We're going to get this going. Welcome to the Wilson Development Review Board meeting of April 25, 2023. My name is John Hemmelgarn. I'm the vice chair of the DRB, and I'll be chairing this meeting this evening. If you are a Zoom participant, please sign in with your name on the participant toolbar. This is a hybrid meeting taking place in the town hall and virtually on Zoom. All members of the board and the public can communicate in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken in this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, this meeting will be continued to May 9th, 2023. Let's do the instructions there, Andrew. All right, welcome to everybody in person and on Zoom. If you're joining the meeting via Zoom, please take a moment to name yourself so we know who you are. You can do this by clicking on the participants button in the toolbar at the bottom, and by clicking rename in the side toolbar. For participants joining on Zoom, we have a lot of features on the toolbar.   Video is optional. The public testimony will be taken verbally. The chat is for technical questions. If you have any questions, you can direct them to me or Simon. During the public comment, you can use the chat to request a speak, or you can press the raise hand button in the reactions bar to request a speak. We'll then call on you when it's your turn to speak. We will be using the screen share tonight, so everyone can see the same documents. We recommend using side by side mode. Zoom should default to this, but if you need to change it, click the green rectangle at the top of your screen, then click side by side mode. You can optimize your view with side by side mode to increase or decrease the screen share size. Lastly, if you're having bad internet connection, you can try turning off your video, closing other tabs, or using your phone as a speaker. If you have any questions on how to do this or if you're having issues with this, please just let me know and I'll try to help you out. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. We'll start the meeting by taking a roll call attendance of all DRB members participating in the meeting. Nate Andrews is not present. Paul Christensen. Present. Lisa Brayden Harder. Present. Scott Riley. Here. David Turner. Here. John Hemmelgarn is present. Pete Kelly is not in attendance as a board member this evening. So, looking at our agenda, after the public forum, we've got two items on the public hearing agenda. DP 2312, U-Haul Moving in Storage, is requesting a discretionary permit. And DP 17, day 01.5, Northridge, Wilson, LLC, request a discretionary permit for their proposed community elements at the Northridge development. So, our first thing on the agenda though is the public forum where we invite anyone in the audience who would like to address the board on topics that are not part of the agenda to speak up. Is there anyone in the audience either in person or on Zoom that would like to address the board? No raise hands. No one here in the audience. So, we'll move on to our first agenda item. DP 23, day 12, U-Haul Moving in Storage. We'll open that hearing at 7.05 p.m. I would ask the folks representing the applicant to identify themselves. Is there name and address? Jeff Aime, owner's rep for U-Haul, 58 Howard Street, Winchester, New Hampshire. I'm Abby Derry with Trudell Consulting Engineers, 478 Blair Park Road in Millistown. Great, thank you. Who's got this one, staff? That's me. Go ahead Miles. So, this is a discretionary permit to develop by around 18,000 square foot warehouse facility. It's going to be used for the storage of U-boxes, which are portable storage units. The site is Lot 2 of the Robare subdivision. U-Haul have obviously already built their facility at Lot 3. The parcel does share an access curb car onto Route 2 with the existing facility. And that will also provide access to any future development on Lot 1 of the Robare subdivision through an access easement. The property is in the Industrial Zoning District West with a tiny sliver in the Gateway Zoning District West. Staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony, consider the minor issues raised in the staff report and approve the project with conditions as drafted. We did not receive any comment letters for this proposal. So in terms of the zoning bylaw, the proposal does comply with the dimensional standards of the Industrial Zoning District West. They're not proposing any outdoor sales or storage. It complies with the access connectivity and traffic studies chapter of the bylaws. They are proposing to build their section of a sidewalk along the Route 2 frontage, which will eventually connect all the way down to Industrial Avenue. The proposal complies with the parking requirements of the bylaw. They're proposing 10 spaces, one for the employee of the building and nine for overspill staff from the existing facility. This is what they proposed at PREAP, the DRB reviewed. And as you're probably aware, for industrial use is the DRB has considerable discretion in setting the parking standard. We do recommend that that is acceptable. The proposal has two loading areas. One on the loading dock on the west side of the building for trucks and also a roll-up door on the east side of the building, both of which are accessible. And that is compliant with