This is a hybrid meeting taking place in town hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board in public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken at this meeting will be done by roll call vote. If Zoom crashes, this meeting will be continued to July 26th, 2022. I did July 26th because I assume the next, the first meeting in July with nothing on the agenda is, um, is canceled. Let's start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of DRB members. Paul Christensen. Paul, you're still muted. Paul, will you indicate by saying yay that you're here, please? I think he's speaking. Is the volume up on the TV? Yeah, because it's turning yellow, so speak. OK. Or is it plugged into that thing on the floor? I can hear you. Yeah, we got you now, Paul. Thank you. Sorry for that, for that hiccup. No problem. John Hemmelgarner. Present. Scott Riley. Here, Dave Saladino. Present. Dave Turner. Here. Dave Andrews. Here. And the chair is present. So we have all members of the DRB in attendance. Tonight, we have a number of items. But first, Simon or Emily, would you walk us through Zoom instructions, please? Yep, that's me. So welcome, everyone, to the Development Review Board. Please take a moment to make sure you are named accurately. You can do this by clicking the Participants button on your toolbar. That brings up the side window. You then hover over your name, click Rename, and then you can type away. Alternatively, you can send me a message in the chat, and I will rename you. If you're intending in person, please keep any devices, sort of laptops, mobile phones, anything like that off. Microphone, camera, and speaker, so we don't get any feedback. For those of you on Zoom, the toolbar does have a range of functions along the bottom of the viewer.   The camera is optional. There's the Chat button, which you can use to speak to me if you need technical help. Please don't give testimony in the chat. When we reach public testimony, you can use the Reactions button there to raise your hand to indicate that you'd like to speak, or just send me a message in the chat, and I will introduce you. We're going to be using ScreenShare tonight, which is a tool which allows everyone to see the same thing on Zoom. So what it allows you to do is see the screen that we are viewing and also video the person speaking. We do recommend the side-by-side viewing mode. Your Zoom should automatically default to this, but if it doesn't, you can reach it by clicking the View Options next to the green rectangle at the top of your screen, scrolling down and clicking side-by-side mode. And that also allows you to drag the vertical slider to adjust the size of the camera and the shared screen. And then lastly, if you are having a bad internet connection, you can try several things. You can turn off your video. You can close browser tabs and computer programs that you're not using, or you can use your telephone as a speaker and microphone. And you do this by clicking the Up Arrow next to the Mute button, clicking Leave Computer Audio, and then dialing back into the meeting with your phone. Okay, thank you, Simon. First item on the agenda is the Public Forum. This is an opportunity for anyone in the audience or participating by Zoom to make a comment on anything that is not on tonight's agenda. Is there anybody who would like to speak, either present here today in the room or participating by Zoom? So we have no raised hands and no chats. We can speak. Thank you, Simon. Okay, agenda item number two is the Public Hearing. We've got four items on the Public Hearing. We have HP 22-03, which is a certificate of appropriateness at 8099 Williston Road. Then we have HP 22-04 for an administrative permit at 64 Maple Road. Then DP 22-11, which is a pre-app for a 30-lot subdivision on Essex Road, and then continued from May 24th. We're going to continue with DP 21-05, which is a request for discretionary permit for 15-unit residential subdivision on Mountain View Road. First up is HP 22-03. Is the applicant present here in the building or participating by Zoom or not participating at all?  Welcome. Thank you. Call on Susie, I assume, because you would give your name and address for the record, please. Sure. Holder Hymn 8099 Williston Road. Susie Dickon or Posner Jones, Alias 89809 Williston Road. Welcome. Staff goes next. All right. So this is a request for a certificate of appropriateness and administrative permit to replace the slate roof with the shingle roof at 8099 Williston Road. This property is located in the National Register Historic District of the Village Zoning District. And this was on last meeting's agenda, June 14th. It was continued to this evening for additional information. So the staff and HAC, the Historic Advisory Committee, recommendation was that this change complies as proposed. Appendix H and Chapter 42 for the Village Zoning District are silent on the specific materials for historic buildings. It does say, respect the original character and period of the building. So there's the main house with slate. Some of the porches in addition to have shingles. The separate garage has a standing seam metal roof. That's going to stay the same. The applicant, I spoke with them after last meeting. And they provided a letter to the DRB that's in your packet, as well as several documents where they had a roof inspection done last year by a slate contracting firm. There were some repairs made last year. And the documentation does include some estimates for immediate repairs that would need to happen in some of the long-term annual maintenance costs with keeping up the slate. And they've decided to go with a shingle roof. I've also included in your packet a project history. So the conversations about this began back in March, well before the storm happened in May, where there was damage to their roof. So this conversation began before that immediate storm took place. And other than that, not much has changed in the staff report. I didn't include it in the staff report, but I did a quick scam of slate roofs in the village. There are seven and a half, and I say half because of the turret at Chapin Caner's house on Penny Lane, that is slate. The rest of the house is shingle. And then there's seven other structures that have slate looking through the permit record. The first registry was done in the 1970s for historic properties. And then updated in the 1990s. And several of those documents show historic homes with shingles, with standing sea metal, where I think it's reasonable to believe that a lot of the slate roofs that might have been original to the village have changed before modern zoning was adopted. Thank you. OK, since modern zoning has been adopted, what precedent is there to allow a slate roof to be replaced with asphalt? I looked through the permit record, and I did not see any modern permits for changing slate to shingles. There have been shingles to different kind of shingles, standing sea metal. But all of those were where the historic register had been not slate to begin with. So I couldn't find anything recently where this exact case has happened, where they were requesting replacing slate with another material. So this is unique. OK, thank you. I'd like to acknowledge your information package. That was very informative and well-written. And on behalf of the DRB, appreciate it. Before I open it up for DRB questions, do you have anything to supplement your letter and maybe augment Emily's staff report? If not, I'm going to turn it over to the DRB for questions. We do not. Was there something you expected that we missed where it's just an open question? I'm sorry? Was there something you expected from us, or is that just an open question? No, I'm not expecting anything. I just wanted to give you an opportunity. Anything more? Thank you. OK, thank you. OK, DRB members. Any questions? On the main roof of the house, those are damaged from the tree hitting that main roof? Yes. Was the underrooping underlayment damaged too, or just the slate tiles on top? Both, yes. So when the insurance adjuster came, he essentially said, I think there was a 10 or 12 foot wide swath of slate up to the peak where the tree hit in the main roof. And it was an open case once we took some slate off to find out what decking we were replacing. But he looked at the shape of it and where the impact of the tree was on that. And one of the other roofs, the asphalt tile. And anticipated there would be a further evidence for the claim. We had two leaves initially. Yeah, I'm sorry, I can't hear you, what? Sorry, that's because of our six-year-old. I'm hard at hearing. Background noise. We had two small weeks as a result of the tree, but they're resolved already, at least in the immediate. So the pictures that you provided us are, I assume, are pre-accident? Yes. Was that looked at before? Yes. Yes, that was. You have pictures post-accident? There's one in Emily's report from the Wilson Observer. And that is post-accident. And so it's an insurance claim, correct? There is an insurance claim for the tree. I'm going to, I'm not trying to ask you about your insurance claim, but I'm assuming it is an insurance claim. Yes. Correct. For the damage. And so if it's an insurance claim, why the switch in material, if the insurance company is going to replace it with like, kind, and quality? They're not. Why not? They're replacing simply where the tree hit. If you look through the report from the slate. I did. Yeah. They talk about all the other necessary reactive maintenance that's required that includes all of that snow belt, the chimney, and regular replacement of aging slate. So we were already inquiring around changing the roof material, because we knew that the degradation of the material had been in place over years. And we just learned through a different leak last year that we had to do something. And then we got that report in. So we started talking about a permit. And the tree hitting the house has just accelerated it to you, I think. I can't hear anything going on over there. I can't hear a thing he's saying either. So I know we have children in the background. Is there any way of? Oh, they're yours? Yeah. So it's funny to distract your attention. Can I move this? No, it's all right. You can. All right. That's just for me. Did you hear that? Yeah, I heard that. The people on Zoom heard that. It's OK. Anyway, to turn that up, Scott. Yeah, I think John Hemmelgarn mentioned in the chat that some Zoom people are having a hard time hearing all of the microphones. Sorry about that. I'm so far as Scott and Pete are coming through really well. But otherwise, it's very difficult to hear from anyone else. And Emily is coming through well. I'm not an expert. I have a lot of experience with slate roofs. Some of the numbers that either your contractor provided to you, $5,000 to $7,000 a year in annual maintenance, I don't buy it an instant. I'm very much against you taking off your slate roof. I think it is part of the house. It is what makes the house a historic residence. And you should hang on. And my opinion is that you should be doing absolutely everything you can to keep that room on there. I don't agree with some of the numbers on here. From my own experience, I haven't looked at your roof. I don't know what's there. But I think these are incredibly inflated. So my opinion, just from having experience with it, and again, my opinion is you should be trying to keep that roof on that house. You bought it. That was part of the purchase price, part of the responsibility of buying a historic residence. And so we'll see how the rest of the board feels. But that is my opinion. Paul or John, do either of you want to weigh in here? Sure. I would weigh in that I would agree with Scott in almost everything that he said. I'm sensitive to the costs that are associated with this. And I don't want to take that lightly. But as far as I can tell, there's nothing in our bylaws that say that we should even take the cost into consideration here. And I know there was a statement that said that it's minimally visible. But I disagree. And I think that as you walk from the village towards this house, you're going to see that slate roof. And the fact that it is a slate roof is one of the main contributing factors to this being an important structure in the village, in the historic portion of the village. And I think to take that down, it would be a mistake that the entire town would regret for a long time. And just like I would say, we should be regretting the loss of all the other slate roofs that Emily mentioned before the implementation of, what did you call it, Emily, the modern zoning? So I agree with Scott that I think that the buying house with a slate roof means that you're buying into the maintenance that comes with a slate roof. On the other hand, you're buying a forever roof. So I hate getting rid of that. I'll just leave it there. Paul, comments, please. I'm also a supporter of keeping the slate roof. I've owned homes when I was in the Navy down in Norfolk with a slate roof.  