an application in 2017 you meet the 2017 standards you want to come in with an application in 1995 you meet the 1995 standards So we had prepared recommended conditions of approval The DRB overruled those in the recommendations from pre-application those are on page three of the staff notes So in staff meaning the planning office staff had some discussions with the public works department Who are you know? They're very clear in their own minds that the DRB does not have the authority to waive a public work standard Which is adopted by the select board In as part of that discussion I said well We should get a legal opinion from the town's land use attorney which we did and which we provided for you So the legal opinion Says a couple of things Number one to raise some questions as to whether or not this Subdivision this this additional crack at the subdivision should even be entertained at all Which isn't necessarily my viewpoint, but that's the viewpoint from our attorney Secondly the attorney is raising some some serious questions about whether or not the the DRB should be Making independent determinations as to what the public work standards should be So that that information is there for you to for you to consider But again the the the opinion of the staff and the planning on hold one second John would like to ask a question Yeah, so let's say the DRB Went ahead with the recommendation that we previously imposed allowing the the hammerhead Public works has to sign off on any Permit that comes through correct So they even if we said that this formation is permissible Public works could still hold up the project because they don't necessarily have to sign off on our Set of conditions So in this case field stone drive is a dedicated public road that's been accepted by the town So any new points of access off of the street would require an access permit So I suppose public works could could do that But It's as Paul Gillis's legal opinion states The idea that the public works department the DRB are fighting is really bad form And ideally we're all on the same team So, you know and I'm in agreement on that you know on that particular position so Under the scenario you've just suggested So the applicant could come in to try to get a point of access public works as you got to build this You've got to build this this cul-de-sac Which case if you approve the creation of a lot it may not be possible to be able to design That cul-de-sac And still meet all the conditions of the you know of the bylaw in terms of our development standards So ideally this would be resolved as part of this this proceeding Because you're you know, you're you're defining property lines if there's going to be a cul-de-sac It would be part of the street which would mean to be dedicated to the town Be part of the town's right-of-way. So, you know, you've got to move a property line All that should be decided as part of this Do you have any do you have more you wish to continue with? No, that's I Was gonna ask I mean it seems like the first question is whether I I guess I was asking if you could if you could translate Paul's I've read this a couple times and I didn't quite follow why he doesn't agree that it's Why he doesn't think we subdivision is appropriate here Yeah, unfortunately sometimes Paul's writing it's not as succinct as you might hope it would be But as I read it, I mean I think essentially is what he's saying is you have a platted subdivision That was approved by it was the planning commission at that time in 1995 by that action There was an avenue of appeal that was available The application was either appealed through the courts or it wasn't and then that's it and that's that's what you have And it shouldn't be reopened again. You had conditions of approval that were articulated at that time People who abutted the property people in the area were noticed They had some information about what it was that was being proposed and what it was that was approved And they either appealed it or they didn't which means they either said we're gonna live with it or We're gonna, you know, we're gonna challenge it in court. So But essentially that's what he's saying is that that after all is said and done you really shouldn't be revisiting this That you're locked into that that plat the platted lots forevermore Leave that's what he's saying I mean, it seems to me this has gone through of this has been This is properly warned hearing. This is a whole new set of boundary lines. It seems like I mean barring any legal precedent that it would be appropriate to reconsider it in light of the fact that neighbors have another chance to Can ask me for my opinion my opinion is simply if you want to come in with an application Today, then you have to meet today's standards That that would be my opinion Still respecting the conditions that were imposed in 95 Well, yeah, I mean today Today for example, so this is in the ag role zoning district. We have open space requirements Our open space requirements today are more precise and exacting than they were in 1995 So under no circumstances, but I ever envisioned that you would go backwards and have a diminishing of the open space So Hang on a second You'll get your chance Any other questions on the board while we're on the opening opening comment Still a bit confused We'll get a chance to ask away here in a second right all righty, so Frank DeVita and I are both going to speak I'll just go through quickly Some of the graphics we have here. What I hand to do is Two smaller versions of these two plans that we're going to be pointing to and referring to Also a letter from the state of Vermont That I wrote a couple weeks ago dealing with this issue of you know revisiting An approved project active 50 has a rule for that. We absolutely have met that rule and Paul Gillies has made reference to that rule. So I think in that regard we're good to go Frank will talk a little bit more about that The rest of your packet is the staff report that we will Frank will go through Basically using it as a basis for discussion Black text is Change text from staff red or just more suggested clerical edits and The blue are comments that Frank will reiterate that I'm going to I'm going to suggest to the to the Board and staff that does not be used because nobody's had a chance I'll do respect right you can you know go ahead and make a comment We'll work off the staff notes as prepared. That's fine. Yeah, that's fine, but just so you know That's if you want to follow along. That's what that's how we're going to do it You can turn that over if you'd like But I think it's it's good information so We're looking at What what was going on in 1995 when this project was approved and This is the old plan down here Some of the layers have been shut off and all but we're really just looking at Green space open space building envelopes and similarly up here. This is our current site plan Again, a lot of the technical layers have been shut off, but we're trying to illustrate What's open space what's common land what is now proposed for a lot so Not gonna spend a lot of time, but you know, we can find ourselves going back to this and some of the discussion so in 1995 This project was approved lot five is all of the area colored in Combination of all three of these colors. So it's 35 acres Back then there was no open space requirements. This was a standard subdivision. So lot five was everything you see colored here Because of prime egg You know did require active 50 permit back in the day. So for prime ag mitigation we Proposed that no building envelope be in this upper northern 26 acres of the property Lot fives building envelope was down here fairly substantial large building envelope for the house or and accessory buildings and then To the north of the road. We had a Substantially large accessory building envelope for just that accessory buildings Yeah, the owner of lot five wanted to do some construction in this area So this was approved No open space. There is a line here That was called a a no-build zone meaning from here up to the north It wouldn't be any house or accessory structure constructed So moving forward Same thing everything in green everything colored is lot five There's three different colors here the dark green around the perimeter is wooded areas and It is also proposed to be part of the common land. So again as open space as an open space development 75% of this lot five of 35 acres has to be common open space Which amounts to about 26 and a half acres? We're providing 31 acres. So we're providing much more than what's needed for the 75% The Lighter shade green which encompasses most all of lot five He has the Proposed open space so Doug hang up one second sure You're showing us a site plan flat here flat here with a Light green box only different Scott. Why is that not really and not shown on my That was a result of a consummation committee meeting. We had just a few days ago I got them. I got the note. It's not on your plan Scott Alliance of the forest is that doesn't know that's are you are you suggesting that that light green box is now part of a It's now part of a As a result of the conservation committee, they said They didn't want a barn farm structure on open space So we said fine. We've got tons of extra open you're not buying the open This pictorially right your plans to not show this is something that we would propose moving forward based on You know, obviously the conservation committee meeting was just Last Tuesday, so so Doug. Yep We can't accept this Ignore that then we're gonna well time out the We have a set of plans in front of us that is different from the set of plans that you were showing That's the one change everything else is identical. All right, then ignore that So my suggestion is you submit the set of plans that you wish to have considered to the staff and to the board and we will consider them Can I just add something like we'd like to proceed with a presentation? This is a minor lighter box. It's not minor It's it is it's absolutely how we run this how we run this committee We're not proposing the lighter box to be a lot. That's just called Common land within the open space the open space around it is open space. That is common land And things can be built on common land. So that's why we're proposing to call that one acre Common land. This was strictly to have we're not taken away from any I'm telling you as chair that The board will consider and listen it will consider The testimony here when Our documents that you provided to us match up with what you wish to talk about and when staff has had a chance to look at the only reason why we did that was because last Tuesday That was suggested and by the conservation committee to do this. That's why we did it So we had it as a point of discussion. It wasn't anything. We apologize. It's the only change from what you see there okay, so It goes back to my first my earlier comment about part of the reason why we are going to continue this will be allowed will be to allow you to get Your documents in order to get into staff. So well, they are in order keep on going for The documents are all in order That would be something that we were proposed to be part of the final plans and we wanted to open that up to discussion tonight Okay, so that's the plans you have smaller versions and I think I'll turn the floor over to Frank mm-hmm and go through the Comments, so we just have some comments on the staff notes I guess I'll start with the page two on the open space where it talks about the Lots proposed lots seven and eight encroaching to the no-build zone so and taken on its face both of the that in addition to this barn and the no-build zone and it's our Response to this is basically the statement is inaccurate and incomplete please refer to the discretionary Hearing plan that we have prepared which is this So you don't you can ignore that however but It shows details that we justify There was no defined open space in 1995 The intent of the 26.5 acre no-build zone that we proposed Was to conform to the then and still current town plans preservation of open spaces and clustered development Additionally our accessory building envelope Was a 1.34 acre portion of lot five Located along side the roadway directly across from lots one two three and four Designated for barns and farm service type structures Arguments we preview previously presented that resulted in the approval by the DRB of our 2016 Pre-application have resulted in significant improvements of the quality of this subdivision By elimination of these areas and replacement with a larger and more carefully laid out With larger and more carefully laid out areas that further clusters development While pervert preserving view sheds for all eight lots Additionally the minimal 25-foot encroachment of the proposed seven and lots seven and eight into this Now eliminate or proposed to be and we feel it does not counter the original intent intent of the no-build zone Considering the vast improvements that we are presenting as a whole when I talk about the view sheds. I'm talking about Lots one two and three and four as you can see on the south side of the road are Directly across the street from the accessory built original accessory building envelope Potential buildings in there Would potentially block view sheds The wrong person gets into lot five who knows what they're going to do with the property That's the whole reason why I wanted to do this. I wanted to create a better subdivision for everybody in the neighborhood I wanted to take out the risk that lot five doesn't deteriorate and In the process. Hey, let's add more open space. Let's take that whole chunk of land to the east of We're modified lot five and lot six are let's add that to open space let's take all that accessory building area add that to open space and The barn Location that's in the open space We really feel we need to have the ability to have a barn to service this 26 acres. We're not asking to build a barn, but we're just asking That down the road if necessary we have the ability to take care of our own land and this would all go to an association of all eight people and For 22 years, it's been my responsibility We're mandated by the state of Vermont to keep this in agriculture for eternity and it's been my crystal in my Responsibility for 22 years to do so and we have and let me tell you it's no easy no easy task the farmers We've gone through a lot of farmers over the years that have just gone out of business from one to another and They have it very difficult it's with the weather in Vermont and The milk prices etc. So It's not an easy thing for to clear this land and we've had a lot of issues But you