our requirements on off-street loading. The proposal also complies with the bylaw requirements on bicycle parking. Again, they are proposing the same as what they proposed at PREAP application stage. As no members of the public will be visiting the facility, we're recommending that no short-term bike parking spaces are required. Simply one long-term space inside from the staff. And the applicant has confirmed that that member of staff can obviously use the end-of-trip facility in the main space. Snow storage. The bylaws do require adequate snow storage areas. The plans must be where the snow is to be stored in landscape areas. This is acceptable as long as the plant material selected is salt tolerant and is the growth form that's capable ofwithstanding snowmovement equipment and stacking of snow. So we've got two snow storage areas, one at the front and one at the side on the eastern boundary. At the front, there's a good-sized area of open landscaped buffer that can accommodate the snow storage. On the east boundary, it's a densely planted type 3 buffer. So it might be problematic to store snow in that area without damaging the trees. So we've recommended a condition that some of the snow storage be relocated onto some free areas of hard-standing behind the building. A further condition just been recommended for waste storage that everything is inside. The applicants confirmed this development will generate relatively little waste, so that is acceptable. Design review. The application was reviewed by the hack back in January before pre-application stage. The applicant did actually revise the drawings to accommodate the hack's comments before the DRB reviewed the pre-application at their meetings of January and February. So since that time, the hack has reviewed the project again on 18th April. The discussion was focused on a few minor points that were outstanding. So light spill from the windows, as you might be aware, the lighting from the existing youth hall facility is a little brighter than was anticipated inside the building. But the applicant has confirmed that in this case the lights are set back 60 feet from the front windows, which are the windows you see there on the north elevation and 33 feet from the side windows on the west elevation. The facility is only anticipated to operate between 7am and 5pm outside of that period. There will be on timers, so only emergency lighting will be visible. And once the warehouse starts filling up with U-boxes, that will block whatever residual light is left. The hack was satisfied with that explanation. They also discussed windows and felt that the use of windows on the property helped create a compatible visual pattern for it and was also consistent with the windows on the neighbouring youth hall building. I just flagged that as that was three members of the hack in favour and one against. To remember against felt the windows should be eliminated. And lastly, the hack felt that the signage complied as proposed. Youth Hall are opposing a wayfinding sign as part of their master sign plan. Landscaping. As you can see there, the property is bordered by a vacant lot to the east and they're proposing a type 3 landscape buffer there, which follows the pre-application recommendations. We just made a minor recommendation that a couple of the tree species, which are salt intolerant, are replaced with more salt tolerant species, given that that adjoins an area that we plowed. Our pre-application stage for the southern buffer, which adjoins the neighbouring residents, the steady property. The DRB asked the app can work with the neighbours to come up with a buffer that was acceptable to both of them. So what they're proposing is a type 2 densely planted buffer with a 6 foot final screen fence and a 3 foot berm. It looks like the landscaping there has been selected to be pretty dense and they are proposing some evergreen species. And I believe the neighbour is on the Zoom call and may want to comment during public comment. Street trees are what was proposed at pre-app and what the DRB recommended. So they are 20 foot spacing along the frontage staggered. That exceeds the requirements of the bylaw and also matches what was approved and has been installed a lot of free at their existing facility. You may recall that the DRB spent some time with the applicant talking about the quantity of impervious surface during pre-app. As a result of that, at pre-app they reduced the impervious surface down to 0.7 acres, 0.7 of an acre. So that is what's now proposed and what the DRB reviewed and found acceptable at pre-app. Lighting. Lighting is generally compliant. Just a couple of conditions that relate to nighttime landscaping. Sorry, lighting. So broadly speaking, the size developed in sort of a front half which are those light fixtures. A, the sort of a dry in the easement. The applicants proposing 75%, whether they be dimmed by 75%, which is a standard for parking areas. As there's no parking there, we have recommended that that be changed to motion activated during daylight hours. Sorry, dark hours. And then at the back where there are fixtures B and C, those are proposed to be switched off after close-up business and motion activated thereafter. And then lastly, the applicant has submitted a master sign plan. This master sign plan covers