But maintenance on slate roofs can be done without tearing the roof off. And they do. They last forever. In fact, I rented the house out for 10 years or 15 years while I was rotated to other assignments. And we never touched the roof after they fixed it when I was in Norfolk. So I'm also saying, keep the roof and fix it. May I ask is an opportunity to respond to the first few comments? Or do we wait until the whole? You can go ahead and have the floor now. Yeah. And I'll try to be measured in my comments. As homeowners, yes, Scott and Paul, we do appreciate the importance and the role of being accountable when you buy an old property. And if you look at what we've done in the seven years we've been here, I think you'll find we are actually remarkably good stewards of an historical building. We've done everything internally, from plumbing to wiring to whatever we can do. Externally, we're doing the last of the lead paint that was left on that house externally this summer. It starts this week. So if you look at our track record, we spend somewhere between $6,000 and $15,000 a year to take what was a really degraded home, historic home, and bring it slowly back to life. What we did not anticipate was replacing a slate roof. So it's maybe naivety, but I don't think so. If a roof always has a 150-year life cycle, then with respect, we're at the tail end of that. And there should have been an awful lot more maintenance and care taken of a historic home and maybe interest taken in it over the years. I think it's implausible to think that a single homeowner is going to invest up to $100,000 to create a 150 potentially lifespan roof. It just doesn't happen anymore. And the lack of care that went into that home previously is on all of us. If the interest is in making this a test case in the village, I'm going to strongly object to it. The number of homes that have already been replaced with other material, that time's gone by. We're in a place where everything through supply chain costs 25% to 50% more. And I think it's totally unreasonable to think that anybody can bear the burden of that, never going to recoup that over the lifespan of ownership. So I'd love to hear you ask questions about what else we do or what is our interest in the historic character of the village. And you're going to hear a lot of informed opinion from us and a really good reason why we invested in that home and why we continue to invest. The potential of having to pay $100,000. And I appreciate you've had your own experience and you've got your questioning of the cost. It is significantly more than replacing it with an asphalt shingle. I can tell you that. It is, yep. And was not anticipated. Absolutely. Of course it is. Of course it is. But we're in the bylaws. Hey, John. John, you're interrupting. Continue, please. Thank you, Peter. I'm sorry. I think we're about as good as you get for historic homeowners. And I don't say that in any other intent than to share the way we've taken care of it and continue to take care of this home. The cost prohibitiveness of replacing slate to be some kind of a model home in what has already been lost as that historic space from a roofing standpoint just doesn't make sense to us. And again, you're welcome to chime in. The care we take of the home and the reasonableness of what home ownership means, I think that's just far too much to expect of a single homeowner in a village where so much has already been allowed to change. So where do we stop? Where do we stop it? Well, you don't make a test case, Scott. I'm not making a test case. But I think you are. No, I'm not. Essentially, the seven and a half slate roofs has to stay. It was all pre-modern zoning. If it was now, it wouldn't have happened. But it did. Pre-modern zoning, the zoning laws have changed. And it must on ours as well, because a third of the roof is already absolutely lost. Yes, it has. And in my opinion, it shouldn't go further. And the age of the home is actually 298 years old. So if you go by the 150 years, it's 40 years past due for a slate roof. I don't know. I don't go by that. So while I'm telling you, it's the original slate roof. It stood. And it was built in 1825. So if I do the math, that's 198 years old. And I've been told that it's 150 years lifespan on a slate roof. So we are 40 plus years overdue. We've owned the house for seven of those 40 years. So the town didn't take interest in it for a really long time. And this house was not maintained to the level that we have now maintained it. And the question about not considering cost in the bylaws, the town's taking great lengths, I think, and mindfully so to review the bylaws and the density in the village. And also with tax corners, with the rezoning and the thinking about the parks. And you're taking that time. So I would ask the town, why aren't you thinking about cost? And today's day and how things evolve. My first career was in affordable housing. And I worked for the Vermont Conservation Board and Housing Board. I've worked with Vermont Historic Preservation for multiple years. And I worked with Champlain Housing Trust. I can tell you from when I started my career in housing and development, to doing it now, what we develop in affordable housing is a bunch of motel spaces and the things that we can afford because of the cost of land over the years in the evolution. Things evolve. Things evolve. And this is evolved. So I would ask the town, if you're going to do something like this or make this. And I appreciate you saying it's not a test case, but it really is. We are. Because three quarters of the houses in the village are not maintained and have not been maintained. And Emily is citing more than I had, because I had canvassed myself. And a few of the ones, it's an orthodontist office. Two of them are town properties, which municipal municipalities can actually access help to maintain historical. We cannot as we can't do what you can do to maintain your slate. We can't do it. The ridgeline is a business. The slate barn is uninhabited. I have a six-year-old who's sleeping underneath the broken roof right now. And we only got an insurance claim to fix a 12-foot that doesn't address all the other needs of that roof that we have. And we did all this work long before the tree fell down. So now we're only held up by this. And when it rains, I wonder if he's going to get rained on. So I appreciate what you're saying. And that part's emotional, because you probably are homeowners and understand trying to book work right now, painting, roofing, afford it out of your own pocket. If anyone asked you to pay $100,000 without offering some solutions or help, I think you'd be upset. Thank you. I will say, too, I think our interests are really shared. We moved into the village. We have history of owning historical buildings. And it's a passion. So our interests are the same. The position you're taking is sharply different and immovable. And what I was hoping for this evening and still am is that we can talk about the common interest of retaining the character of historic village. Rather than it be, you're not getting another roof to keep the slate. That's a really hard line and a bullying tactic on a single homeowner who is not behaving in a way that is counter to the grief. And I think you're out of line for saying that. I'm not blaming, not at all. I take offense. I take offense, as folks. OK, folks. So let's lower the flame. Let's go to the rest of the DRV members, because I think your position is understood. My interests, I hope are understood. And your interest, and you've been well spoken, thank you. And I ask that Scott and John kind of temper this a little bit. And the other DRV members, would you like to weigh in on this, please? I just have one question. Did you also consider the standing seam roofing since a lot of the neighborhood housing around you that has been in place? I'm happy to. I'm absolutely. This is not, I'm not hell bent on asphalt. I am hell bent on the cost of having to replace a roof that is 48 years overdue, way before we owned the home. David, we would consider it. The reason we looked at shingle was because it closely resembled the look of slate and the color in line with the existing slate. I was just asking, because as you drive down the listen road where the older houses are and stuff, most of them have been replaced with standing seam roofing. So it would be in line with the rest of the area around you. So that's why I was asking that question. Thank you. And a lot with the slate, because a lot with the asphalt as well, because I know that because I've stayed in touch with historic folks and done the sign on the house and what have you, the ones that are in our era are mostly asphalt and standing seam. Again, there's one residential home, and it's actually a residential slash mixed use because it's ridgeline has a slate roof. Dave Salady, any questions or comments? A question for Emily. I see on May, the hack review, June 7th since review and recommendations, what were their recommendations? The hack was recommending allowing the replacement with shingle, looking at how overall there's very few slate remaining in the village and that the bylaw is vague. It's respect to the character of the original structure. And they considered that the shingle material that was selected does have a variety of color to sort of emulate the slate variety of color. And were they generally united in that? There was consensus on that. I just also to clarify that the main structure is a slate roof, but you have your additions and portraits are asphalt, so this is not. And standing seam. Yes, so you have it. It's not all slate right now. You've got a course of slate, and you've got some asphalt and standing seam. Yeah, it's a roll, and if it's asphalt, it's three different materials. And then the other is a shingle. So in some ways you'd be creating more of a unified amount of the asphalt. And then just lastly, if we were to vote no tonight, would you, and I guess if you had to posit what you would do, would you just replace that one section? And then you'd patch the holes and leave it as is. It does something that's just been $1,000 on slate. That's a good question. I understand why you're asking it. I don't think we came into the meeting anticipating that. And so I think we'd have to regroup and distill the reasoning behind it and then look at our options. Yeah, but my hunch is that, and I'll just posit that, that you wouldn't replace a slate. So even if the board wanted a slate there, we voted no. I don't know that we would get slate, because you just are not independent. We're not in the financial position. Other than creating a precedent, I don't know that advances are causing improvement in the village by saying no. That's my take. I just have one comment. I think Emily said that they were preparing to come in before to get the roof replaced before the damage. It wasn't that in here. Or you were working on getting the roof replaced before the damage was done? We had two leaks last year where loose slate, I think, or corrupt material fell. And we had two leaks coming into the house whenever that was, last fall, maybe? Yes. And then when we got the person to come in, that's when we said, oh my gosh, this is an awful lot. And Susie will tell you, well, she would tell you, I don't sleep at night with windy nights, because of that slate. It was always the issue for me, but particularly since last year. For eight years, we find slate in the yard. The ones that Achilles healed from the, as a hope of it. I think you can see the sequence on the cover page of the staff report in terms of the applicant reaching out to staff in advance of the storm. Nate, comments or thoughts? Yeah, I appreciate that you have an emotional attachment to the home. I think that's a good thing. And I would ask you also to appreciate our position of we, our job is to ask these questions and think about the house and the town. And I understand that there's a family behind all of it. I think that all of us would probably prefer to see slate on that roof. And I think you probably would too, right? I guess I don't feel like I know enough about the repair cost, et cetera, to really say one way or another for sure here. But I don't want you guys to have a leaky roof. I am curious, are there other materials, like composite shingles or something that might resemble slate more clearly than maybe you've looked at? We've only looked at these, because when the architectural, because that's what we had looked at at other homes that have already changed their roof in the village. So when we were trying to look for something that would be consistent, bring the consistency to the whole home, because like we said, we have three different materials right now on the home. We just looked at that. We're not married to not looking at other materials, but we didn't even, like we haven't considered it yet.  