know what we've done it with the help of these farmers year after year and But who's to say what's going to happen tomorrow? So we're just asking for a little Spot where we can have if need be the association could have their own equipment So we could take care of our own property that we are mandated to do so Otherwise we go back to the original plan of lot 5 and There's no control and no assurances. So that's our argument there on the open space I'll move move further into the staff notes I Guess I would just add one. Okay The proposal on your plan states it the barn has to be it meets that Shall be limited to agricultural practices as defined in the required ag practices rules If that's the case, we don't even need approval from DRB to build that that structure Architect I think that's a case But you have to meet a certain standard and that is that there is Agricultural practices going on which there are not and until they are going on Mowing your lawn is not an agricultural practice So until there is an agricultural practice going on There is no no requirement and it isn't it is not a direct pass that I have to disagree And that's and that's fine. That's what we're here for so I'll just say that we are meeting the definition of the states definition of agriculture and farming in two two different portions of their definition one we are Harvesting crops of more than four acres. We're harvesting crops on 30 acres, okay year after year secondly We are being managed by a farmer that files his 1040 f and that's the second thing that we meet So it is a court meets the definition of a state Farm that's what we have to do. We don't have any choice here. We're band-aided to do this So we've done it and that's what's going on. So I'll continue is Frank is the the form 1040 f for fire. Yeah Is that for current use or is that for I'm not familiar. No 1040. Yes as a farmer's Tax return tax return. Yep All right, so Continuing on to Let's see here Conservation Commission Yes, so you said lot 78 I guess are you suggesting that the no-build line go away? Yeah 22 years old We're and that the rules have changed, right? We're now into a whole new set of bylaws That has required 75% open space, you know, so yeah, just like any I mean I'm sure you see a lot of projects where lots have been created and they're coming in to be resubdivided And that's exactly what we're doing to suggest this is something Crazy and unusual is beyond our on one hand. Yes, we are but on the other hand We're suggesting the accessory building envelope that was south of the no building zone to go away and add more No buildable land, so we're offering considerably more than we are Taking away, I don't know if that sounded right or not, but anyway, I'll just continue So as far as the the comments on the Conservation Commission the first comment they were talking about lots 75 75% of lot 5 26 and a half acres must be designated as an open space Lot 7 and 8 must not encroach into the open space nor the development of any structures be permitted and The barn currently proposed should be relocated out of the open space out of the open space. Okay, so My response and Doug's response our response is lots 7 and 8 do not encroach on the open space At the suggestion of a Conservation Commission member made on the last Tuesday on the 6th We proposed on the final plans to modify the open space area to go around the barn Reducing the open space by about one acre and the barn would still be located on common land The discretionary hearing plan which we brought which we don't have to refer to Shows this detail we further request that the open space be defined by designation Only and Not be required is stated above to be platted as a separate parcel The common land parcel Will be platted as a separate lot, but the open space does not encompass all of the common land. I Don't know if you understood all that but anyway, C. Is it C2? This is C2, right? Okay, so this common land C2 is What I'm saying here would be the entire parcel 31.71 acres and That's common land and the open space within the common land is One acre less We're around where that barn is behind those houses, so we would still have well over 75 percent 80 Right now it's at 89 percent and with this proposal it goes down to like 87 percent of lot five Is proposed to be open space Just interject real quick. Yeah, I mean it seems like your proposal is kind of creating a lot of issues for yourself I mean, right why not just slide the lots down a touch Get it below the no build zone get rid of that building envelope around the barn And if the state of Vermont lets you build the barn in there great at that barns are built all the time in agri-roll zones We never even know about it because it did we don't have any Well, we just want it seems like you're creating a lot of issues for yourself got it That's going to give you resistance right Well, we just wanted to be on board and over the table with you guys You know if we if we're going to go down the road sometime to get a barn put up from the state of Vermont We thought well Why not just present it now and let you know what we want to do and if you don't think that's appropriate then that's your you know That's what you decide, but that's where we came from. Okay, so and as far as the lots encroaching over 25 feet I don't know Doug. Maybe you could talk a little bit about that It makes for a small building envelope John. It's as simple as that I mean we want in more depth in the backyard and and that no build zone is just an arbitrary line on a piece of paper 22 years ago Okay, and that backyard goes way It's not that's commonly owned that you don't own that you can't You have to get seven other people to agree to do something about well I think the justification was we did so much more that we didn't have to do and Just to ask for that point one nine acres. We thought we could meet some common ground here That's that's why we did it. We thought it would be just a better a better yard for those two houses So anyway, I'll read you read you've read the staff's opinion. You've I hope you're picking up on the resistance Doug you're shaking your head, but We don't agree with the resistance and I understand and we'd like to keep going because I think there's a lot of inaccuracies here well and a lot of there's only three issues and I think that I have spent I have spent the past 15 minutes listening to you and I have to tell you that I'm gonna I'm gonna say for a third time If this is being continued and you need to go get everything that you you're talking about but in in terms of you know your belief about having a note, you know a no build zone and Redrawing your lines and present it to the staff and then they can rewrite the report and you're still going to get resistance But that's that's that's your path forward at this point time Well, I think we'd still like to do our presentation and get absolutely I'm happy to let you do that. I'm just I'm simply I'm telling you what's going to happen in terms of the outcome of tonight Right, right. We're just saying we think there's three primary issues, and I think Everybody gets their day. Let's continue. Okay, so public work section Second paragraph after this the strike-throughs Talking about the staff has obtained a legal opinion So just want to say the project first of all this project has gone through two free application hearings And the growth management process Without any discussion regarding the legality of this subdivision We feel it is highly inappropriate to raise this issue at this stage of the project Project after the design is 100% complete and in addition the legal opinion was prepared over a month ago and The app my my engineer Doug was only provided with it last Friday afternoon In the first part of the legal opinion Letter it suggests that a provision to justify this subdivision would be if it were to meet the criteria used by act 250 rule 34e as part of the act 250 process Doug Goulet as he mentioned earlier Prepare a letter on August 30th to district 4 act 250 Specifically covering this rule a copy of this letter has been provided to you You don't have to use it tonight as you can see this subdivision meets the criteria given that both the town's regulations and state-related regulations have both changed since 1995 Therefore we conclude this is a legal subdivision and the state has issued the act 250 permit today So that's confirming their their concurrence with that opinion and The last part of the legal opinion letter regarding the roadway designed as just does not apply For these reasons there is no road design proposed in this discretionary permit application The new lots utilize frontage on field stone drive a town-owned road since the pre-application hearings Public works it up has offered no new justifications to support their position This issue was discussed in detail and the DRB made a decision at the pre-application hearing on May 24th 2016 that this project did not justify making the applicant myself Construct a new turnaround. We see no reason to discuss this issue again tonight moving forward fire department He wants us to build a pond so our response As with the above legal question We question now that the plans are complete. Why the fire department didn't raise the question at the pre-application stage of this project Nowhere was this issue addressed on the April 26th 2016 staff report This poses many potential issues that render this recommendation is simply imprudent First the only feasible location for the pond would be in the open space area between lot six and eight This area is designated as primary agricultural soils mitigation area and the construction of a pond and drive to a pond Would likely eliminate this as being accepted by the state for mitigation Secondly it is uncertain whether or not groundwater hydraulics would even allow for a pond to be constructed to sustain a volume of water suitable for the fire department Considerations such as winter freezing summer algae blooms maybe issues Typically dry hydrants are proposed in pre-existing bodies of water where the history of water levels and hydrology are known This proposal requests that three new house lots be approved only last year A three lot subdivision was approved On the brown L site located on st. George town line Even at this great distance from the center williston the fire department did not request a fire pond We request that the drb do not require a fire pond on this site moving forward Yeah Yeah, it's constructed. It's dated to the town. It's a town rock completed. Yep um And that was done before Before the pre-athleting that was 2014 15 2015 it was finished um So the recommendation That the first one Where Let's see here The staff recommends it drb either direct the applicant to submit a revised development proposal or denies the current proposal We strongly oppose that recommendation And The findings of fact number six modified lot Five and proposed lot eight. It should be lot six not lot eight typo they are they are finding that The hammerhead terminus of fieldstone drive is a design standard that's no longer used in the town's street standards We propose to strike this finding For reasons we discussed Before this meeting and that have already been dealt with conclusions of law number two Uh, the proposed residential subdivision does not meet the town current standard develop development standards And we strongly oppose this conclusion of law We have it adhered to all aspects of the current development standard and we propose Strike through of the word not in the above statement And finally Let's see what else we got here in one of the uh Conditions of approval I what is it two a i That seems like it might have been pasted in from someone something else but This way this is no seven point nine five acres or 10.6 acres They those numbers should be to achieve a 75 threshold of this property. It's 26.58 Acres 25 75 percent of the 35.44 acres. I just wanted to clarify that That looks like a cut and paste error. It was a cut and paste and I thought I I may have gotten them from the wrong place And on b the Williston public works department comments dated april 18 2016 before The pre-app hearing we strongly oppose this condition We propose strike through of that entire comment or that entire uh condition And number c the fire department comments For the pond we strongly oppose this condition and we propose strike through of that Two c Condition of approval um And on number seven We propose the last sentence be stricken From that where it talks about verific No occupancy or use of the proposed buildings shall take place until a certificate of compliance has been issued And the part that says verification that the fire department's requirements have been satisfied Before a certificate of compliance. We request that sentence to be stricken And we request that the proposed motion basically be Replaced with the motion to uh proposed uh to approve this discretionary permit. So That's basically what I think we wanted to say. We'd be happy to answer any questions if you had any and That was the board questions Um, what kind of agricultural activity have you been doing there? No, it's been it's been hey hey for farmers. That's what we plan on continuing with.  