both the existing lot and lot 2. And that's on your agenda to be reviewed at the next meeting. It does contain signs for the new building, a directional freestanding sign and a replacement sign for the main building. But staff are confident, given that the elevations show locations for signs that the DRB can appropriately review that in two weeks' time. So that's it. And what follows is a recommendation with conditions to approve the project. That's it. Thank you. So, have you had a chance to review the conditions that have been proposed? And do you understand them and have any questions or concerns with those? No, I want to thank staff for putting together such a good comprehensive report. All the recommendations from the HAC and the DRB were totally fine with. We consent to all of them and we have no objections to any of them. And through this process, it's been good. So unless you have questions for us. So there's nothing additional that you wanted to let us know about? Nothing additional other than what staff had. In which case, I'll open this up to board members for questions. Paul. I have a question to the staff. Is the property going to be merged as one piece when this is all once the second building? So is that going to be one property at that point? So I believe the applicant could merge them if they want. But I think for the purposes of the bylaw, we just consider it merged when we're administering any other applications at the parcel. The reason I ask the question is because if it is not merged as a single piece property, then the West Buffer could potentially be required to have landscaping if they suddenly decide to peel off that warehouse that we're talking about if it suddenly became a separate company. Technically now, two companies, you've got to have a buffer, right? You could, Paul, although understanding this as all part of the Robare subdivision, there's an outright requirement that it be buffered as a subdivision as an industrial park from other adjacent developments. So whether simply a change of ownership in one of the two buildings that we're looking at here would trigger a buffer requirement. I'm not sure that it would. It's similar to buffering requirements to the exterior of a residential subdivision versus in between each unit. That said, if somebody chose to redevelop one of these sites and have it truly be independent, there could be a buffer requirement triggered that way. So maybe not ownership, but maybe redevelopment would do that. So that would then bring it back here? Yes. Okay, that's all I want to make sure. Any other questions from the board? I just want to say thanks for putting planning in front of the building. I think that's going to make it look a little better as people go down the road and look at it and stuff. So I think that'll help. I have no questions as well. So I will open this up to members of the public that are in the audience or on Zoom. I did hear that there was a rumor that the neighbor that is on the call. Is that true? And would you like to make a comment? Michelle, if you want to unmute. Okay. No, everything sounds great. Sounds fine. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And I see no comments from the audience. One last chance from the board members. Just one comment that they must not like truck drivers since they're going to require to do blind, you know, blind alley backs. They're very good at those. Oh, yeah. We love, we used to love those. All right. So let's close this hearing at 7.20 p.m. Thank you very, very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. A very responsive application. Yes. So we will move on to the next item on our agenda, DP 17, day 01.5, Northbridge, Williston, LLC, request a discretionary permit for their proposed community elements, including a pool, pool house, playground and sports field at Cadence Circle in the Northridge subdivision in the residential zoning district. We'll call this to order at or open it at 7.21. I wanted to just say before we get started, that this is an application that I think has a very limited purview from the DRB. There are changes being made to the original application that really the scope of the DRB review is to ascertain if these changes are still qualified, or changes essentially the growth management score for the project. Otherwise, this project is essentially the same. So that's what we'll be focusing on tonight. Can I add one thing? Please do. So to expand upon with members of the audience, to expand upon what Chair Hemmelgarn said is that what I'm reading in the packet, this is a civil matter between, or possible disagreement between the homeowners association and the developer. This is not the venue. We are not here to adjudicate a disagreement between the homeowners association or the homeowners and the developer. That is up to you to determine and figure out with the person or with the group that is constructing the amenities for the development. That's not something that we will weigh in on. We won't even discuss it. So I know you came out tonight. I'm guessing that was probably what you wanted to talk about. This is not the forum. We are here to talk simply about what the developer is proposing. If it's something that is approved by the board, you have the right to appeal it. But it's not something that we can get in the middle of two different groups. Okay? Is that clear?  