Right, and I mean, who knows if those other shed roofs off the side, et cetera, are part of the main structure or not, maybe they may not be. I think the slate is integral to the historic aspect of the building. I would like to see you save it, but I also appreciate that it may, it just may not be possible. Do you guys feel like the, I know when an insurance company gets involved, and one concern that I have is that maybe the insurance company has pushed you in a direction here? No, the insurance company originally did the assessment for the two parts of the roof, the surface, that they could see the damage and then would open the claim if there was structural damage underneath with the decking and whatever else. When they finalized the claim, they actually authorized a complete replacement because they anticipated the damage was going to be that deep. That had little to do with us looking at roof replacement last year and has little to do with the choice of material other than, as I say, when we first started this permit application process, it was, hmm, what looks most like slate? What fits best with what we can see in the building? That's always been the way we looked at it. Where were the leaks before the storm, and what was happening exactly on the roof? Was it on the edges, or was it when it was real windy? One was at the gable end facing the road, and it was some of the slate material and whatever was underneath. And another was about midway back, halfway up the slate roof. So when we got somebody in black rock, black slate, to do that repair, they did a number of other things. And then I asked for the assessment, and that's when they said, gosh, all this needs replacing, and this needs replacing, and this, and that's the numbers. And you can argue the numbers, but by the time we were finished, we were a little nauseated. Yeah. So once slate companies looked at it, is that correct? Yes. OK. And the $100,000 comes from sort of an estimate of them saying this is probably going to cost this much more. What would it cost us to have your leaks fixed today and the repairs done? But that won't, that won't, I'm sorry, I can't see your name. I can't. Oh, Nathan, sorry. That won't, Nathan, thank you. That won't resolve the longer term preventive maintenance piece. There's enough damage and there's enough degraded material from that assessment report that he said you're going to have to continually replace through the next several years. In addition, the snow belt and the chimney, whatever, that's an immediate piece. And then the non-slate material, if you read that report as you have, you said, Scott, like that cap, the cap needs replacing, so does some of the shingle. The one at the front, which is remarkably unattractive, is like a rolled, I don't know what it is, asphalt or rubber. Yeah, that's probably what it is, rolled asphalt. Thank you. And that just doesn't fit anything, doesn't fit anybody's aesthetically-minded vision. So it's a much bigger task. If we just replace where the tree hit, that doesn't get out what happened last year and the report that we had to assess the whole roof. Who gets at just what the tree hit? And just to remind, the roof, if it is indeed 150 years for the life of that, it's 40 plus years beyond the life of it. I just, I'm living with this churning, so I just need to say that. I understand you mentioned that a bunch of times. And again, my experience is that if slate roofs are maintained and no question about it, they take maintenance.  And for us, the current expense, they shed slates, no question about it. And in the springtime, you walk around when the snow goes away and you see slates on the ground, and it happens to us as well. It's also the material underneath the slate that we're deeply concerned about. The wood. Yeah. I'm assuming on a building like this, there's a diagonal wood planking or something along those lines that runs crosswise across the interior joists. And I would say to, sorry, go ahead. Well, Nathan, it's something about the extension, and the extension is old. It's got the original wide plank floors too, which tells me that, and that has the asphalt on it already. Okay, so if anybody has any comments that we haven't, I think we're kind of into the repeat mode now. One more point, if I may, Peter. You may have read in the letter that we had engaged somebody as one of the quotes, two of the quotes actually, to remove the good slate and retain it. And so part of what you were asking for, I think in the Furman application, is what would you do with the old material? And so we would absolutely want to repurpose that and make it available to anybody who needs that. But I don't know how much of the slate is still good. And in reality, it hasn't been maintained. So I hear you, and you've got a really positive experience that we would have aspired to, but we've got a house where that was not maintained. And so we're, I don't know how many years behind the curve in saving, salvaging realistically a slate roof. And it makes us sad, but again, like what we're facing today is just untenable really with replacement of slate. This would be easier for me if there were two quotes at repairing the slate that agreed with each other. It's a little tougher only being one. And you do happen to be in one of the few houses that I think is historic, that still has a slate roof. And it's probably because of the zoning, didn't kick in soon enough. So that's the position that I'm in at the moment. I would have liked to have seen two, two agree that would be a lot easier for me. I guess I'm kind of on the fence on it. Okay, any wrap up comments? I would be curious to see a standing seam. I don't even want to say that, but I'd be curious to see what it costs is. I mean, I've always heard rule of thumb is standing seams twice the price of a, twice the price of a asphalt roof and slate is four times. Those are like the rule of thumbs that I've heard over the years. I have no idea whether they're- Well, we're in line with the slate being four times the asphalt. Well, mine- This is not a discussion about cost from the board standpoint. That's not something that we take into account. I know you would like us to, but when it comes to this- Well, I acknowledge that in the letter, and I understand why that's important. I understand your point. Suzie, did you have something? Oh, well, no. I mean, not to belabor the, I'm just curious if that is something that the town can look at at some point, meaning when you have something like this case and that expense in today's time and wanting to maintain the character of the town, can you revisit the bylaws on something like that? It's just a comment. It's not a- Yeah, and so what we do in the most simplest form is that others make the rules and we enforce them. That's really at the most simplistic form. And so staff takes comments, they compile them, and when there's updates to the regulations, those comments are considered in the rewrite. But ultimately the Planning Commission writes the regs, the select board adopts them, and then we follow them. That's really how it works. In this particular case, it's not black and white. And which makes it- Exactly to that point, it's not black and white. And I think we've belabored as a group that we enact the regulations when they're clear, right? Step back, it's 15 feet. It's 15 feet. When there's gray areas, that's why we have a hack, right? I mean, we should be leaning on them, I feel like, to make these kind of judgment calls. I mean, we've had them go a little bit overstep sometimes, but I feel like in this instance where it is a gray area, I feel like having an advisory committee is really, that for me is the most important piece. Thank you, Dave. Any wrap up comments, John or Paul? Yes. So I'm trying to, I see what you're saying, Dave, but the direction we do have says, respect the original character and period of the building. And as far as I can understand, and again, I have to admit, I've not been able to hear everything perfectly clearly here this evening. In my mind, at least the old part of this building, because it has a slate roof and the others don't, I think that's part of the historical context of the village and of this building. And the fact that it's different than the porches, I think, is significant. And so when I see this request come in to replace all the roofs with the most standard, modern, typical roof material that's going on buildings these days, on everything to kind of homogenize the entire building, I think is a little disrespectful of the historic context that we're looking at and the original character and period of the building. I think that I could have been much more supportive of coming in and suggesting that that front part of the house that is the most visible, you know, the two-story piece that it faces the road that you can see the slate on would be of a higher quality. I mean, don't forget that these asphalt shingles that we're putting on is a huge downgrade in the quality of the roof that's being proposed for this building. You know, so if there was a more premium material being suggested for the oldest part of the building that had the highest quality of roof on there and then add the argument that they could do it as slate was prohibitively expensive. And that is a really slippery slope that I really don't want to go down because the next time we have an applicant in here that says this kind of siding is too expensive for me and I need to do something last, where do we start to draw the line and how and why would we be the ones that have to decide if something's too expensive or not too expensive? Honestly, that's not a burden that I want and I don't think I should have to do it's a DRB member. So I think that there are suggestions and proposals here that could be more thoughtful and that I could support. So I don't want to go away with my ultimate no vote here for this proposal being something that I'm being a bully or that I'm creating a test case because that's not the case. And anybody that knows me well would know that the Columbia bully is incredibly inappropriate and insulting and I'll just leave it there but I really didn't appreciate that. So I want to leave the door open. I think there are solutions here. I understand about building costs right now but I don't think replacing this entire roof with a architectural grade shingle is appropriate. That's my last comment, I'll be quiet on this one now. Paul, any wrap up? Nope, I'm going to pass on that. Okay, last chance, final words. Well, I regret the offense called in the moment so I apologize for the language that I used. I still think it was relatively reserved to give them what's at stake but I apologize, did not mean to insult character by any means. I think we've come with a permit application that is grounded in an interest of retaining historical character and if there are other options somewhere between asphalt and slate, I think that's a naivety for us that we're not aware of it and that is something that we'd certainly be willing to explore, I maintain that with the best of intent and we do have the best of intent, the slate replacement at the scale that we're talking about is just something we can't do. Okay, thank you. Okay, we're going to close, thank you. Any comments from the audience? Any raised hands? All right, no raised hands or chats. Okay, okay, we're going to close HP 22-03 as 749. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up, HP 22-04, Jason Kearney. Requests an administrative permit and certificate of appropriateness to replace the 1990s windows as 64 Maple Road. Is the applicant present? Yes, I am. Hi, Jason, would you please state your name and address for the record, please? Sure, Jason Kearney, 64 Maple Road here in Williston. Thank you, staff goes next. This is a request for a certificate of appropriateness and administrative permit to replace the 1990s windows at 64 Maple Road. This property is located in the additional review area of the Village Zoning District. The house was constructed in 1989 out of a 1988 subdivision. The applicant is proposing to replace the windows, the opening will not be changed. They're proposing double hung windows. The top sash will have an eight divided light pattern with grills between glass. And the bottom pane will be one large pane of glass. I do note that this is not historic property because it was constructed in 1989. The hack review was that the window style complies as proposed with grills between glass. Currently, the grills on the window shown in this picture are stick on on the interior. These would be between two panes of glass as proposed. When this house was built, it was a cedar sided, you know, cape log cabin style looking home. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Jason, do you have anything to add to that? No, I think that summed it up pretty well. We're not looking to change the character of the size of the windows at all. We're simply looking to improve the quality. We get a decent amount of solar gain through the windows. The windows themselves have become a bit torqued. They don't close tightly. And this is really just a maintenance replacement of what's there with an in kind window. Okay, thank you. DRB members, questions? John or Paul? No, I think that's a responsible response or proposal. Members of the audience, any questions? Comments? Anyone in Zoom have raised your hand if you're interested in weighing in, please? We've got no raised hands for chance. Okay, thank you. We're gonna close HP 22-04 at 753. Thank you, Jason. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, next up is DP 22-11. Cody Rice, care of landmark engineering and design for a 30 lot subdivision on Essex Road. Who's here representing the applicant? Jamie, you set up a landmark engineering line. Come on up, Jamie. Thank you.  Address is 25 Star Point Terrace, Little Mary, Vermont. Great, thank you. Okay, staff is next. And before you get going, you've developed a memo. That provides a wonderful overview of really what I call the rules of engagement for the DRV, what we can influence. And I suspect there's members of the audience that are interested in commenting on this application. And I'd like you to provide a summary of that. You can do it after you provide your staff report or before, that's your, it's your discretion. Okay, but I would like comments from the audience and from members of the public at large to consider what the DRV can and cannot influence. Because if it's something that we just don't have the ability to influence, I would respectfully ask that we not talk about it. And I'm not trying to shut down public comments, just that if we can't influence it, I don't see a need to talk about it. Or maybe we could point them in the direction of the areas that could be influenced. Yeah, and I think other boards, and I think Emily has done a really good job with that. So with that, I'll turn it over to you, Emily. Yeah, I think I'll do that portion at the end. So this is a request for pre-application review of a proposed residential subdivision at 665 and 669 Essex Road. The property is currently developed with two houses, one stick built and one mobile home. And they're proposing 29 new residential units. The property is approximately 9.93 acres. It's located in the residential zoning district. It is subject to conservation commission review. However, it is not in a design review district. And it has access off of Essex Road, which is a state highway. Tonight, staff is recommending that you take testimony and close, deliberate, and approve pre-application recommendations. As drafted, the DRB should focus their review on access, connectivity to adjoining parcels and subdivision design. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing the request. There have been fairly minor permits in the past for a home business, adding the mobile home in 1985. This property is on the historic sites and structures survey. The main house built 1870-ish and additions in 1910. However, it is not in a historic design review part of town. So local zoning can't have design preservation standards over it. The state permitting system might be different. The conservation commission commented on June 15th. Their recommendations are included. Public works and fire also commented. I note that the fire department memo is included as a recommendation, but only to the extent that it can be enforced under the authority of our bylaws. So the plan review standards that the fire administers is a select board policy. It's not in ordinance like the bylaws. So standards that they're requesting about street tree spacing, structure distance materials, fire hydrant locations. Those can't be regulated by zoning. The fire hydrant connections would be coordinating with public works on municipal water lines. Three comment letters were received at the time of mail-out. No additional letters were received before this evening. And I've prepared that additional memo that goes into more detail about school, traffic, et cetera. I'll discuss at the end. So pre-application is the time to acquaint the DRB and its advisors with a proposed development and its possibilities. Things are proposed conceptually and there's an invitation for alternatives. And the DRB doesn't approve or deny an application. They approve a list of recommendations that would influence a discretionary permit at a later date. Of note, the applicant has provided two options. One where the curb cut onto the state highway is to the north of the existing house. One where it's to the south. And staff will discuss later on a third option where the road rather than dead ending loops around to connect to route 2A in two locations. This would also be the preferred alternative for fire department emergency access. This is located in the residential zoning district. There are dimensional standards for setbacks that will need to be met at discretionary permit. And in terms of lot size, it could either be an open space development where the wetlands would be on their own open space area and the lot size could be smaller or an infill development where the minimum lot size is a little bit larger. Staff has drafted recommendations that it be treated as an open space in order to conserve that wetland area. There is no quantitative requirement for open space in this zoning district. However, it does need to include features like wetlands, their buffers, but there are no other natural resources mapped or identified for this property. A discretionary permit. There must be sidewalks on both sides of the street. There's probably some room for discussion here because the public work specification for this type of street, a minor residential, usually calls for a sidewalk on one side. So the DRB would want to discuss that. And the bylaw does encourage connectivity and discourages cul-de-sacs dead ends. This is discussed further below. Housing choice, they're proposing a mix of one and two bedroom, one and two family housing types. Vesting, brief mention here about the townwide official map that is set to be adopted by the select board. However, I note it here, it's moot in the case of this property because the official map doesn't identify any desired facilities. Therefore the DRB would rely on the existing standards of chapters 13 and 15 for street, sidewalk and multi-use path connections. Growth management, if this project completes pre-app in 2022, then it's eligible for growth management in March 2023. And the applicant is encouraged to meet with staff after pre-application to discuss the process and criteria, particularly because this part of town is very competitive with a limited amount of allocation and projects are allocated based on their score, their ranking, so scoring high is incentivized in that system. Access connectivity traffic studies, so recommendations six and seven are included and the DRB could edit or remove them. For that access management onto Route 2A where we're recommending the two points of access, the applicant should discuss this with VTRAN to provide documentation of that discussion in addition to their required 1111 access permit. Ultimately it's up to VTRAN to determine where and how many access points they want to allow onto their right of way. Pedestrian access, so here's where public works specs would probably call for a street with sidewalks on one side. And connectivity, the DRB and applicant should discuss the potential for a road right of way or sidewalk to abutting properties. This doesn't mean that they would have to construct a stub street to the property line but provide that irrevocable offer of dedication in right of way at discretionary permit. So to the north of the property it abuts Church of the Nazarene and two residential houses. There might be a potential for a future street or driveway to connect through that church property. To the east, I don't think a connection is feasible because it abuts single family lots and stir up circle. There's not a place to get through to stir up circle over public property. And then to the south, it abuts Bittersweet Common, Bittersweet Circle HOA common land. That common land does have emergency access easement over it and another house's driveway over it. But there I don't think the road would be ever be able to connect through to Bittersweet Circle. And since this will have to go through Act 250 and VTRAN's access permitting we are requesting that they provide a traffic study. Off-street parking and loading. The residential garages and driveways can meet the requirement for two spaces per unit. EV charging, a bus transit shelter are incentivized through growth management. And bicycle storage lockers could also be incentivized through growth management. On-site infrastructure. The DRB must demonstrate compliance with chapter 15. So private utility is located underground and water sewer in compliance with the public work specifications. I do note here bus stops. So option number two, they've provided, identifies a bus stop to the south of the existing house. Green Mountain Transit does operate a bus route, number 10, along Route 2A. The applicant should discuss a potential bus stop with Green Mountain Transit and provide documentation at discretionary permit. Whether there's an easement for the bus stop or it's constructed as part of this project is to be determined. It could probably be eligible for points in growth management if they were to provide it. Maintenance, so the discretionary permit must include draft copies of the owner associations, declarations and bylaws, particularly specifying the ongoing maintenance of open space, the neighborhood park and storm water system. And if there are class two wetlands and buffers on the property, that prohibited uses and activities will not be allowed in that area, particularly mowing or application of lawn chemicals. Residential density, transfer of development rights. So they are not proposing a transfer of development rights nor I think is this part of town eligible for TDR. In terms of density, the two existing houses were built prior to 1990. So they have an inherent right to exist. Therefore they would need growth management allocation for the 29 new units. And that is supported in the density analysis if there were to be some levels of affordability. So the base density is three dwelling unit equivalents per acre. And if there's an affordability component up to five dwelling unit equivalents per acre. The analysis done in the staff report does not include any wetlands or watersheds. So class two wetlands and their buffers after that delineation, they would get factored out. Staff is recommending that a delineation take place sooner rather than later. As we've learned with other projects, the density analysis can significantly change the layout or the number of units that would need to be requested in growth management. Landscaping. So a landscaping plan would need to be provided at discretionary permit. The table below explains what types of buffers could be allowed on those abutting property lines based on the abutting use. I do note that the type 150 foot buffer is not eligible here because it's not a forested lot. There's no existing forest. So they would have to do one of the other buffers. And I do note that traditionally a lot setback is 15 feet from a property line for a building envelope. The applicant might want to consider placing houses farther away so they have more of a backyard space. Her sheds, privacy, match the character of the neighboring properties. Street trees. So street trees will be required along the new road. The DRB should discuss street trees on route 2A so VTrans doesn't allow more maintained street trees in their right of way. So the trees would have to be placed outside the right of way. And there's also overhead power lines to be mindful of as well as the potential stormwater system. So at discretionary permit, the street trees would need to take into consideration those factors of state right of way of power lines and stormwater. The DRB's options to give exemptions on street trees are very limited. It's usually when there's a scenic vista or an existing forest, which are not applicable here. Conservation areas, so there's no conservation areas mapped on this property, such as significant wildlife habitat, unique natural communities, special flood hazard areas, et cetera. Waterside health, discretionary permit on erosion and runoff control plan must be provided. And the wetlands delineation. Wetlands are anticipated. They're shown on the state's wetland map, which is very speculative. It's not a delineation, it's not 100% accurate, but there could be some in the southeast corner of the property. More