You'll see if there's been firm plots a number of things over the past since 99 um Not just not just mowing hay. There's been active Large garden plots out here corn corn at different times. So Yeah, you said there's three points that you wanted to address or that you felt Particularly what those three things are Hammerhead It's already been decided as far as we're concerned We're not proposing any Changes to a road It's a lot that's off of the road The town road that's been approved Before we even came to pre-app. So don't really want to go down and argue that again if we don't have to The public works argument sounds like we're proposing a new Road that doesn't meet today's standards as if we are building a spur or something off this Um, I live in south ridge. I mean if somebody were wanting to If it were possible to create one more lot would they say well, you know the standards are different now This road is now supposed to be 30 feet wide and south ridge road is 28 So you need to widen the entire width of south ridge road before we'll let you approve this lot That's the scenario. We're being asked to do here is is reconstruct a road Um That's in place. It's a town road. All we're doing is creating frontage lots. It's as simple as that We had this discussion and you all sat there and agreed that putting a Cold to sack in with imper and you know increased impervious surface The ability for people to you know speed around the end that we had homeowners That were here, uh, that had purchased lot three and four Uh, testifying that they were not in favor of a cul-de-sac The hammerhead slows people down. It's it's Inconvenient and that's exactly what they like It discourages people from heading out there That's the one the second the second one was the fire pond And we can have a discussion on that but it kind of went at length to discuss why we thought that was inappropriate at this time Right. I think I don't I don't know if The fire chief just thinks you can just dig a dig a hole anywhere on any site and create a fire pond That's something that we should have had the ability to analyze and Base our decisions to move forward That's a major a major thing that we should have been known about that should have been in front of us at the last hearing You know Right center are in standing at pre-app all the department heads get to weigh in public works weighed in You know various committees weighed in but there was no comment from fire. No comment. So now at the end of the Road here tremendous impact on this thing at this point and The note the number three was the minor 25 foot Well, I think the number three is the whole issue of a legal right to resubdivit I guess that's right. Yeah, the legal right to resubdivit The snow build zone is to me. That's a known issue. That's And I think we meet that legal right to resubdivit based on my justification that The two major points in that letter. We do meet we meet The act to the state's requirements and we've gotten approval from them and and the right to Subdivit based on the specific Line item was the fact that changes have taken place since then and now and we went through this the last time but the 07 the The state dropped this requirement for two leaching fields per Building lot went down to one So we're coming in and say well, let's that gives us the ability to we've got 10 of it 10 complete Approved septic sites. Let's see what we can do with up to the other five and how Nice of a subdivision how much of a better subdivision we could make because of that So we thought that this has really turned into a great subdivision now you get A lot more open space a lot more protected land. You got everybody's got a protected view shed With the removal of that accessory building envelope and we've just made improvements as far as we're concerned and our Justification was yeah the rules changed back in 1995 if we only needed one We would have come up with another plan that would have been different than the one that actually went through because at the time we were only allowed to fight so Just want to make it a better place. I mean Open space there's going to be eight homeowners that have vested interest in keeping that land up to snuff and keeping it attractive Versus having one landowner have that responsibility and Frank's not going to be around someday I work hard on that property and making sure it looks the way it does today and I think the neighbor's going to test to it and That might not happen Down the road because you know, I'm not a farmer so Ultimately, well We thought that would take that lot off the market and let's try to make this Subdivision a little better for everybody. So I think those were our three points We wanted to well, and I think we shouldn't lose perspective on this either is you know, if this site We're blessed with a little bit better soils Um, this site would support 19 units. We could be in here with three and four plex units Stack left and right all over the place We don't allow three and four plex units in the sounding district dock. Well, we could have 19 units whatever they look like out here And we're proposing open for debate and we're proposing three So as you can tell by these plans, so let's take let's let's there's a whole lot more agreeing. Well, I There's a difference of opinion there. Do we have any comments from the audience that anybody like to weigh in on this? ma'am If you'd stand up and state your name, please I'm being yelled at by the by the staff diane if you would state your address to 33 10 south road. Thank you. And it's diane Wait a minute. Thank you Um, I'm a little concerned about these sewer systems that they've got going First of all one is in going heading toward a field where we get vegetables from And don't say they don't break down because they do break down I wouldn't drink and the other one on the other side Is in a book that goes to like your koi where they've always complained about the farmers Ma'am the septic systems are designed to state standards If in order for in order for the applicant to obtain a permit He would have to meet these standards step forward by the state Okay, so if they feel and end up in the lane, that's okay. That is a that is a state standard that they have to maintain meet and maintain Point taken. Thank you Please I just that just leads me and reminds me that I did want to point out Not that it's Part of the discussion tonight, but the state water and wastewater permit for this site has been issued Based on the plans you have in front of you As has the state storm water permit and as frank said the draft act 250 permit was was uh issued today So again with the comments we heard at pre app Uh, which were minimal we we went full out with with the final design So that's why you can tell by your tone. We're a little discouraged with the negativity of Of the feedback we got at the last minute from staff I think the legal opinion is incoherent and I think we've addressed Whatever issue they tried to raise in that. Well, that's the legal opinion that we have You're free to submit an illegal opinion that refutes it Any other any other comments from yes, sir name and address I'm steve hackett. Uh, I bought lot three from frank and three 36 dealstone drive Just one of I've just said in a couple of these meetings But want to compliment frank on what he's been trying to do and keeping an open space culture Initially that was going to be or currently as it stands is it's part of lot six, which who knows could be Any type of He is Getting the permit for those other two lots Turning that 26 acres water over to the association giving the eight unit owners ownership of that To maintain it as it is is open land Uh Fields or whatever, but those we want to support that effort Thank you Other comments from the audience any questions Anyone else Questions for comments from the board I understand many of the arguments that you're making what i'm finding problematic and it's still unresolved in my own Within me Is it in one hand on one hand you're making an argument that this is a new application and therefore that no build zone that was there It's superseded And therefore we don't have to pay any attention to it In the next breath I hear you saying well this hammerhead is existing And therefore we don't have to We're we're going to only pay attention to it and we don't have to pay attention to the new rules So in one case you want to ignore the new rules and the other one you want to use them and I just I think that's a little problematic to me so Well, I think the difference is I don't think about that is the difference is the reality is the road is built And the road is taken over. It's a physical thing that exists today As opposed to a simple line on a piece of paper I understand that you have those arguments in your head and they make perfect sense to you I'm having a problem with that I mean I mean, I don't really want to offer up the fact that you know the the building The building envelopes for lot It's really lot eight lot seven. We're talking about just the very northeast corner of lot seven falls within the Old no build zone if you will and I can point to that I see You know right there So the no build zone comes straight across and then goes up north So lot seven basically is is unaffected Maybe the driveway encroaches into that no build zone Lot eights building envelope is probably You know 20 feet 15 feet Into that no build zone Could that building envelope be brought down to the old no build zone? It could be if made people sleep better at night, but Again, I mean so staff is recommending Don't encroach in the no build zone staff is recommend staff is recommending Get the language off the off the site plan that has that you put in there regarding the agricultural building If you down the road if you need to go back and you know and you can prove that it's an agricultural use and it's um, and it's it's It's it's productive acreage You know, then you know the you know the path to that So get rid of that language get to get out of the get out of the no build zone. Don't you know That argument's not flying. Um, I have to tell you that The hammerhead issue is a big deal only in that You know, we're being told as a board that The drb cannot contraven the The area of authority of the Of the development standards, right? So I mean like I said earlier, I don't think we're gonna find being clear enough I mean, it's very rare for us to get a legal opinion and then go against it I don't think Well, we're not asking to go against it. We don't know what information the attorney was provided Um, I don't think we're asking him to go against the legal opinion. I think it went to our favor and both Both suggestions that he wrote it was fine with us. I mean with regards to the road He basically says we're not doing it if public works and and you folks, you know We're on the same page But oftentimes now we have now we have our attorney telling us we're not on the same page No, he's saying it's it would be nice to know he's saying we're not, you know, we can't go against what That that public works has their their rules and that the drb does not have the authority to change those rules I'm not reading anything of that Decisiveness in that in that paragraph that he wrote to me, it's We're I think we're just pointing out that it's an existing town road I've got you've got all that. Okay, so I don't understand how The cul-de-sac issue is even an issue. I mean I mean if Bruce said, you know, he he recommends that the entire road be painted green If that was if that was in if that was in his standards, then you know, we would be talking about a green road Well, we're not proposing to build a road or do anything to the road. I understand you're not so that's No, but the subdivision is for a lot off of this road We're not proposing it an extension of the road or anything like that You heard one board members opinion on that So we thought we got a clear direction at pre-app that this was You were totally on board leaving it in place So we went with that back in the beginning. I suggested to you that you had a choice you can We can close the hearing tonight and we can vote on it or you can Then We can continue this To the next meeting You can think about what's been talked about. I would suggest you talk with the staff and listen to them You may not agree with them. It doesn't sound like you will But it may if you do talk to them and you It may help you get this approved Okay Well, we're glad to come back so Let's do that In terms of the calendar If The applicant is going to submit revised plans, then it should not be looked at in two weeks Right. There's no way just just know from experience that timeline Is is too aggressive. So I would point out once again that right now there is nothing scheduled for october the 10th so The next meeting is september the next scheduled meeting is september the 26th The next potentially scheduled meeting would be october the 10th. We don't have anything there yet And then the next scheduled meeting would be october the 24th So I don't know can can it get on The 10th or are you saying that there is no meeting and it is october 24th Well, the staff would really prefer that we didn't meet on october the 10th But that's this is your call I'm just simply point. I'm just pointing it out We had a file in deadline. We didn't catch anything for that meeting so But but certainly you can move it to the 10th We'll be here. We will continue this to the 24th of october Okay, thanks for your time. Thanks guys So for the record dp 16-20 debita subdivision has been continued to october 24th Okay Next up is dp 18-01 Handy banquet facility. We are going to open the hearing at 8 15 Welcome If you would both state your names and your addresses for the record that would be great Laura handy 486 orchard drive coolchester vermont And jeremy mitoski with tradale consulting engineers 478 Blair park road in williston Welcome But we are going to let staff go first This is an application for a discretionary permit to utilize an existing Barn in the agricultural rural residential zoning district as a banquet facility Typically known and discussed as a quote-unquote wedding barn um i'm going to Do something a little different than I normally do with the board with my staff reports, which is i'm not going to read through Sort of line by line, but rather Provide an overview and then get out of the way because I think there's a fair number of folks who would like to give Testimony tonight My first note is that this staff report is drafted currently as a draft Denial with findings of fact and conclusions of law that lead to a motion to denial the deny the proposal And I'll I'll get into why in a moment But a little bit of background on how the bylaw permits Banquet facilities in the agraral zoning district The agraral zoning district in williston is our largest zoning district It is our lowest density residential district And other permitted uses are generally related to Surprisingly agriculture and activities in support of agriculture There is a goal in the town plan And encompassed within the bylaw about attempting to preserve existing historic barns That bylaw language was originally adopted in 2009 and it had to do with the Reutilization of an existing historic barn For residential Uses in excess of a two-family home, which otherwise is the Only thing other than a single family home that you can build for residential in williston So the planning commission at the time had this idea If somebody had a historic barn and they wanted to Keep it standing by converting it into a triplex or four plex that the drb would be able to consider that Um over the years we saw some demand and the planning commission heard about some demand for this wedding barn facility That a historic barn might be able to be converted to something that you know post people in special events without offending the other goals of the agraral zoning district and In a way that would support the preservation of these structures The bylaw was then amended to accomplish that By tagging on the banquet facility used as Another thing that