So this is a request to amend final plans for DP 1701, which is the Northridge residential subdivision. It's a request to resize and relocate the pool, pool house and playground within Cadence Circle in that neighborhood, and to add a small athletic field to that area inside of Cadence Circle as well. Further, the originally proposed and approved pedestrian sidewalk around the inside of Cadence Circle is proposed to be eliminated. There is still a sidewalk around the outside of the circle. Staff is recommending that the DRB conduct its public hearing tonight on the request, take testimony and close. Deliberate and consider conditions of approval for the amendment. Staff has drafted those conditions and attached them to the staff report. Northridge subdivision has a fairly lengthy history beginning back in September of 2016 with its first pre-application review. Of note tonight, the amenities that are under discussion are something that the DRB reviewed or at least reviewed a draft proposal of as part of the two growth management hearings that were held on this project. For those of you unfamiliar with that term, growth management is a competitive process in Williston by which residential projects are allowed to move forward at various paces and on various schedules, and growth management incentivizes numerous aspects of new subdivisions, including things like neighborhood design and the provision of private amenities within the subdivision. So there's a bit of a discussion later on in the staff report about growth management. Related to review of the proposed changes, the fire department did write a memo requesting the applicant meet with them to determine a parking plan and circulation pattern for emergency services. They related specifically to the proposed soccer field. Soccer field inside of Cadence Circle was previously just identified as a green space. There's been a pair of goals added making it a soccer field. This is something Fire noticed and would recommend the Fire Department and applicant get together to talk about any other changes to final plans necessary to provide for emergency access related to that amenity. In public comment, we did receive one letter by time of mail out on April 20th. This was a letter cosigned by 31 residents of the Northridge neighborhood. Six further residents asked to be added to that letter afterwards, bringing the total to 37. And I will talk in a little bit of a general way about that letter now and a little bit more detail in a moment. So the letter received does reflect some discussions between the Northridge homeowners and BlackRock representatives regarding the common elements within Cadence Circle. And there is a list of requested changes or additions to what's been submitted to the DRB tonight contained within that level, sorry, within that letter. Some of these things are at a pretty significant level of detail beyond level of detail that the DRB might usually see in a final plan. So I'll talk about that in a little bit. The letter does also make mention of a sort of an aspiration that the streets in Northridge would soon be taken over by the town of Williston. And I just wanted to note for everybody that under current town policy, the town takes roads that go somewhere, i.e. connect one public road to another and usually does not take a road until that connection is physically made. In the case of Northridge, when there is further development to the north or possibly northwest in Coyote Run, would that connection happen and then the town would consider taking those roads? Roads that go through come with irrevocable offers to the towns the town can choose to take them on as public streets or roads when the town wishes to do so. And this is something that happens at the discretion of the select board on the recommendation of the Public Works Director. So I mentioned that what's before the DRB tonight is an amendment to the project. It's a physical amendment requiring a review by the board, just the scale of what's happening and the elimination of the sidewalk. But it's also an amendment that the DRB needs to review against the score that was assigned to the project in both rounds of growth management review 2017 and 2020. And as I mentioned before, this is related to the category in Chapter 11 titled Neighborhood Space. That criterion has the same wording and scoring metric in both versions of growth management under which the project was reviewed. So in 2017, there were four points assigned by the DRB in this neighborhood space category. And we're not sure between the staff's recommended score and the DRB's increased score if neighborhood space had anything to do with that because the staff report just talked about a total score. You can see on the right here in the upper graphic on the screen, the layout of the proposed amenities, pool playground, pool house, and patio and fence, walkway, and central element on the green as shown during the plan set that the DRB reviewed at that time. And the questionnaire statement provided by the applicant said the plan envisions a pool green located at the heart of the higher density portion of the project space for the benefit of the entire project and connectivity to it will be pedestrian friendly through an extensive