recently, the scoping study for James Brown Drive and what's excerpted here, their construction plans, did identify some potential wetlands near Route 2A. Conservation commission did provide a recommendation about invasive species, about a mitigating plan for them, especially fragmites. However, the bylaws don't have any specific requirements around an invasive species management plan. So the DRB could choose to amend or delete that recommendation. All the bylaw really says is that the removal or cutting or application of chemicals in the buff refers to control invasive species is allowed. Outdoor lighting, the discretionary permit must include an outdoor lighting plan. And the bylaw does limit how luminaries are shielded. They're orientation, number of lumens per unit to keep lighting low and preserve night skies. Signs in public art, so temporary construction signs or permanent neighborhood sign could be approved administratively if they meet the limitations of table 25.a. And lastly, school, transportation and park recreation impact fees are paid on a per unit basis at the time of administrative permit. What follows is my list of recommendations prepared by staff in the Conservation Commission. So on the comments that were received, emphasizing that the DRB cannot deny an application that is otherwise approvable because it would likely get appealed to the Development Review Board. And that the DRB rarely denies applications because we as staff are the gatekeepers for the DRB telling people it's not gonna fly if you submit a deniable application to the DRB. In terms of schools, there is a school impact fee that the town charges for new residential units. And I provide some information about the CVSD demographic study, what our town plan says in a recent memo to the Planning Commission. The DRB cannot deny an application if it's going to increase school students in the school system. It's the job of the Planning Commission, the Slack Board to make land use decisions about where new residential is gonna go. And then it's the responsibility of the school district to study that data and decide how long range they're gonna manage their school population. Drainage of stormwater management is regulated by the state of Vermont. They are required to show a stormwater system on their plans. The specifics of it, however, are dictated by the state. And an erosion and runoff control plan is also required. The DRB may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the state looks to see, looking at offsite flows that the development would improve offsite flows rather than increase it through managing the flows throughout the new development. Traffic violations are enforced by the police department. So when Route 2A near River Cove Road and James Brown Drive were recently redone, they did have block the box markings put in so people didn't block those intersections. But people drive in them anyway, but that's the responsibility of the police to enforce. And traffic connectivity. This corridor of Route 2A has a lot of older developments that were developed in the 1960s through 80s before Williston had more stringent requirements. So more units on dead end roads are in some of these neighborhoods than what would be allowed today. Up to 40 can be on a dead end today. And for example, bittersweet circle is about 88, 90 units. So that does create some existing challenges with how those neighborhoods are developed today with accessing onto a busy state highway. Route 2A corridor is a part of a regional transportation network. So I provide an abundance of resources about the regional and state level planning of intersection improvements, regional transportation networks, and also how VTrans is working on improvements in the more immediate term. So Mountain View Road industrial improvements are anticipated in 2024, 25 to significantly help with traffic flow and safety at that congested intersection. Noise is regulated by the Williston noise ordinance. So typically the noise standards in chapter 18 of the bylaw is when an industrial or in a commercial use is going in near residential and looking at noise, odor, et cetera. And outdoor lighting. Our bylaw does encourage low light standards to discourage light pollution on the horizontal plane where it would affect neighbors and vertical plane where it would impact night skies. And then a brief note about the wetlands about what our bylaw says for class two wetlands. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Emily. Okay, Jamie, why don't you walk us through the project from your lens? Walk us through the couple of options that you've developed, why you've provided those couple of options, and maybe comment on what you think the wetland impact would be based on your preliminary assessment. You're not obligated to do a wetland study at this phase in the process, but you've probably given that some consideration. And if you could kind of start there, then we'll open it up to questions. Yeah, great. First off, just thank you, Emily. That was a very fantastic, comprehensive report and summary. And it saves me from having to do most of it. So thank you. Looking at the site overall, I have an existing conditions plan that I provided as part of the packet. And you'll note that it has an original older farmhouse and barn with the mobile home on it currently. And the applicant's intent here is to maintain that farmhouse and barn as lot one. The trailer would eventually go away as part of this development would proceed. And part of the design as far as future development goes, option one is shown on sheet 1A. And that option really has to do with access. The driver here is going to be VTrans and what they allow for us to access onto 2A. We took a look at the driving patterns that are currently established on 2A, Essex Road, and we tried to provide two separate options that would give us either a south entrance or a north entrance. Our preference in congruence with the fire department would be to have a loop road. We're just not certain at this stage whether or not VTrans would allow two access points. So with option 1A, the assumed allowable access point was from the southern end of the parcel. And this contains 29 units and they're a mixed variety. We have a couple four duplex units down at the southern end and then we have the remainder as single family homes. One thing you'll note is we have stormwater forebay in the avocado shaped cul-de-sac. And then we have a stormwater conveyance and treatment area based on topography in the middle segment behind the barn for the original buildings. Can I ask you a quick question on that? Sure. Based on the conceptual design that you've got here, how close is that wetlands area to being an actual representation of what it might look like? It doesn't sound like you've had a wetlands delineation done yet. We have not. We haven't had a wetlands delineation done. That'll be basically step one, is to have that delineation done. That'll really let us know what our limitations are with the current site. So do you think this is, I mean this is you walking around in the field when you get your shoes wet, you put up your market and... So right now in the proposed stormwater conveyance and treatment area where that text is located, there is a bit of a depression. So there is some standing water occasionally and we did observe that. And what's proposed there is going to be a gravel wetland or stormwater treatment. And I'm sorry, that was in the avocado shape? So that would be a stormwater for bay where essentially water would drain to and have a chance to settle all the sediment load. And then at that point it would overflow into a treatment area. But also this kind of amoeba shape up behind the barn, that would be a conveyance channel of some sort. Whether it be grass line or stone line, I haven't determined. Again, I understand it's not delineated. I was more just kind of curious if it represented what you thought the wet area was or what you thought the wet area was plus like a 50 foot setback. Yeah, I have not considered it as wetland yet. We haven't had that delineation done so I wasn't ready to throw that on the plan, but it will be delineated before we proceed. I got it, thank you. Yep. Paul, we're just diverting on violence. Can I just bring back a quick question? It sounds like the construction plans, the B-trans construction plans did have delineated and approved by A&R violence. Did you know which energy to look at those? So they're taken to the bank. I mean, the Vermont Significate Wetlands Laboratory, who knows if that's on those B-trans plans. So I haven't seen the B-trans plans that delineated any class two wetlands or class three wetlands. I do know that the A&R Atlas, the interest locator, that indicated that there was some areas of possible wetland and some possible hybrid soils and wetland restoration potential, but it did not specifically have any BSWI delineations along that area. So that's where we definitely have to make sure we get the specialist out there. And we've already spoken to the state of Vermont as well. And so they're aware of this project and we're gonna end up having a wetlands project under associated with it. Just great, you remembered it. It sounds like you may have looked at those B-trans plans. Was there extensive wetlands on those plans? Not too much. I mean, the rumor was that B-trans did a full delineation of this property, but I couldn't find record of that. The plans that I excerpted in the stack report are on file at the public works office. And it just showed, you know, the wetland dashed kind of near their right of way. And then it just stops. It didn't show a full delineation of the parcel. So it probably would be worth digging more into the B-trans records on that and seeing what they have on file that I didn't have. I would assume those are probably gonna be out of date pretty quick too, wouldn't you think? Probably, yeah. Because delineations are only good for five years. So that kind of summarizes option one and it's makeup. And then you'll note that option one B or site plan one B really is the same concept. It just shows property lines or potential property lines associated with those residences. And then moving on to option or sheet two A. This was the proposed concept that we came up with with a potential approval from B-trans for a Northern access of the parcel. You'll see first off, right at the property's edge is where we've tried proposing the entrance. It just seemed like that was the most logical place that gives enough room for stormwater treatment in that same area as well as gets it away from River Code Road and trying to separate those turning movements. And then we provided some screening, some Arborvitties or something similar of that nature to try and screen some of the homes from the two A traffic and also vice versa some of the homes from two A. And in this option, we really just laid out a bunch of multifamily homes. These are a bit oversized in all reality. These are large multifamily homes. So in scale, they would probably be slightly reduced in size in square footage, but I wanted to basically give Cody the option of what he could build on this parcel. So this is how it was laid out with not shared driveways. They are divided by a center median area, but that could change in the next phase. And overall, I was given the understanding that hammerhead turnarounds are not allowed. So we had shown that in this option, but we can rearrange that end, that dead end turnaround to be a cul-de-sac as well. Again, that trailer, the trailer shown, the mobile home will be removed. So that should free up some space there to do that. We do also show the potential bus stop. And again, we would need to speak with VTRANs about that as well as the bus service provider. And let's see, what else? I guess what I would just say that option number three, although not shown on a specific sheet, we are currently trying to contact the landowner, the HOA for Bittersweet Circle to try and get permissions to utilize their current access road for the single family home that's on that right away, as well as the common land. And in doing so, we would try to improve the access point onto Group 2A or Essex Road at the current location on that parcel, which is just across the property line of the rice property. So you don't have a plan of that? We don't show that currently. We're still in discussions. Cody Rice is trying to reach out to that property owner and discuss that with them. And where would that show up on your plan? So on the sheet 2A, that is right at the bottom of the page on 2A, there's a current access road right there which you can see then travels off the page for the single family home driveway. And the portion that continues eastward, that goes to also another single family home. And what's not shown here, it's actually an emergency access point for the Bittersweet, yeah, for