somebody could do with a historic barn with an existing historic barn That process or rather that piece of the bylaw has so far been utilized once in the town's history By mike isham on oak hill road and most of the board members here were around When that proposal went through so The bylaw very briefly Says you can use a historic barn as a banquet facility if you can get a discretionary permit from the drb to do so And it says what's a historic barn? And it says a historic barn is either on the national register or the state register or inventory Or it's determined by the drb to be historic The barn in question tonight is not on either list And so the first step for the drb in processing an application like this is to determine if the barn Is historic or not And the drb is directed to do so by the bylaw with the advice of the historic and architectural advisory committee That committee held a meeting back on august 7th And they presented in in um as quoted in my staff notes some recommendations to the board about The potential historic nature of the structure as it sits on the site today The bylaw goes on to say if you're going to use a restored historic barn for one of these uses multifamily residential or a banquet facility The applicant once the barn is determined to be historic is to present a restoration plan to the drb In other words, I've got this structure Let's say we all agree it's historic Here's what I plan to do with that structure. Here's what I plan to do In order to convert it to one of these uses and the drb is to review that And the bylaw provides some standards by which the drb would review that barn restoration plan Um once the drb finds that number one the barn's historic number two the restoration plan is acceptable The drb can proceed with its normal discretionary permit review Whereas you've experienced on numerous kinds of site plan and residential review. We might deal with growth management We might deal with where the dumpsters go. We might deal with screening hours of operation noise parking access Everything that our 318 page long zoning bylaw Asks the board to address when it reviews a proposal for new development So that's the process determine that the barn's historic review the restoration plan And then move forward with the normal course of site plan review for the project In this case, um The barn was reconstructed In a different place on the site than it was as recently as 2011 The barn was added on to it was expanded It was it was reworked in its exterior treatment And all of that has already happened So there is a structure in place on this site today That contains some components of a historic barn or a potentially historic barn that was on the site Dating back many many years The restoration plan as it stands today is is essentially what was done to the structure It's there for the board to review just just like if it was proposed except that You don't get much say about it now because it's there um And finally the site plan elements There are things about setbacks and in particular wetland setbacks that the drb would go on to consider And we have a non-conformity with a wetland setback to contend with as well So the recommendation for denial on this comes out of number one A recommendation that the drb not find that the barn as it exists on the site today is historic Number two that the drb not accept the restoration plan i.e. what was done to the barn and number three that The barn um a portion of it as well as a portion of the proposed developed site is within the 50 foot buffer to a class 2 wetland Where the williston by-law specifically prohibits structures Pavement driveways etc in those wetland buffers So i've tried to lay that all out for the board um as concisely and clearly as i can um I do want to go back and revisit a couple of elements of that review number one. We had a very Spirited hack meeting where we talked a lot about what was done with the structure um And that the hacks recommendation to the drb Was not a blanket recommendation that the the structure today be considered not historic But rather that the northern portion of the barn that's out there today Could be considered historic by the drb based on a set of considerations related to how much of the original material Is in that piece of the structure? And what has been done with it in terms of design and exterior treatment and that there's this Larger addition appended to it as well uh So the staff's recommendations a little a little stronger than the hacks recommendation in this case and The reason for that which i stated to the hack at their meeting was that So maybe something a little less than 50 of the structure that's out there today could be considered historic The intent of the bylaw here was very much to balance a flexibility of use and some of the impacts to to neighbors and and Aesthetics and everything else that come with that use Against a desire to preserve historic barns in this case you've got a structure standing out there now that's that's More than doubled in size With that added size comes intensity comes You know just the size of the event that it can hold And I would I didn't say this but I would very much not recommend the drb pursue a course of action of saying okay We'll find that You know some portion of the barn is historic and you can have that portion be a banquet facility and and use the other part for Accepted agricultural practices or other allowed uses in the zone My reason for that is is simple and a little bit selfish Um operational conditions are really hard to enforce Um and I don't want to be the zoning administrator who goes out and says the wedding party needs to get out of this Half of the barn and retreat to the historic half of the structure Or do I nor nor this Nor does my supervisor Real popular so I want to I've sort of done that part. I do want to Make a little a little bit of a backtrack to the project history The relocation and reconstruction of this barn as it stands today was originally communicated to our office as a relocation construction project for the purpose of pursuing accepted agricultural practices which have some um special treatment When it comes to local zoning There are state rules under the required agricultural practices rule that can take effect There are even times we have been told That a structure can end up within a setback As a result of having some protection under those required agricultural practices So we we in the office and you and your packet saw a communication from 2013 that said i'm planning on rebuilding this Bar and here's a drawing of where I want to put it. It's for agricultural practices And this office did not pursue any additional permitting From the owner based on that information It also means We didn't do a really thorough or detailed review of what was proposed nor did we Take an opportunity to ask for you know a wetland delineation or an engineered site plan or all of the things that come When we start thinking about issuing a formal administrative permit or a drb site plan approval So that a portion of the barn is as Presented to us by the applicant the corner of the barn ended up in the 50 foot buffer Given that there are a class two wetlands on either side of the barn Isn't surprising It's not something that we would have caught based on the level of information that we had at at the time It is something that's in front of us now Um, the board may recall that just a few weeks ago You had a case in front of you regarding the expansion of a non conforming structure within the 50 foot buffer to a class two wetland Um, and somebody wanted to Take non conforming pavement and build building over it We were advised against that and you know the overarching message staff took away from that was That we should be really very carefully and strictly holding the line on those buffer impacts so We don't have any evidence that when the barn was relocated and reconstructed that it was granted any sort of official exemption From that 50 foot buffer requirement But we do know that it ended up intruding on it And we do know that it might be possible for an agricultural structure to do so Legally based on these required agricultural practices But we also know that that exemption does not extend to commercial structures or residential structures it's strictly related to required agricultural practices and it's Very important in our world When we communicate this to people That if you get some kind of exemption Because you're a farmer because you're doing agricultural practices That you won't necessarily be able to take advantage of that exemption to go and do something else that's not exempt later And approving this in its current proposed form Would really have that effect So it's it's a tertiary consideration Here because you have the layers of the historic determination and the acceptability of the restoration plan Despite it being tertiary to those two things. I thought it was important to bring it out in what I've drafted and given to you tonight So a little bit of housekeeping and the note at the front end of this If the board and the applicant in their discussion tonight choose to move in a different direction and consider something For approval staff does ask for The applicant to agree to a continuance because we haven't we haven't written an approval for the board to consider The other thing is in my enumerated discussion of the recommendation against approving the proposal based on Huffer impacts. There's a numbered list. It's not part of the findings fact It's numbered list one two three four five Number four was placed in there in error It reads the existing bar and bill before 1900 is non conforming to the 50 foot setback It then goes on to say no expansion of the barn is proposed. I'd I'd ask the dr We to just Understand that as a staff error and take it out of what I'm telling you Or did it so incorrectly that it just shouldn't be there It's not reflected in the findings of factor conclusions of law. So it doesn't need to come out Um You know finally You know in the consideration of a facility like this and when we did review the isham barn Once you move towards something that looks more like an approval. There are numerous considerations related to Number and intensive events hours of operation compliance with the town's noise ordinance traffic generation parking lot dimensions Ingress and egress water wastewater um The Serving of food and alcohol on site and all of those other things That we would go back into in far greater detail If the board desires us to do so I'll stop It's handy and mr. Matoski your turn. All right. Well, it looks like I got my work cut out for me So Um A couple things We have been taking Steps to meet with the various committees The hack and then the conservation committee And have made some modifications to the site plan based on that Obviously as I heard before you guys don't like to be surprised with lots of new information So I do have some information to share, but I wanted to just really see if I could address kind of the history of this project a little bit as well as See if there are some corrective things we can do to to move this to the Not denial side of the equation here. So As matt described this project started back when laura handy Purchased the property. I believe it was in 2013 Um And the barn that's shown on the staff report. This is confusing because usually I'm looking at Current google earth, but everyone should understand that this google earth image on your staff report is from I don't know the date, but 2005 it's 2005. So that's Something that needs to be clarified that that is the original barn that was on the property when In 2005 however That is not the condition of the barn when laura handy bought it. It was on the ground and collapsed and we have some imagery of that so She purchased the property. She has a number of properties where she owns barns and Really wanted to restore this one. So she went to the town I believe she met met with mr. Bellovo who's walking out, but Just in the air condition. Oh good And she wrote this letter and I heard this is actually in your staff report because it wasn't in my application But basically, you know, she asked for can I get some help inquiring as to what steps needed to be taken to construct this barn? And my understanding from speaking to laura is that Can explain that agricultural barns are exempt from zoning as long as they don't impinge on setbacks from property lines And that was it said have a nice day. So she hired a builder to build the barn for her And that builder is here. Um, his name is aliyah lathrop from building heritage and we'll get to him in a minute, but She undertook Hiring him to reconstruct this barn to the best of his ability to what it was originally And there's quite a fascinating story with that as matt said we spend a good time at the hack Talking about that and I brought aliyah back to this meeting because I think it's really important To answering that initial question. Is this a historic structure? And if this was a historic structure, then we move on to the next test, which is it, you know, is it a good idea to Restore it and use it for this Wedding or banquet type activity So again built in 2013 the restoration occurred Um, and aliyah will get into the the reasons why it wasn't located in the same place that it was originally um It's about 145 feet between the center of the old barn that's shown on this google earth image in a Generally easterly a little bit southerly direction It was moved about 145 feet from the center of the mass of the old barn to the center of the new barn And more of a flat area the original barn was on a hillside Unbeknownst to I think laura or me or anyone else aliyah discovered that that barn probably wasn't originally built there in the first place and the type of barn that it was Shouldn't have or wouldn't have been constructed on a hillside in the first place so that barn was about 30 by 40 as I understand it the original structure and it had an addition on the side of it On the south which is shown on this image Um, it's about 25 by 30. So And then that building had two stories. Um, because it was built on a raised foundation So if we look at that um under the original 30 by 40 structure, which by all Measures probably existed in that location well more than 50 years. Um It you know, it could have been as much as 2,400 square feet. Um 1200 up on the first floor 100 below and then an additional 750 square feet To the south so um and that addition again wasn't necessarily original to the original structure So that's about 3,150 square feet and the barn that exists today that laura built Is uh about 3,300 square