network of sidewalks and recreation paths. We're referring a little bit to some things that aren't shown on this graphic, but just the way it's connected to the rest of the project. Oops, I'm sorry. I hit page down instead of scrolling. In 2020, the DRB reviewed the project again, actually scoring the overall project a little higher at 48 points and arriving at a final score of eight out of 10 points for neighborhood space. This allowed the DRB to approve the allocation for the remaining 18 units in the project. You can see a discussion of the verbal description by the applicant here repeated in the staff report related to this part of the project. The last sentence here for homeowner use, we've included a community pool and pool house with adjacent playground for the benefit of all homeowners. Lastly, there's over a mile of public sidewalks making pedestrian circulation not only easy, but encouraged. So based on the plan you see there with the yellow rooftops and that description, the DRB gave eight out of 10 points. And then there was some permitting. The applicant applied for and received a permit from me, a zoning administrator for a pool on the property excerpting a couple of site plans. This is the smaller pool referred to in the letter by the neighbors. So I was presented with a permit to build a pool in a location where a pool had been proposed on the final plans. And I did sign it. That pool does scale out significantly smaller than the pool on the final plans. This was brought to light with some of the Northridge homeowners who entered into discussions with the applicant the applicant revised the pool proposal as well as the layout into what you have before you tonight. And the revised pool is larger, but probably not exactly the size of scaling out that rectangle from the plans that were reviewed under growth management and originally approved as final plans. So we can talk a little bit about that. Just want to give you the bylaw excerpt for this neighborhood space category. This is the criterion under which this was reviewed. So proposed subdivision I'm reading from the bullets at the bottom provides developed neighborhood space that is easily accessible and useful to its inhabitants. One to ten points depending on the size, diversity of functions and other characteristics of the spaces provided one to ten points. The DRB in its most recent decision here gave this project eight. Eight points gave the project a relatively high score overall and did allow it to move forward. Just a remark about our residential improvements chapter in the bylaw. Our chapter 20 does prohibit plain galvanized chain link fences. This includes fences around pools and that there must be a pool fence enclosed with a self latching self closing gate. These are things we look at during permit applications. I also do understand that it's not looking at a chain link fence. They're looking at a vertical metal fence anyway. So I have prepared recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law and conditions of approval. The critical conclusion of law for the DRB to deliberate on is whether the plan in front of them does or does not uphold that growth management score under the provide neighborhood space criterion. That's really the zoning connection to the discussion here about whether this project meets its conditions of approval. Does the new detail on the pool playground and pool house fulfill what was shown in a draft form, a pre application form when reviewed for growth management? I wanted to go through that. The rest of this is standard conditions and then just switch over to the letter from the residents. See if I can get that to show up. Is it going to make me switch a tab and zoom? I'll probably stop my share and try again. Might just take a second. There we are. So this is the letter cosigned by 37 residents of Northridge. They state in that pre application plan that the pool appears to scale at about 40 by 25 feet. That's what I got when I did it. There's discussion in the second paragraph of the administrative permit application for something smaller. I did scale that as well. There's been a conversation with Northridge residents. And across these two pages of the letter, there's this bulleted list of things that Northridge residents are still requesting of the applicant. As I mentioned earlier, some of these things are the kinds of things that happen in projects that DRB is familiar with conditioning. Some of these things are either at a level of detail or subject matter that DRB probably doesn't usually address. But up for discussion or question and answer by the board, happy to help you navigate it. Northridge residents looking for expansion of the pool house to allow for furniture storage, addition of some outdoor lighting, addition of outdoor shower and foot wash station, specified electric wiring locations for future use by the HOA for electric appliances outdoors, use of screen topsoil in the green space for safety purposes because soil on site tends to be rocky. And a predetermined budget agreed upon in writing by Northridge residents in BlackRock for outdoor furniture to fit up the space. In the paragraph below the Northridge residents request consideration of the addition of a separate smaller waiting pool in addition to the pool on the plan, which has that 