Bittersweet Circle behind the rice property. Yeah, thank you. Yeah. So that would be the three options, if you will. Again, with the third one being questionable, let's see, other than that, can I ask a question on that? Yeah. Can I ask a question on that? Sure. Just to clarify, the access to Bittersweet, are you saying it would come out the corner of the property there down to the main Bittersweet road or just straight down to the single family driveway? So what we would probably try to do is if we got permissions from Bittersweet HOA, we would improve the first 50 feet coming off to a, and then connect onto that from our development. The first 50 feet of that, just the single family home driveway. That's right, yeah. Yeah, exactly. We would have to widen that a little bit because it's an existing curb cut and traffic patterns are already determined to avoid or to allow that access. So we'd like to utilize that if we can, but we have to get permission on this thing. Wasn't sure if you were saying we're gonna cut that corner to access into the actual common road. No, I would probably reconfigure this first multi-family home right there and relocate that somewhere else to get access to that drive. All right, Jamie, anything else? No, I think that's it at the moment. Okay, DRP members, questions and comments please. I can keep going. Yeah, keep going. There's a comment about the deep, from DPW that said alternative two was not acceptable, but, or no, either DPW or fire, was that because of the hammerhead? Yeah. And I said, they said why? So the hammerhead. So going to a turnaround to call this act would make it in their eyes acceptable. Yeah. Is there a unit count limitation on that, on a turnaround? No more than 40 units on the dead end. No more than 40 units on the dead end. Emily, can you repeat David's question? I did not hear that very well. Oh, his question was why public works that option two wasn't acceptable. And I clarified that it was because of the hammerhead, when it could just be okay if it had a cul-de-sac. Okay, thank you. The access, so alternative number one, the access point is difficult onto two, I don't know how much you zoomed in, but there is the left turn onto River Cove Road, the northbound left turn lane. And so there would essentially be no space to turn a southbound left. So you would essentially have to reconfigure that entire approach. So from just a traffic standpoint, I think alternative two is better access point. Agreed. A question on the staff comments, the multi-use path along 2A, or at least provided easement for that, there is one, the multi-use path is on the west side, right? It comes all the way through here. And so what this is proposing 2G is to have them on both sides of 2A. Is that just my understanding of that, right? We're saying to put a multi-use path on the east side as well. 2G, providing an easement, so not requiring them to build it, but providing an easement parallel to route 2A. So it's just a safeguard if they ever need it in the future? Okay. Because it doesn't mean intent to build. Yeah, yeah. Do we have a bike head plan? Does it show that level of detail on both sides? I don't think so in our official map. When it gets adopted, it's not showing a desired facility on that east side of route 2A. Any idea how wide that easement would be, greater than the right of way? I wanna say 15 feet, maybe no more than 20. And the path they usually build is 10 feet wide. And that would coincide with the 50-foot setback to route 2A where you couldn't put houses or structures anyway. So the map you have down in your office that shows all of the desired portions of trails and easements and what have you, does this does not show up on that? Correct, it doesn't show up on it for multi-use path or primitive trails. Okay. And just lastly, I think you mentioned in your letter, you had talked to VTransmit. I'm curious, did you get a letter of intent or did you get any kind of? We've not, we've not. We're still working with them to try and get some feedback in there. Okay, so it's just a verbal that you can have one access point? Yeah. You know, just for the record, I think you're gonna have a really tough time getting two access points. I do too. A few, so, almost forbidden by VTrans, though. Sort of be nice if you can get the other properties. That you already got your copy. Exactly. We are working hard. Yeah. I just have a question around the mobile home. If you pull that out, will that remain open space or are you planning on doing something there? So essentially it would, there's two different options that are proposed. One, if you look at one key with the property line information, with that mobile home gone, the way it's laid out on option one B, the essentially remaining lands, although it would be open, they would be considered the remaining of lot one. It would all be combined until it remained, the initially existing lot one. So the farmhouse and the barn would retain ownership of that open space. And then when you look at option two B, which is the alternative with the different access point, you'll see that the existing farmhouse and barn has its own property segmented. And then the remainder is open space, which would be common land for the HOA. And those are completely preliminary and open for discussion as far as how that's configured moving forward. Do you have an affordable housing component? So the applicant is looking into that and seeing what options are available that he wants to consider. But again, we would like to hear some feedback from the DRB as well. Well, I think that Emily pointed out that this is a competitive process. Yes. And your housing choice is somewhat limited. So it would certainly help you rise in the scoring. Right now the affordable housing is based on 80, 100, 120% the area median income and the 2022 VHFA numbers for a three bedroom home would be a sale price of $308,000 to $463,000. That's a good point. It is pretty good, yeah. But those are the levels that are incentivized in the bylaw in growth management and then also for the density bonus. And I'm assuming that the density is shown here without the bonus? Correct. I think the density analysis at the base level is slightly over. I wasn't aware that the trailer was gonna go away. But that could be replaced with another building. Yeah, I think that was my misinterpretation. But that trailer unit because it predates 1990, they could shift that allocation to a different house and they would need to request one less in growth management. But right now, assuming no wetlands, it would be 29.5 dwelling unit equivalents at the baseline and then 49.5 if there's an affordable component. So you're looking at that. Any else, Dave? You mentioned that you were looking at providing the trails and paths. If you look at this, just visually whereabouts would you put those on the property? Yeah, the consideration for trails would really have to be probably along the perimeter, the outer perimeter. And so we would consider sneaking and condensing the configuration a little bit. I do have to also, because I'm in agreement with the fire department, with the wider street, with when you have friends visiting, you'll have people parking on the street. And that does, I had a little neighborhood just like this and it has implications. And so the street would be wider, the houses, we could make the driveways a little shorter and compress it a little bit and then probably provide a trail around the outer perimeter. But that would change or that would depend on how much cutbacks you want to make on that existing tree length, which provides a little bit of screen between the two neighborhoods. It's a patient difference. Anything else, Dave? No, I'm good. Nate? I'm good. Okay, Scott? John or Paul? Ringo? George? George, I can't do George tonight. No, I got a couple of comments, I guess, as this is pre-app. The access discussion onto Route 2A notwithstanding, I guess my personal thoughts as I look at this is that it seems crazy to put another road onto 2A right next to that driveway and that I really appreciate what you said about looking at the option of trying to improve the driveway that's there and to combine those. I appreciate that and I encourage you to kind of see that through to the end and see where that goes. So thank you for doing that. The other thing and I think Emily mentioned this earlier was it's an interesting push and pull here in that trying to maintain the open space in the center, which I can appreciate trying to leave a little breathing room between the historic farmhouse and the barn, which are there, and the new construction. On the other hand, it does seem like you've pushed those houses very much to the property line in the rears and it doesn't really create much of a rear yard and since the front yard is pretty much driveway, there's not much green space with these units and it seems like it might be better to maybe have less pavement and driveway in the front and more yard in the back that might just be a more pleasant place to own and to live, especially if you're gonna have kids and whatnot that like to play outside. So that's just a comment there that it seems like it's very short on backyard space. The other thing is you mentioned about the Arbor Vitey creating a screen from Essex Road to some of these houses which I see on option two A. I think that's a commendable thing to do. I'm not sure a row of golf course trees is the best way to do that and that maybe there's some more creative landscaping options there that would provide that screening and a little bit more of a natural looking separation between the barn and these new houses. So those are just my pre-app comments, mostly aesthetic. Okay, thank you, John. Paul. No real comments at this point other than to say that this is all sub change based on what we saw in the sudden wetland area that the guys across the message church discovered cause their model to change a little bit. So I assume that we're gonna be seeing a change after they get their wetland description from the state. I would echo that. Yep. Good point, Paul. Okay, at this point I would like to open it up to the public and if you are present here in the room and you'd like to address the board, please come up to the table with the public placard or if you're participating by Zoom, if you raise your hand, Simon will acknowledge you and let you know when it's your turn to speak. So is there anybody here in the room that would like to make a comment or address the board? Come on up and if you would state your name and address for the record, please. Yep. My name is Anne Trocher and I live at 102 Stirrup Circle in Williston. So this plan will really butt up against our backyard and so one of the, I have more concerns than anything, right? So I haven't seen the plans but when you talk about screening and screening, the new housing from 2A, we're concerned about screening our property to the new property, to the new buildings. The increase in noise level, especially, I didn't realize that we're multifamily dwellings that we're gonna be considered there. Traffic for us is a huge issue. Trying to get out of Stirrup Circle even though we have the blocked traffic lane, people do not let us in. There's no light there and even with the addition of the traffic light, we still have issues getting out. Sometimes it can take 15, 20 minutes to pull out onto 2A so the increase in traffic with another access there is concerning to me but primarily the privacy. We've lived there for 17 years and it's very peaceful. Our neighborhood is very peaceful so having 29 units, some of them multi-dwelling is a huge concern for me and our privacy in our home. So I would ask that there be some consideration in screening the current new housing from the older development that's there on Stirrup Circle as well. The property we feel is very wet. Our property is very wet in the spring and in the fall with lots of rain. Don't know what's stirring all that up will do to our property so there's some concerns that we have there, I have to say. Okay, so you touched upon some things that we can control. Okay. One is landscaping and we as a board take that very seriously when there's a new neighborhood and there's an existing neighborhood and there's the need for to take that into account to screen the existing neighborhood and maintain the quality of life. So that will be addressed at the next stage in this process. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else? So we've got Keith Bashore who's online. So Keith, if you'd like to unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record. Great. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes. Helen? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So I wanted to just reiterate what my neighbor just stated and certainly currently the landscaping piece is not as much of a big deal for our property. I'm at 58 Stirrup Circle as an adjacent property owner. I have a hedge, but it is an aging hedge and just don't know how long it's going to last. So the protection of foliage would certainly be helpful for that new development as well. But my follow-up question that I have is for the applicant. If that's possible for Emily to pull up the pre-application site plan so I can ask a question regarding a notation on there that's on, that runs parallel to my property. Is that possible? Yes. Yeah, Emily's pulling it up now. Slowly loading. Great. Were you interested in option one or option two? Really doesn't matter because my question pertains to both of those. Okay, go ahead. So the question that I have, thank you Emily for highlighting, that they've got that bold line that is drawn from the back of my property that runs parallel to my line to my property and then runs out to Stirrup Circle. Can the applicant tell me what his understanding that line represents? Go ahead. Yes, that line represents a storm water drain and the catch basin is located based on our survey information right on the property line. More or less these property lines are taken from the A&R Atlas and can sometimes be not quite perfect but that is a catch basin on the property line and then that extends eastward toward to another catch basin that is on Stirrup Circle. So at this point in time is there thought that there may be some storm water tied into that existing system or is that not an appropriate question to ask at this time, Mr. Kelly? No, it's an appropriate question. Jamie, if you could answer that to the best of your knowledge at this point. At this point, there is no anticipated storm water that will be discharged to that location. If anything, there may be some perimeter drain that would be required to maintain offsite runoff from the other homes on the other side of the Cody rice parcel. So in other words, control some offsite drainage onto his property may end up going to that if it's not already, which I think that was the purpose of that drain initially. Okay, I've seen that drain in use successfully and unsuccessfully in the 20 plus years that I've lived here. That drain Mr. Kelly was probably put in when this development was originally developed back in the early seventies. And when the surveyors were here last summer, last fall I spoke with them and I don't believe that they could confirm that that is an actual direct line that goes all the way to the storm drain on stirrup circle. So my concern is just making sure that the belief is that may be functional because I can tell you firsthand experience it's not as functional as what it appears to be. With the existing water and the existing landscape as we see it now, which is a concern for me to what that could represent down the road. May I comment? Absolutely. So I was one of the surveyors that was there on site during that time. And I did have that conversation with Mr. Bashaw. And he did express at that time that he had concerns about the function of that drainage. And that again is primarily why we're not considering discharging anything to that location just because he did express his concerns that it wasn't working properly already. All right, so you're saying that when you do a final design you're not gonna count on that catch basin being a functioning catch basin. That's correct. Okay. That's just the catch basin in the middle. It's right on the property line and the topography that's there kind of captures maybe 25 feet in either direction. It's a little bit of a depression there. But again, it's as Mr. Bashaw has indicated he's experienced that it does not work properly and he's tried several different methods to try and get it to function more properly but it just hasn't. So we're not anticipating that it's useful. I think we're going to structure it. Not just this. So then you can confirm as being the surveyor that was there that there is no guarantee that that line runs all the way efficiently to Stirrup Circle. Efficiently, definitely not. We did go investigate the catch basin on Stirrup Circle. We did see an inlet coming from the direction of that catch basin with the same pipe material and the same pipe diameter. However, we did not do any dye testing. We did not do any flow confirmation through that line. Thank you. Any other questions? Hi Keith, did you have any other questions at all? Nope. No, I'm good. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Hi, Dana Dietrich, would you like to unmute yourself and state your name and address the record? Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi. Hi, my name is Dana Dietrich. I'm at 110 Morgan Parkway and I appreciate the opportunity to be able to address the applicant and the board in regards to what is going to be going up right into my backyard. Just to reiterate what my neighbors have already kind of stated in regards to the wetland issue, my backyard is very wet in spring and fall. Already, so that is a concern as to what's going to happen. But I think my biggest concern is trying to come out onto 2A and make that left. It is on a Saturday afternoon in the summertime, it is nearly impossible. And it's a very big concern when you're going to be moving a lot more people into this already very congested area. So I already sent in a letter as well, but I just kind of wanted to put it on the record that it's a concern. I've actually witnessed an accident there. I'm sure there's been more, but there was an accident, car coming out of the restorer, car coming down 2A, right in front of the end of our street. So it's definitely a concern. So I just kind of wanted to put that on the record. So I appreciate everyone's time. OK, thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. Anyone else with a raised hand, Simon? There are no more raised hands or chat messages to speak. OK. Board members. Any other questions? Good. Also? OK. Paul or John? No, I'm good. OK. Any further comments by the public? Jamie, do you have any final comments or thoughts? No, I think that it's been made clear that we have a preference to utilize that southern entrance that's currently existing, I should say, the existing neighbor's southern entrance. And it's really going to come down to what the trans will allow. That will determine our design criteria. OK, thank you. We're going to close DP 22-11 at 8.50. Thank you for coming. Thank you. OK, next up. Continued from May 24, DP 21-05. Who is here representing the applicant? If you'd state your name and address for the record, please. Russell O'Leary Burt, 13 Corporate Drive Essence. Tom Weaver, 26th Corroy Road. That's extension. Welcome. Staff goes first. All right. This is a request for discretionary permit to construct 15-unit residential subdivision with 14 new homes and one existing home off Mountain View with a road connection to Meadow Run. The DRB might recall that this discussion began on May 24 when the hearing was opened. There were some deficiencies in the application that have since been addressed, so I'll keep most of my review pretty brief this evening. So we're recommending that the DRB review and approve this application with conditions as drafted, with particular focus on the vehicular access to the abutting property, vestry and safety, and crosswalks at the Meadow Run road intersection, street trees along Mountain View Road, and landscape buffers. So the Conservation Commission recommendations are included, as well as public works and fire with the usual annotation. One comment letter was received from Tony Stout on behalf of the abutting neighbor. And I updated the table about the pre-application recommendations, so they've met all of these recommendations from PREAP as shown here. This complies with the standards of the residential zoning district for dimensional setbacks, open space. They've clarified that there are seven acres of open space. And the pedestrian-friendly standards, they comply as proposed, as well as housing choice. They're providing affordable units for the growth management incentives. So growth management, they were scored 35 points and allocated 19 DUI. This discretionary permit upholds that score. They're providing a community garden with a gazebo, and some of the EV charging and bike share facilities required. And there are meeting conditions 22 and 24 that those HOA documents specify that those things be publicly accessible. Access Connectivity Traffic Studies, so they did provide a traffic study that showed that no turning lanes were warranted onto Mountain View Road. Vehicular access complies as proposed, so they revised their plan to show that irrevocable offer to the neighboring Haines property that's shown on the plat. And pedestrian access, so they're showing sidewalk on one side of the road. This meets the DPW specification. And it does alternate, so every home has frontage onto a sidewalk, but there's not additional encroachment into the wetland buffer. Off-street parking and loading is standard. There's garages and driveway parking that meet the requirement. On-site infrastructure, so overall compliance can be achieved at final plans. And there are some specific conditions included. They have updated the plans to show the 20-foot easement along Mountain View Road. That was discussed at the last hearing. They've also shown some crosswalks and bulb outs at that Meadow Run intersection. The DRB might want to discuss this configuration. Ultimately, it'll be up to Public Works to approve the configuration and turning radii at that intersection if improvements are to be made. And they are showing crosswalks where the sidewalk crosses the road. And the DRB should discuss if they should be raised or other traffic calming feature proposed. Other than that, private utilities are shown underground. And they're connecting to municipal sewer through the Meadow Run pump station. Maintenance and condition is included. And they have provided today the updated documents stating that these facilities will be maintained by the association. Density, so at the last hearing, there was some question about the number of acreage in the wetlands and wetland buffers. They've provided that update. There's 4 and 1 half acres in the class to wetlands and their buffers, which would bring the overall allowable density to 18 dwelling unit equivalents. They're proposing 15. And I'll mention with the growth management as well that with these additional units and their growth management allocation that there's a couple affordable and market units that are allocated that'll just kind of hang out in the ether. In previous discussions with the DRB, I said that some of those units might be able to be returned to the system. But because in theory, they could come back and amend and claim some of this additional density. Their site's very constrained, so it could be challenging. But it's theoretically possible. So those additional units of allocation will just kind of be hanging out in purgatory. They can't get returned to the system right now. So landscaping, condition number 8 is included. Mainly that there needs to be some plantings along the Western boundary behind unit 7 and 8. And for street trees, the DRB must aside if it's eligible for the scenic vista exemption. So Mountain View Road, these street trees would have to be located outside of the right of way. The DRB can provide an exemption. When you're headed east on Mountain View Road, there is a view of Nob Hill, Partridge Hill, and a little bit of Camelshump Farm, the distance. Conservation area, so condition number 8 is included for the significant wildlife habitat area, which overlaps the wetland buffer and that a habitat disturbance assessment was not required. And there are no other conservation areas on site. Watershed Health, standard conditions here. They've resolved all of the issues here. They've provided bolder delineation along the wetland buffer. They've walked some of the homes away from the wetland buffer so people could mower, maintain around their houses without approaching. Scenic Viewshed, they've provided some renderings that show the view of the home and how it's visible, which is a lot of the zoning district, but doesn't impede any of the views. And then lastly, standard recommendation for outdoor lighting and that impact fees will be paid with administrative permits. Thank you. Thanks, Emily. So first question is, have you read the proposed conditions of approval and do you have any concern? We've read them. We've read them and you're okay? Yeah. Okay. Do you have anything to supplement Emily's staff report? It's hard to beat Emily. Same guy, same thing the guy said before us. You did a great job. People cry. I'm sorry, I can't speak. I need the applicant to speak into the microphone more. I'm sorry. Is that better? A little, yes. Okay. I can at least hear you. Yeah, I think Emily did a great job on the explanation. We really try to abide by everything that we were told at the last