feet. So those are different only by about five percent It's true that the new section is slightly larger than the is larger than the old by about 75 percent So it's 1200 square feet of The original barn which was restored in its original dimensions And the addition that she constructed the foundation for Which was part of this 30 foot by 90 foot request was a 42 foot section by 50 foot added to the southern end of it So just want to give you that clarification and Again, I think it'd be good at this time So another really important point before I take it over to alia is again The rules that matt described didn't allow for weddings in 2013 when this was built, right? So the I think it says it in the report 2015 Well after this structure was built The the northern historic piece was restored Um This notion of reusing these structures for weddings occurred. So There's a couple of places in here where it it sounds As if laura had a sixth sense and knew that the weddings would be something that she could use this barn for So she built it in advance of you guys meeting and Mike isham coming in and doing all that so I want to set the record really straight She didn't know that this was an opportunity until you guys or the the Um suckboard passed that zoning change Um, so the notion that somehow she anticipated doing this is is not true Um, but since that has been allowed She saw what mike isham did and met with a wedding planner and said your property is great for this too. So I think it is a really good use of this property. Um, I've been out there a number of times. It's it's a beautiful structure I think that if we were here showing you architectural elevations of what that was going to look like when she built it That it could be favorable There's a couple of architectural elements in the construction that staff and the hack took exception to And I don't see those as insurmountable for Something that if it was deemed historic and the restoration plan said we don't like red roofs. We want brown roofs This board could condition the permit that she paint the roof brown If you don't like cupolas tell her to take the cupola off but to to go against the intent of the town plan Which was to utilize these type of structures Encourage this type of activity and allow it to occur in the agrarals district I think we have to be really careful about that because Again, once you hear the story of how this barn was built Um, it's exactly I think what the intent of the And also the zoning by-law allows for so Whether this is the perfect place for that and whether all of the steps that were done were done correctly Is obviously for you guys to decide but I think when I've gone through the staff report Much of this can be corrected through better planning And some site planning and some engineering and I think we can do a really nice structure here that eventually would be allowed to hold exactly the same type of use that uh, Mike ishams doing successfully less than a quarter mile away So I'll have uh, elliot lathrop just kind of give it a brief overview. He provided these pictures for me that you guys have Actually, I don't know if you guys have them. So I'll if it's okay.  Okay, awesome. Um, so Before we get into site planning issues, let's just talk about how you rebuilt that structure and What you were hired to do and how you did it So so elliot, if you can if you can if you wouldn't mind standing up and stating your name and your address that would be great Thank you. I said after I do that. Yeah, you can sit down. Okay. Uh, my name is elliot lathrop from building heritage based out of puntington vermont and um So I was brought in to we actually before this all happened actually we worked on mike ishams barn doing the restoration of mike ishams barn and I was brought in Actually by the previous owner just after the barn collapsed and said As soon as I saw what this barn was said, this is a really remarkable structure. You need to do something with this thing It was immediately apparent to me that it was identical to mike ishams barn Probably the same builder being a quarter mile away same type here It's got this very unique style framing on the lower left hand side with these uh, purlins these horizontal members Which you don't see anywhere in vermont, uh, really at all So it's very uncommon thing and it also employs this really rare joint That wilson has a lot of called a triple bypass joint, which is a very convoluted way of Joining three timbers all in the same location. They're sort of scattered around the state of vermont But for some reason wilson has at least seven or eight that I found mike ishams has one daniel louis has two in his collection of barns. There's one on mountain view And this barn We can tell different things from timber frame one of the things that we can tell The age of barn based on the style of framing. This is a really early primitive style of framing and there's a transition that happened about 1800 This is the very primitive style. Mike ishams barn has this sort of the next adaptation from there So it's almost certain that it's the exact same builder over the course of five or ten years They transition from this style of building to the next evolution. So it tells us a really remarkable story that's super important to the town of wilson I got to uh Argue with you matt here. It is kind of disappointing to have gone to the hack board And to have presented what I think was a really strong argument to the history of historic value Whether or not people want to argue that it's historic not historic because it collapsed and had to be rebuilt Okay, but it's super important to the history of the town and it would be really disappointing to say No, it's not historic because it was moved from the site that it was on Which we'll go into in a second. But anyhow The important part about history is that we learned something from it and you have this historical gem That's really important and this this this part of this That's that's why we're preserving things. That's why they're important Um So anyhow, so it was a collapse barn It was you can see this sort of large Entrance on the east side on the lower right hand corner picture that continues to on the other east side That is typical of an english style threshing barn where you would enter on one side with a hay wagon Unload your hay into the haymow and drive through to the other side. So it would never have been built on a bank You would never have these large doors If you see sometimes smaller doors, we'd let the wind blow through but they obviously drove it from one side with the wagon drove out the other side When the barn was on its its Foundation that it collapsed off of that was a bank barn And it was a block foundation and the foundation room replaced the lower timbers in the basement were sawn They're not cune. So they're After 1850 probably 1880 something like that. So, you know, people are gonna say it's original location. That was not its original location There's just it just was not barns removed all the time intact. They were picked up with oxen or horses So it was on a location, but that was not its original location and that's easily verifiable And so anyhow, so the determination came, you know, let's move this to a site It's more similar to where it would have been originally so we can employ those doors on both ends and You know, it was I think quite commendable that Laura, you know pushed through and decided to restore this thing we Which picture would be in the top right hand corner? You can see a picture It's kind of a small picture, but you can see what it looked like when we first got there and that's the collapsed barn and we Sort of forensically were able to dismantle the barn You know kind of being able to picture how this thing collapsed, you know The the roof caved in and this wall went that way that wall went that way and so we systematically removed The layers, you know starting with the roofing and the roof boards and we're able to figure out which pieces won't wear Each piece then got a metal tag and was assigned a spot on a map and we knew where exactly each piece went So it's not like You know, we we took these bits and pieces and we kind of threw together what we thought it might have looked like This is an exact reconstruction with the original pieces of what it looked like And it's incredibly Common for any barn that's 220 230 years old that 25 to 30 percent of the material is going to have to be new of the frame Which is about where we got to I think it's probably about 70 75 percent of the timber frame is original Again, it's also incredibly common for a barn of this age to have completely new roof To have completely new siding those materials were You know, we matched what would have been there historically So they're wide pine boards on the walls and on the on on the roof We're doing a similar barn for the state of Vermont barn preservation program right now Same exact thing all the roof she things getting replaced all the boards are on the sides are getting replaced So when we talk about, you know The restoration plan moving forward Okay, as as Jeremy said, you don't like the roof. You don't like the cupolas There's nothing else that is not historically appropriate and wouldn't be in a in a state approved restoration plan. So as Jeremy said, maybe there's some sort of Mediation that could be done to sort of come to a common ground on that But I don't think that any of the real restoration work that was done to the structure Would not fall underneath what should be an approved restoration plan. So I could go on and on but I don't know if there's anything else incredibly Important to say unless anyone has any questions He was just suggesting talking about the isham barn that the addition I mean, so yeah, the isham barn is similar to this structure in that there's There's a 30 by 40. That's a that's a triple bypass barn. There's a little connector and then there's a 18 30s Maybe addition and then off the because it might be the north end. There's a 1960s or 70s addition But it you know, and I don't know what the level of You know public access is that in One their wedding vets or anything like that, but I think it's it's also very common for any sort of barn have additions from different years And they may be additions from 1970 and they may not be deemed historic underneath You know state or federal guidelines, but there are additions to a structure And they may tell the evolution of agriculture as in Mike Isham's barn or they may be You know additions that may have a different purpose So I I know that's a tricky one to sort of Get to the bottom of and that's that's your your hard task here, but Yeah, thanks. Well, thank you So again, and we had a we had a lot of debate at the hack and I think generally speaking everyone there agreed that certainly this is a commendable restoration project something that You know Laura undertook of her own will one thing that she tried to do initially was apply for that grant that he mentioned there's a barn restoration grant program in Vermont and They denied her application because the barn had collapsed and I think that The general sense was you know, we can spend money on barns that are standing We might as well do that this one might be too far gone But she went ahead and and hired alia and like I said, I think he had a really excellent job of figuring out how to restore it And there wasn't mention again. He said that to the hack and then also to you tonight. So this Um, I'd like to you know the findings of fact to reflect that 75 of the structure was restored Um to its original 1790 configuration Can I just go to so she was not awarded a state barn grant it's they They were not funding for a project where barn is dismantled even if it's truly the best Uh, you know solution if it needs a whole ton of work, and they couldn't they just couldn't Fund a project where barn had collapsed even though You know, most of the people agreed that that probably you know that it should have Should have been awarded something and so they they actually wrote a very nice letter to Laura after the restoration Was finished. Yeah, and we and we included that we included that in your in your original application So you you can take a look at that um I ask a quick question. Yeah, of course anything for alia The the barn restoration program today. Is it typical? Maybe you alluded to this to incorporate 25 give or take of new materials that that happens under the state program Yes, completely. So there's a secretary of the interior standards And so all the work has to conform to those standards. So you can't substitute a 200 year old hand-hewn hemlock timber for an eight by eight pressure treated piece And so all of the work that we do on any project conforms to those standards But certainly, you know, certainly we we take it as a sense of you know A pride thing to get to work on a barn that's this early that scribe ruled We never you know, you never see barns from the 1790s Still in Vermont and so, you know, we we took full, you know as as much care and and Put as much importance on the on the outcome of this project as we could You know, there's certain times in the bottom line doesn't matter as much as the finished product as a builder So is there is there a certain point at which, you know, there's too much material I mean, is it 49 if there's more than the less than 49 of the existing materials? It's not considered You know, I've never I've never heard if if there is or not again for me it comes down to The structure it's the you know, what what is important here and the fact that it's a 1790s What's called a scribe ruled? So it's the their earliest most primitive form of timber framing Which again, we don't see much of at all Especially around here and so to have any portion of that really is uh, you know, I mean, yeah Maybe if you only had five or ten percent, maybe reconsider. There's a threshold somewhere. Yeah, but uh, but certainly 50 percent is I would say as well within reason again the project we're working on Jeffersonville right now Which is funded through the state is is similar to this and probably we're replacing more like 30 or 35 percent over there And they did receive a state farm grant I'd like to follow up on that So the grant program would they support additions to a historic barn? They would not so they will not fund certain things So you can't use you would never be able to use those the grant funds to pay for that But again, she she wasn't applying for those funds were not going to be used for that They were going to be used we didn't we didn't build the addition. We simply We You know reconstructed the original structure put back up the original structure And so that was somebody else built the addition was built at a separate time Subsequent to the restoration of this barn Correct the foundation was installed at the same exact way and then the barn the addition was built at a later date So it was moving the foundation was put in at the exact same time. So it was all planned at the same time Correct That's that was my point is that the letter that Laura wrote was a 30 by 90 It's really one structure. Yes part of it's old part of it's not exactly. Yes, and it's visually I mean, they're offset. They're not, you know, it's not like it's all one Right built with the same framing methods as the the historic portion Post and name Yes, it was hand hand tuned. Yes, but with the Triple life have no no ordinary whatever I don't think you have the you know find those skills anymore John do you have the the elevations in your book there? Have you seen the the current elevations? So I don't I don't know much about historical architecture, but You know it it was never intent one of the things that I thought stuck out to me at the hack made a good point about was that There was never an attempt to Make it look like it was twice as big as the original barn. Um, there's clearly a A divide here between the new and the old that's architecturally different And so it wasn't and it reminded me of the green bridge in richmond To wilson where they expanded the bridge But I remember distinctly reading that they intentionally made it different so that no one would say that the The old part of the bridge They weren't trying to replicate the old part of the bridge They were trying to say we're going to make the bridge wider But the historical architecture was one thing and the new is new and I feel like there's some similarity here Where she wasn't trying to offend the old building. It was just complimenting it with a new addition. So Everything that elliot did is very much intact and And just a quick comment on the red barn. Laura told me this story and I've seen this before I've worked for her family now for Well over a decade and there's a lot of red stuff Red barn roof red sidewalks red brick And their dad was a big fan of bright red things They do that to honor their father It wasn't because she particularly loves red roofs other than I think Everybody in the handy family likes likes to add some red flair to their projects But again, if architecturally We need to paint it brown I think and that's a condition of approval She could decide you know what I don't want to do weddings if you're going to make me paint it brown But at least it it would satisfy that architectural element and and as elliot told me many times You're never going to find a 227 year old metal roof They don't exist, right? Is that a fair yeah That cedar shingles on it And it's it's completely common and approved by the state to replace What may have originally had cedar shingles I mean we never see cedar shingles on a barn anymore at all of it sometimes underneath the metal roof But the state has no problem whatsoever Putting on a standing seam metal roof You know, they would never say we're going to be grant money You need to put back a cedar shingles roof because it would just be Um, it would not be the best thing for the building Long-term it won't last and it's it's just a it's not a good use of money Color maybe one thing that switch from a wooden shingles roof to a metal roof should not be uh any sort of issue in terms of restoration plan Okay, I understand those points. I have a bigger issue with The size and timing of the addition And therefore this entire building becomes historic So that new part is Yes, any mage is the one you just built you used a bunch of old pieces and parts to put it up So, you know, but the big addition which is bigger than the historic component Is, you know, are we just a tail wagging the dog here or vice versa? And that's that I mean in some ways is a rhetorical question But you know, I think that's a real issue because when you figure that that foundation was poured all at once Therefore it's all one building I know you built it another time, but you phased it Now you're not talking about 75 percent of that building being the old historic stuff But it's 75 percent of less than 50 percent Of the total shock so that's maybe only 30 percent of the entire building if my math is right But um, right So that I think that's something we as we try to figure out whether it's building historic or not I mean, let's let's take it to the extreme and say that the addition was Four times the size of that historic shed that you reused the pieces on Now is it really historic or not? So I think you can take to an extreme and come up with a pretty simple decision that it's not However, I'd like to just give you some food for thought. I've been I've been given not a lot of thought john and um We worked years and years ago on a project in Manchester, Vermont was the equinox clearly a historic structure clearly, you know built And but yet we built a banquet facility on the back of that Nobody tried to say that that was a historic banquet facility, but it was a banquet facility But people go to that banquet facility because the equinox is historic I think that those that you have to kind of get back to Number one your your bylaws have nothing about percentages. There's no Guidance, there's no there's really nothing and I think Matt spelled that out that says one percent Non-historic is not allowed or 99 percent non historic is not allowed so that it is up to you guys Individually to make that determination as to whether you think that's an appropriate restoration historic structure But I think that if you look at what the you know, the bylaw is asking it's to it's to Come up with a reason to save these structures If if you couldn't you know, I think Laura might be an anomaly in this world But most people aren't going to spend the money to restore that pile of wood And reuse it for some purpose and and and maybe there's a structure that might fall down And and could be reused earn some income and be reused For these purposes, but you know dairy farming isn't going to be the economic driver of these barns anymore So we have to come up with new things to to keep this hard This history alive Otherwise they're all just going to rot in place and and you see that everywhere in vermont and it's really unfortunate So I think it's important that we see If there's ways to look at these regulations and and find some common ground to make that happen I'm going to press this just a little bit longer At some point you have an old cupola that you put on top of an exist a brand new barn. Does that make it historic? It's in a different location. It's a different spot, but it's a very important piece Does that mean that that whatever building you put it on now becomes a historic structure and can now get exemptions from wetland rules From setback requirements from all kinds of other things Because you used some pieces of an old building that you put in a new structure In a new location. I certainly understand the point. Um, you know, a needle in the haystack doesn't make it Historic in an old mirror and hang on the wall. I call it historic, right? But I think what elliott just described is a far cry from that I mean, we're talking about a very significant architectural restoration project to restore a very significant structure And you can argue you can argue whether or not the building. What's that? It's significantly smaller than the rest of the building So I'm just saying that you're you you talk about matt kind of being selective and is In his arguments and I I fear that you're doing the same Well, but what is Elliott and for everybody else if you wish to speak each time you speak you need to state your name and you're in You just need to state your name and your address You don't need to raise your hand elliott So, I mean, what if this exact scenario hadn't hadn't sort of played out the way it had there was an existing 30 by 40 It was historic with a larger addition off of it, which is incredibly common the addition might have been 1960 70s all built for agriculture, but the threshold for something being historic or so we'll say 70s not 60s The threshold for something being historic is 50 years old So we've got this addition that is not historic was used for agriculture And we've got you know got a 30 by 40 similar to this that hadn't collapsed hadn't been rebuilt Someone comes to you looking to use this This bylaw to turn into wedding space. Do you give it the same kind of scrutiny that you give this? The the larger addition. I mean, it's a larger addition. It's not historic. It wasn't just built, you know, two or three years ago But I mean, I think those I know for me I think it's really important that the public gets to see things like this because I think it's a really important barn And and I think wedding Wedding venues are a really good way to repurpose historic barns. There aren't a whole lot of good uses that sermie alluded to it's And this is that's all we do is pretty much barn restoration and it's incredibly hard To find new uses for old barns. And if that's truly the intent of this bylaw, then I think This that's why this is worth considering Sir, yeah, I'm david green with downloaders attorney and I just want to throw in a few things about what would appear to be The the the legalities here. I I don't David can you state your address, please? My address is 70 south windows the avenue in burlington. Thank you I don't think that the regulation or the plan is as restrictive as there's hints that It starts off with with the bylaw section 31 12 And it says it's provided by the town plan section three two four and it incorrectly says three six two But it's three two four It's as present preservation and restoration of historic barns will be encouraged This is the theme of your plan and your bylaws Encourage the preservation of these barns. And I think jeremy said if you don't The repercussions aren't going to be any of them because people aren't going to stick with that then 31 point 12 4 Sets out a standard and I think this comes within that standard for approving it It's as in evaluating and approving barn restorations the drb's to consider Quote how well they maintain agricultural appearance and context It doesn't say how many square feet it is or is every piece of it old You have a substantial chunk of this building which someone has testified is very Old 1790 and accurate when you go into this property you see the old part That's what you see first. It is historic So I think you're well within your means to say yes This is it maintains the agricultural appearance and context So that's if if there were just 10 square feet or something you might say it's insignificant But there is a substantial part of the historic when you go to your plan it cited 3.24 It says as they say that's that's title Continue to encourage adaptive reuse of historic barns It's the reuse of the barn that counts not that but you've got a part on the back that's not Old it's reusing the barn because you want the barn to be reused and you want it to be historic It then says there is an exception for barns that might be conserved By being reused for commercial and residential use It's the use of this that really counts Preservient for commercial and residential use Then it talks about and this is where this is why you have wide open Disgression here. It says historic barns will generally Be ones that are constructed prior to 1990 and then it says and or on a list or whatever generally But specifically in this case you have a historic barn and if they build something the size of the the Your mall here at the tap corners. I I guess you would say well, it's so insignificant. It's ridiculous if you had a little 60 by 40 part that's historic on the front But here this isn't something that's so preposterous and so out of proportion That it doesn't as I think come under you're encouraging the use of these places because It's agricultural in appearance in context and that's what this property's going to look like And that's what you I would hope would want to see in williston That people go to a place that they look up and they see in the front There's an old barn and I guarantee you most people who go up there won't know that the back part is not historic And just one follow-up to that I mean we heard elliott talk about the isham barn that you guys approved for this And and that barn was two historic barns that didn't used to live together and they put them together So now it has this appearance of a much longer barn that they originally didn't exist in that configuration This has the semblance of the same thing these two barns that were shoved together So again, I don't think this is a A big stretch to say we could move forward with looking at the site plan issues And if the board wants I'd like to at least kind of go over some of the changes that we were able to make to And we'll certainly submit formally happy to continue the hearing and we were able to meet all of the requirements of the The wilson conservation committee And then we can talk a little bit about wetlands if you guys want to do that as well And just one one question. Yeah, you guys he's the guy Oh the attorney sorry you were going through the vial laws the next the one you went to 31 12 4 but the next 31 12 5 says um restored barn restored barns may be used um Restored barns may be Used dot dot dot for use as bank of facilities so it says restore barns may be used as bank of facilities It doesn't say restore barns and um additions And so you know based on a kind of a strict interpretationist view of this it's the restore barns may be used I think it's depend depends on how you're you're looking at it specifically this restored barn will be used for functions That's what it's being used for it doesn't say that every portion of it will be Or if it's attached to something else it's not allowing banquet facilities to be in anything but a restored barn This is only allowing the restore barns to host a banquet facility. So david doesn't say that though I mean there's the piece about home businesses with the approval of the administrative permit if you It says and for use as a banquet facilities restored barns may be used this barn is going to be used for a I'm not good testing. I think it's going to be up to the board to determine whether this is a restored barn And that's that the board will have to make and I think that brings up another point that I wanted to make which is The whole property not the whole property, but a portion of the property is going to be used for weddings just like the ishams Um, it you're not going to