meeting and we worked very hard to make all the changes to the plans. We provided access to the neighboring property, be it right away. We moved the units around so that we could provide that access. We added a lot more street trees. We provided the easement. I'm basically repeating everything that Emily said, but so basically we really, unless there's really specific questions, I mean, we were trying to do everything that we were asked to do. Great. And that was, that's apparent. Thank you for that. Okay, board members, questions. Starting with you, David. Saladina. I agree, I think this is, it was good to see how all these changes reflected in the plans. Just two public works related questions. There's more to curiosity. Is this gonna be a public street? Are you gonna? Yes. Okay. And then I remember at the last hearing, you were not sure where sewer was going. Was it going down the hill? We're definitely going downhill to the sewer collection system, to the pump station. We have a verbal agreement and it's in the hands of the attorneys. And I'm keeping my fingers crossed because you never know until everybody signs, but we don't see any apparent problems. So we're saying, I talked with the association a couple of days ago and I said, would it be fair to say that we've got an agreement? They said yes. So that's where we stand. And obviously if something were to happen, we're gonna be back. Yeah. Thank you. Anything else? No. Dave Turner. I'm good. Good? Yeah, good name. Looks good. Okay. Scott? There's a comment letter from the estate of Josephine Haynes that was submitted to the board. And it's, I guess I'd like to hear just a response to some of the items brought up in it. Have you seen the letter? I have. Yeah. Yeah. Can I speak now? So we've put three polyethylene culverts across and we ran some stormwater calculations. We're not opposed. You had a very quiet voice. Sorry. We decided to be conservative and put in three polyethylene culverts that will cross into the wetlands. So those are very apparent on sheet three on the planter profile. So Public Works has looked at that. And if there is any stormwater that's coming down that hill, even though it's not developed, we're going to be able to basically pick that water up and kind of flow it through our parcel without affecting our stormwater system. And it's very pretty, pretty clearly depicted on sheet three. And we've talked about that with Public Works pretty extensively. Are there other aspects of that letter that you would like the applicant to address? No. Paul or John, questions or concerns? Only question I would have is be about the condition number 21 suggests that final plan shall identify an easement and or a substrate, 88 Mountain View Road. Yep. It's on sheet three. There's a call out. It says 64 foot right away and it's very... I'm sorry, I can't... On sheet three, there's a call out that points to it. It says 64 foot future road right away. And then it shows up on the plat to the Haines property very clearly. I think it's probably most apparent on the plat. It's very busy on sheet three. I recognize just because there's so much information on that sheet, because that's the sheet that we're gonna build it up. So the 88 Mountain View Road, is that the address for the large lot that this... That's Haines, yep. Okay, so if there's an easement there in the future, someone wants to connect through to that, who gets to build the road that's on the current property that we're discussing? Well, there's a couple of things we thought about. The reason we didn't move units nine and 10, like was discussed is because that road may never be built. So we don't wanna fill wetlands where we don't know for sure if we will ever have to. Somebody who wants to build the road, the town will own the right of way, the 64 foot taking, so they could definitely connect. In order to facilitate that, we've added a water and sewer service so that someone could pick that up and just put a manhole and continue that street. So we facilitated that by adding water and sewer and then we provide that right of way owned by the town of Boston so that future connection could be made and we'd assume the developer would pay to put that road in if they wanted to connect. So Emily, maybe you could clarify this for me. It's, because I can't hear that answer. Is he saying that because we don't know if that road's ever gonna be built, they don't wanna build it at this time but they wouldn't be allowing the next developer from the adjacent property to access to that land to build that street? The right of way will be given to the town. So once it's deeded to the town, then it's up to the town and whoever develops that property to put in whatever connection there needs to be. Just as we are gonna do that into the other property in Mallory. I just wanted clarity on that. That's all. I wasn't suggesting that you should or shouldn't build it. I just wanted to understand to make sure that what we're asking for is going to be something that works in the future. Maybe I saw the ability to regulate that and that's mostly a question for staff. Sorry.  I just wanna make sure you can hear. A lot of people say I speak too loudly so I'm surprised that you guys are telling me I don't. I'm sorry. I think I'm a microphone. We're looking at the microphone, guys. It's not you. We're good. Anything else, John? No, it's no. Okay. Good question. Thank you. I'm happy. Any questions? I'm happy. I'm good. Okay. Any final thoughts, comments? Commentary? I've been a long, long haul. We appreciate your time. Well, thank you for being responsive. No, we're very welcome. It's very challenging site. Oh yeah, I think we got it. By the way, I think Scott, I don't know. Scott, Misha, he's on the Zoom, I'm pretty sure. Yes, he is. Because he texted me earlier on my phone. He had a conflict. It may be a formality, but is there anybody from the audience that has a question? Please raise your hand. There's no questions. There's no members of the public here. Okay. Okay. Very good. So we're going to close DP 21-05 at 9.07. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Recording stopped. Should we stop? Thank you. So the DRB is going to go into deliberations and then I'll email you guys the decisions. We get to kick you out. So you're getting the big move. You get to leave, we don't. We have to stay here. Is there a motion for DP 22-11? As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, David Saladino moved that the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted in all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory boards required a comment on this application by the Wilson Development Bylaw and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of June 28th, 2022, accept the recommendations for DP 22-11 and authorize this application to move forward to growth management review with the following five modifications to the conditions or recommendations. I'm sorry. First on recommendation number three, strike the word following recommendation number four, strike the word following strike recommendation five, the cross-section in recommendation number eight after the words street alignment and reword number nine to read the discretionary permit should consider street connectivity to a budding parcel in this period. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? I'll second it. Scott seconds it. Any further discussion? Hearing none, yay or nay, Paul. Thank you. John Hemmelgarn? Yay. Scott Riley? Okay. Dave Saladino? Yeah. Dave Turner? Yeah. Nate Andrews? Yeah. Chair Zia, seven in favor, non-opposed, motion carries. Is there a motion for DP 21-05? Yes, as authorized by WDB 6.63, I, David Turner, move the Wilson Development Review for having reviewed the application submitted for all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of town staff and the advisory board required to comment on the application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of May 24th, 2022 and June 28th, 2022, accept the findings of fact, conclusions of law for DP 21-05 and approve this discretionary permit subject to conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval for these plans from staff, and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. We're going to modify condition number eight, item A, to read final plan shall include more planings along the central and northern part of the Western Boundary to provide type three buffers behind units seven and eight. We will modify condition eight, item B, to read street trees along Mountain View Road are required. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds, any further discussion? Yay or nay please, Paul. Yay. John Hammelgarn. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. Dave Saladino. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Nate Andrews. Chair Zia, seven in favor, none opposed. Agenda item number three, communication final plans and other business. This is where we nominate officers for the next 12 months effective July 1, 2022. Is there a motion for the chair of the DRB for that period of time? I nominate T. Kelly. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any further discussion? All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And I'm gonna recuse myself given the topic. You can vote for yourself. So six in favor, one recuse. It's a great American way. And I am the chair for another year. Is there a motion for the vice chair? I nominate John Hammelgarn for vice chair. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner, second. I accept the nomination. Okay. All right. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? There is none. Welcome, John. Thank you. Okay. Next up is just a read into the record. The public comments that have received based on the, is that glass or? Glazer. Glazer, the Glazer property. So that's officially in the record. Next up is final plans for DP 16-05.4 which is Conwood Crossing. Emily, provide me some guidance on what we do there in this setting. Yep. So you would make a motion to approve the final plans. I did follow up with the applicant about the number of units that need to be affordable and they're going to amend to show 70 dwelling unit equivalents at the various affordability levels. And they've submitted revised architecturals for building C1 that I say comply as proposed to those DRB conditions. Okay. So is there a, Scott, I'd ask you to do this please. Is there a motion to accept those plans and realizing that you don't have a script to read from? Yeah. Do they have, Emily? You, no, I'm sorry, hold on a second here. Where are the numbers on here? It's handwritten. Well, it was, it's online and I wrote it on. Yeah, very good. Okay. So I, Scott Riley moved at the Williston Development Review Board, board approved final plans for Cottonwood Crossing, which is DP16-05.4, is that correct? Per the plans filed with the town staff. Period. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Dave Turner seconds it. Any discussion? Only that I looked at these online and I think these are a vast improvement. Yes, I agree. Great. Thank you, John. Okay. Yay or nay? Paul Christensen? Yay. John Hemmelgarn? Yay. Scott Riley? Yay. Dave Saladino? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. Nate Andrews? Yay. The chair is going to recuse himself because I did that for the hearing. So there's six in favor, non-opposed, one recused motion carries. Next order of business is to approve the meeting minutes of June 14th, 2022. Is there a motion? Yes. I move that we approve the minutes of the June 14th, 2022 meeting as written. Thank you, John. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Saladino seconds it. Any further discussion? Hearing none, yay or nay? Paul? Yay. John? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave Saladino? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. Nate Andrews? Yeah. Chair Zia, seven in favor, non-opposed motion carries. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Yes, I'd like to put into the record a thank you to David Saladino. He beat me to it. That's the first time tonight, Scott. Pleasure serving with it. Thank you. I would like to put into the record that we do not accept his resignation. He was able to make the dating. I really appreciate it. This board is second to none. I mean, to work, I have a chance to get in front of a lot of DRBs across the state. This is one of the best, most professional boards that I had an opportunity to work with. So I really appreciate it. It's that perspective of all the members. So I really appreciate this time. Well, you added a lot, Dave, and we're gonna miss you. And thanks for your contribution. Anytime you feel lonely, come back. I'll just zoom right in, yeah. Anything else? Is there a motion to adjourn? I'll make the motion. Second. All second. Any discussion? All in favor, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Thank you all.