have a wedding and say everybody has to stand in this part of the structure The the whole idea is you go to some place in williston. That's rural agricultural You enjoy the structure. You wander around the property and you experience it They have tents or outdoor chairs or whatever So I think you have to open up your your view of what the intent here was a little bit and say Is the idea that you can have a an event at this location appropriate? And I agree that if it was a vacant lot and we built a brand new barn in the middle of it Your bylaw doesn't allow that but that's not the case here You have very much a unique circumstance and a unique draw to the property that was restored And you know, it's no different than the Other places you go around vermont where you have these things, you know The the in it children farms or some of these other wedding facilities They have old structures and they have new structures. You don't go and say We're not going to hang out in the new structures. I don't want to go to the you know, the clean bathroom I want to use the outhouse. I mean that existed in 1700 so I think it's important to recognize that as david and elliott were describing You know, if you look at this in context, it it really does make sense to have this activity occur at places like this If it didn't then don't have a law that says that you can do this um, so anyway, um Does the board have any other questions for the attorney or the builder? Do can we take a few minutes and kind of get the question the attorney? This is I'm not successful at it So I guess I'm still hung up on the legal. I mean, you know, it says it will allow banquet facilities I hear your point Jeremy that it does mean people I guess I guess it's a step to go from a banquet facility where people are gathering to I don't know break bread together to a wedding where people are kind of Um, you know meandering around the the grounds But this board approved the ishams to do just that If they're not that your permit for the ishams doesn't say you have to stay in the barn Uh, before my time, I guess just reading this this is this is allowing this is enabling a banquet facility to happen in the restored barn I see that but I don't it doesn't also say and Um, you know it can extend beyond the restored barn Jeremy again the board's going to make a determination understood Yep, I agreed Ultimately everything will stem from that. Yep and and again And then you got to move to the restoration step and then we got to move to site plan So let's assume just for the purposes of discussion that you guys give us a if you'd like to give us a brief Absolutely, that is fine. I know there's a bunch of people that here who want to comment And I want to hear their opinions and comments as well So again, we we went to the board, uh, the initially the hack And then also to the conservation committee, um, Dave Do a wetlands galamiation And as part of that exercise, we also have to do a habitat disturbance assessment Um, and I do have that done. I don't think anybody wants to read it tonight, but I will submit it to Matt I can leave copies with everybody to review and we'll submit formally So that that can be in the record as well as these maps. Um, so the first map I have here is a wetland galamiation and There were a button This is an agricultural field right now the Tate every year. Um, and then the portion of it is a long area And then a couple of minutes. Yep. Sorry So what we've got here is just that I'm in front of the staff too, so Do I have a copy of that map? What's that? Do I have a copy of that map? Well, no And again, I apologize for that I'm just reviewing what we've done and I will submit all of that so you guys can have time to review it and digest it So I'll be very brief. Um, we we went to that Uh, Willis the conservation committee they requested that we do a wetland galamiation. We did that They requested we do a habitat disturbance assessment. We did that Um, and now I have that information to give to you guys and as part of that the outcome of that was we looked at You know modifying the site plan to minimize impacts a lot so, um I did show an earlier version of this to the conservation committee, but I'd like to again submit a I believe that is in our package. This one get in the packet So this is a colored site plan showing The location of the barn that we're just describing the existing house that's along south road And some of the elements that we'd like to change We've been able to Take a step avoid most of the wetland impact with this plan. There's a small portion of the owner of the barn That might be encroaching in the wetlands We haven't had the state out there to confirm the wetland galamiation. So that's still so we're I'm sorry I cannot see where the wetlands are so I can't see which portion of the barn is in the wetlands or when the wetland buffer There's a there's a blue shade here John Everything that's blue is wetlands Okay, and so where is the line that says this is the 50 foot buffer the red there's a red line on the plane You can see it kind of go because of the render in here got a little hidden This red line represents the Well I gotta bring I gotta bring these everywhere you're going now too So suffice to say I'll give you the numbers John All right, John 44 square feet of the exist of the new barn ended up being in the buffer Um 44 square feet, which is a no. No, you know that right? We know okay Laura did not know that may any difference Ben Ben didn't know that apparently because he told her to build the barn and said you don't need any Oh That does not help your case my friend I didn't tell her to build the barn I didn't tell her to build the barn. I don't know what you guys discussed. Well, then don't put words in my mouth You don't know what was the My apologies, um, so the There's 44 square feet based on our preliminary wetland dilation of the barn in the wetland buffer There's some gravel as well about 1,100 square feet of gravel That gravel could be removed Or I was thinking we could apply for a state wetland permit Or as I understand the wellston wellston development review The wellston bylaws we are allowed to apply for a variance for that impact because as we know this was built as a agricultural structure without permit Didn't need one Jeremy just just so I am clear can is that true? Well, can they apply for a variance on a on an encroachment on a wetland buffer? There's all kinds of things somebody can apply for a variance. It doesn't mean that they're going to get no They still have to meet the standard five points that are criteria from on state law So it's correct to say he could apply for a variance You could apply for a variance for all kinds of things scott, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get So so we're trying to figure out how we rectify the situation where 44 square feet of this building ended up being in the class 2 wetland buffer Um, and again, there's some gravel we could presumably restore that to its original condition and eliminate that impact We could also look at ways to obtain permitting to address that issue So I'd like to just defer that to another time, but presuming that we can address that issue adequately the site plan is as follows to eliminate all parking in the front Which was originally proposed in the lawn area We could conceivably do some wetland restoration work in that area as well One of the ideas laura would like to include is possibly implementing a fruit orchard And speaking to my wetland biologist, he said as long as they're hand planted that's allowed use under the mont wetland rules So this could be replanted as screening as well as habitat pollinator All kinds of good things that come from out of fruit trees on an agricultural property So we're going to have a wider driveway to come into the property to deal with a two-way traffic flow Some parking for wedding guests a turnaround Some pavers some rain gardens to agrar storm water And a wildflower garden A stringing tree row along a proposed Everybody's seen them the the two track farm roads where a tractor Ruts up the farm field and then the farmer puts out some gravel So a very rural low-impact type road Out to what we identified in the back behind the existing hedgerow in the south meadow as a Grass area where we're going to park our as much like what the ishams are approved to do now This is high in drive All up to the time of the year. So that's something that we thought was Appropriate and then we'll construct basically there's a mowed path here now for guests to get back That could either be on a tractor or they could walk and this is actually a wonderful way to approach the wedding barn from the back And you get this great vista as you crest the hill of this barn So it's a really special place. It's a really well thought out plan We've addressed storm water. We've addressed habitat. We've addressed Screening and concerns from the neighbors that we heard they didn't want to have this cars and parking and all of that The other thing Laura did was work with the way a planner to minimize the number of cars that we need to have on site They will work out a system where they have shuttle buses the small You know Bans where they can take people from their hotel bring them to the event pick them up bring them back So there's no drinking and driving and things of that nature It also minimizes the number of cars that we need to have on site. So We feel like this is a this is a much better plan than the one we presented initially We'd like to resubmit this as a revised application Ken what would be the requirement for parking? I mean, I'd be the board can't Factor in the potential use of a shuttle Right. I mean, I mean it's but based on parking is based on the square footage and the use of the building, correct? Oh so I guess the the first answer to the question would be to what extent We can understand the post use as being readily identifiable in the table for the parking standards and so Um, it may not be entirely crystal clear to start with um, you know, we certainly we have some language in the bylaw like if We need to reduce parking if you can show that it has access to transit um Having said that I think the key test would be to what extent The board felt comfortable that that would actually really occur Given the distances that would need to be traveled from any hotels that's existing today to this facility and we're talking about I don't know five six seven miles away so You know, there may be an idea That that's going to work. I think the board the question for the board will be whether or not you think that would really happen in real life I personally would be skeptical I can I mean we can provide whatever part there's room for 200 cars in that field But but again our intent was to try to minimize impact on the neighbors We did speak with the wedding planner who's offering to arrange shuttles and we could make that Something that we propose and again if it works, I think that would minimize the impacts for this project And again, I just wanted to get some feedback so that if we Hear some comments from the board that we like this or don't like that Regardless of whether or not we can get past the first test about whether it's historic We can submit a site plan that we don't have to hash out five more times So if you'd like something or don't like something, please let me know and we can make those corrections We did by the way the application that we submitted in terms of the use Was a carbon copy of the isham application. So the uses that are proposed in terms of hours of operation All all of the elements of the application that we submitted were we're literally just Transcribed from what was approved a quarter mile away Have you reapplied for a barn grant? No, because it's after the fact Usually they like you to spend the money first anyways, and then they'll reimburse you There's no reimbursement allowed it's it's for work to To be carried out On their forms that they will reimburse you after you spent the money They reimburse you after you spend the money, but in a planned project So you you apply for a project spend the money they reimburse you for up to 15 000 but not Not through work that wasn't awarded a barn grant because she was she did apply and was denied So she can't go back and get it But again, they did write they did write a very wonderful letter Katelyn Corkins who actually coordinates the barn grant program Wrote a very nice personal letter to laura Who's on their website right? Who's on the state website Is the existing septic that's here that the mount system is that size is that just for the house or is that size for It was built and designed for the house The ishams use a portal that system for their barn and and Speaking with the wedding planner that laura is working with they intend to do the same They make those trailers that you can You see at the fair The current the current plan for wastewater is to it's to utilize portable toilets Anything else Jeremy you want to I mean we could If you go through a couple of the points on the staff report that I wanted to just clarify On the project history on page two There's a bullet one two three four five six bullet the applicant inquire to the dc about a permit to construct That's not true. I verified with jessanne wyman that that was one of the neighbors Who inquired about laura's property and laura received a letter from the dc And we will be responding to that letter accordingly indicating that At such time that laura Initiates an activity that triggers a wastewater permit will obviously get one But I want to clarify the record for that There's no kitchen there's no kitchen proposed. I don't know where they I don't know where they got that from I don't know. Yeah, this again. We copied exactly how they perform functions at the ishams Facility which is catering and that's what we intend to do What's that there's no plumbing at all in the building correct and there's there are They put in a tank to To In the future if they wanted to apply for a permit they could add that to the existing system As an accessory use, but it's not currently functional And it's not plumbed to the building that I understand. No And there's no water to the building. No, right? Okay And just We talked about the 75 percent original materials and as I stated before I mean if we want to get into numbers I didn't see this barn before it was boiled down, but am I correct that it was a two-story barn? Yeah, it was a it was a bank barn. So it would have had a full basement So it would have been 2,400 square feet. So if this barn hadn't fallen down and Laura applied for this project We'd be looking at two you know potentially a restoration of a 2,400 square foot barn with a I think it was 750 square foot addition on the side and so again that would have been 350 square feet of existing structure all within the wetland buffer by the way Totally non-conforming and we might have been in here applying for that to just be rehabbed in place What we are asking for you to approve is a 3,300 square foot structure Which is five percent larger in terms of gross floor area in terms of footprint Obviously, it's a different set of maps But I think that's an important thing to to note Um I think that's all I've got We are talking about No, sorry. Thank you So we are going to open up to the audience that I know there's a bunch of people that have things I'd like to say Generally, um When this happens, I do like to request That if you're a neighbor just made a long statement and you want to make the same long statement just simply say My name would just set what I'd like, you know the point that I'd like I We don't listen to the same thing time after time after time. So please keep that in mind Sir, you stuck your hand up first name and address. Please Bartholm 3865 south road Molly hall 3865 south road and we're the property immediate May approach with copies of his speech and some photographs Okay So as I mentioned mark hall My ties to wilson are my family's ties Day back to the 1950s with my grandfather built a camp on Lake Iroquois Which remains in the family today having spent many summers in wilson My wife and I decided to make it our permanent home about five years ago We lived in the old village and then seeking a more country feel To raise our daughter moved out to south road where we live today. Yes I am Thank you Um, when I tell people I live in wilson Often their first thought is the tap corners area and I mentioned I live out near lake Iroquois and many folks respond by saying Oh, it's beautiful over there. I never think of that area as wilson Well, we all benefit from having the shopping amenities near tap corners It is a small pockets of country community that need to be protected and preserved to strike a balance Which brings us to why we are all here today We oppose the approval of this discretionary permit for the following reasons Under wilson by a law 3121 the barn cannot be considered historic You'll hear in a few moments from Scott Newman, who's a historic preservationist He has 25 years in the industry He worked as a historic preservation officer for the brahman agency of transportation Holds a master's in historic preservation and is qualified in brahman for Reviewing historic properties whether they meet national and state historic guidelines to being historic enough So he took this opportunity to evaluate the handy barn As if they were applying for national and state historic registry status And he found found that of the seven criteria that they outline in the national state historic guidelines That this barn does not meet any of those and he'll provide a report and give some testimony after I do Under WDB 3123 there was no restoration plan presented as required by the town by-law Prior to the project commencing We believe that if the plan was presented for the structure that is there today It would not be approved and it doesn't conform to the standards set forth by the town plan nor by a lot 3123 Based on the application and revised site plan It clearly shows that there is no real use for the restored section of the barn The new barn, which is the new section to the To the south was clearly designed and labeled as being the function area as it has the dance floor And next and outside the patio a flower garden a water fountain And it's all out Near the outdoor wedding lawn. So if you look at the photos that were provided The two bottom photos on that eight by ten is the new section You can see has a nice dance floor Wind floor put down. There's a loft up top There are sconces lighting sconces outside flower boxes So clearly the intent was not for ag purposes The intent of this was to be built as a wedding and event facility It is clear in the section 3125 That the only way bank what's can be allowed is in general is if it is in the restored historic barn Just because you have a restored barn on the property doesn't mean you get to use all your property for a wedding This is not a license to do what What isn't allowed otherwise in a structure or on other portions of the property And if you look at there's a one little Three by five picture attached to your packet That just shows kind of the historic part the inside of the historic part or the posed historic part And it wasn't really Developed necessarily to be used It wasn't given the same treatment as the new section There have been no sound traffic vibration studies submitted which we believe with our property line being only 190 feet from the barn and our house only 285 feet away Events held would not stay under the decibel level stated in the wilson noise control control ordinance appendix Also in 1810 4 The daytime maximum dba is 60 and the nighttime is 50 Just standing at the end of my driveway. I measure dba of 55 from the sound of crickets and leaves leaves rustling Um, I find it hard to believe that the venue would stay under the allotted maximum sound levels Also under 1813 vibration from the uh from the base of a sound system can resonate further than the sound of itself And if you look in the upper right hand corner of the 8 by 10 photo That is standing on my property line on our property line Looking at the barn and you can see how close in proximity I am to the facility as well as that big sliding barn door I have to imagine I'm going to keep it open during events allowing sound to kind of spill out during the party Number five as a consideration under 186 the application has no mention of how many events how often How many per month in which months they occur and the capacity These are all factors that will play into the impact of the surrounding neighborhood community No lighting plan was submitted as chapter 34 outlines the requirements commercial venues must adhere to Outside lighting has been installed on the barn Even though the application stated none was proposed Also, some of the fixtures are not fully shielded and you can see an example of that in the 8 by 10 as well Um, additionally with the proposed parking lot area so farther far from the building I find it hard to believe they won't need outside lighting for guests to walk or Take the take a tractor to and from they mentioned they need the need for temporary lighting But when does temporary lighting become permanent when it's required for every event? Seven in chapter 31 13 1 It states that no commercial use can have more than 16 parking spaces The application calls for 40 and we've even heard testimony about up to 200 If allowed, uh, would 40 really be enough? Restaurants require 20 spaces for 1000 square feet And this is similar ish to a restaurant It would have it wouldn't have enough parking as the barn and outdoor area are more than 2000 square feet And number eight until the state wastewater wastewater plans are submitted and approved The proposed site plan is meaningless because the roads and parking lots Might have to be moved to meet wastewater standards We also have a number of concerns about this project We have a 16 month old, um, Stella Our house is less than 285 feet as I mentioned earlier and not 400 feet as stated in the application From that large barn opening she goes to bed at 7 30 and during the summer months our windows are open We don't have a c in our house Sound is a huge concern and not just from amplified music but from traffic cleanup and setup Even today we can hear conversations from our backyard almost word from word Being had next to that barn During all seasons my wife daughter and I can be seen walking down south road in the evenings We are the crazy ones with reflective gear and flashlights Many times during our hour walk there could be five to seven cars that pass us What happens when 75 plus cars are zooming past to or from a wedding especially after they've had a couple of things The environmental impact on our property and drinking water from the from using a non permitted septic system and portlets The portlets the use of which are not in adherence the environmental protection rules of practice outlined in 2004 from the state wastewater management division And on the environmental front, uh, we support the recommendations by the Williston conservation committee and we want to provide a little bit of additional feedback It has had disturbance Assessment should definitely be done. Um, as I believe was presented tonight as the As it sees the total footprint of 100 and you can see from the images a new barn as much larger than the restored section The applications applicant should provide more details related to stormwater management and erosion control And when doing so put on record the total square feet of impervious cover Which includes the parking lot even though it's stated As and labeled as cracks. So that should be factored into that consideration Along with having wetland delineation completed by professional scientists A wetland scientist I would like to know that if the state wetlands office has been contacted to get a permit for construction in the beck or something And I don't believe they have been I encourage you to think back to 2015 when a town by-law 3125 was amended to add the section about historic marins being used as banquet facilities When that was added. It was a result of mike isham as we talked today meeting a legal way to hold weddings and events in his historic barn Um, one that is on that barn is on the national state registry of Historic places It also happens to be a thousand feet from within our from our front door and within view So having being sandwiched between two wedding barns is also not Super exciting for us as well There were references to his barn Tonight and in the applicant project narrative However, in our view these two projects are vastly different Mike By Self limits himself to only holding six weddings per year He lives on the property so he can monitor the events And the vast majority of his income still comes from agricultural related activities He grows berries christmas trees. I'm sure you've all been to his farm at one point or another In our view, he's using the provision exactly how it was intended To help supplement his income and diversify his agricultural activities Unlike the applicant mike doesn't own two other wedding barn venues in chitin county He doesn't have a wedding planner on staff to turn his barn into a full-time wedding venue And unlike an investor isn't going to try and maximize his return on investment by hosting as many Of weddings and events as he possibly can Your decision tonight is an important one as it will set a precedent for what can and can't be done in the ag residential zone What is to stop another investor from buying up historic barns? Building a structure that is more than twice the size of what was there to begin with Claiming it's for agricultural purposes and then coming in front of this board tonight Asking for a permit after the work has already been done An approval of this application was set a president that could turn our wilson countryside into a sea of small Historic sheds with large additions to host weddings Also, I have to believe the applicant's intention all along was hold weddings and events on the property As can see in how the at the foundation was poured while the historic barn was restored in 2014 13 And we talked a lot about the historic barn and ellie's great work that he did on that barn But we have to remember that there's a whole another addition there that was planned at that time And that barn the new barn came in 2017 But the whole foundation as we've talked about was was poured all together. It wasn't an afterthought Also ellie didn't do the full barn. He only did the small Supposedly historic part not the new construction piece Before closing we'd like you to recognize that an approval of this application would be an exception to Not in line with the town by-laws We support the conclusion drawn by the staff report presented by the planning and zoning office Um, the activities proposed by the applicant should take place in a commercially zoned area Not in an ag residential zoned countryside And that's why we have zoning here in the first place So I would uh Have Scott Newman to come up and talk a little bit about the research that he did And the report H2 says So it lists there's um, I mean matt hanker probably talked to it much better, but it lists commercial activities and um That are allowed in an ag zoned area Yes in an ag zoned area. Yes. Exactly. Yeah Realizing all the rules here. Sure. My name's scott newman. My address is 193 st. Paul street downtown berlin Mr. Chairman a question Uh, does this need to be fully read and nor could this to be fully considered? What can I highlight? It's um when I when it says technical Port on the cover it means Very good Sure I was hired by mark and molly hall to evaluate the handi barn located at 37 97 south road wilson to determine whether or not is a historic structure And in my 25 years of experience, I know no other way to make that determine Determination other than to uh, um Other than based on the decision of whether or not it's eligible for the state or national register of historic places So that's the benchmark that's typically used in vermont. That's the benchmark that I use in my report and what I'm going to highlight right now Uh, my qualifications. I think mark Mentioned them previously about 25 years in the business here in vermont This deputy state historic preservation officer for the state of vermont for 16 years In that capacity I reviewed about 2,200 projects for regulatory review Um Made the determinations on several hundred buildings in terms of their eligibility for the state and national register of historic places I did a Covered, you know across my desk came work Worth approximately six billion dollars And I had to make decisions on that final decisions on behalf of the state of vermont But other than that as a consultant I have engaged in a fair number of work for Private government institutional civic nonprofit clients including national register nominations project management Uh tax credit applications one of my most recent projects There's more on this if you in here, but I won't to gild the lily on this Uh, my most recent national register nomination is for the larrow farms that in weightsfield vermont that included a historic Dairy barn at this time I want to recognize my good friend elliott's Qualifications too because we work