40 by 16 dimension. Also discussed some things and agreed with Northridge related to the fencing of the pool, the heating of the pool, furnishing of the snack bar area, which is part of the pool house with a sink running water, and completion by summer 2023, such that the pool would be usable by the summer. In the lessons, there's this requesting confirmation of intended completion no later than June 15, 2023. And I'll just note that typically the DRB can set some deadlines of you've got to get started on what you've been permitted to do by a certain date or your permit goes away, but does not generally enforce requirements that things be completed. If things aren't completed by certain dates, the board can require permits be renewed, but not sort of an outright zoning enforcement matter. So I'm ending with this letter because it's the only letter we've got, it's been signed by a lot of people and there's a whole lot of moving parts to it, more than sort of my very dry review of here's what you saw at growth management, here's what's proposed now. I think the board can do with it what they will, happy to answer questions. And again, does the submission or does the submission not uphold that growth management score as the question we've prepared for deliberation in your findings? I'll stop there. Thank you. And I do, Matt, I got a question for you. So it's interesting that the letter submitted by the homeowners, of which there's a lot of signatures on, highly unusual for something like this to come before the board in its scope and detail. Most of the things listed in here are things that we would never discuss. And if we did discuss it, it would be with an application in front of us from either the developer or if the developer had turned it over to the homeowners, then the homeowners could submit an application to amend the permit, correct? So we're dealing with a letter with a, you know, what I think, as near as I can tell, there's a dispute how you heard my statement earlier and I'm speaking as a single individual on board. I don't see how we deal with this, where, you know, this board is designed to deal with an application placed in front of it, submitted through the normal channels that you have approved and reviewed, written down in a, in staff notes. There is none of that. Sure. So what I would suggest is this, starting from the basics, you have an amendment proposal in front of you and the question is, does that proposal meet the bylaw? So for example, can you remove the sidewalk from the inside of Caden's circle and still meet the requirements of the bylaw? I didn't give you the chapter in verse, but yes, you can. The DRB can provide exemptions to the sidewalk on both sides of the street. Standard, it can do so where it feels the development is well served by existing sidewalks and close proximity, et cetera. It's in chapter 13. Part of complying with the bylaw in the case of this project is that you can't have one project that gets a growth management score and be off and running and building that project and then change something in a way that really alters that project's score. It's hard to go back and put the project back in competition with its peers in 2017 or 20, so the best we can do as a staff is help you look at any of those proposed changes and say, would this materially alter the score? And here we have a criterion called neighborhood space where the board gets to award one to 10 points based on, well, it's easy to decide between zero points and one point. If you provide something, you get more than zero points. But between one point and 10 points, it says based on the diversity and quality of stuff that's offered as amenity in the neighborhood, it's a little bit subjective. And the DRB makes this decision based on a pre-application level plan. What was previously permitted? A rooftop next to a big rectangle with a smaller rectangle inside of it and the footprint of a play area. And I think for most of the board and any of you who happen to sit on that growth management hearing, you probably have some idea of when you saw that on a pre-application plan, you know, what it was going to be. It was going to be a pool next to a pool house with a playground adjacent and a green next to that. And scored pretty well in that criteria. So the question I think for the board to look at is, is there anything number one about the applicant's more detailed plan that they've submitted now that affects that potential score? Or does it look more like a provision of a permit level of detail sort of flushing things out? Second, of what's not in the applicant's proposal but is raised by the owners in their letter, is there anything either requested or unresolved there that the board feels is necessary for the applicant to provide information about for the board to make that decision about would we still be giving this the same score if we knew this stuff? So to take an example that's not up for dispute tonight, the applicants and the homeowners have agreed that the pool will be heated. I couldn't tell you in 2017 or 2020 whether any of you seeing that preliminary plan were guessing or assuming that the pool would either be heated or not. That would never have been discussed. And so I would likely, if that was up for grabs tonight, I would probably in your shoes say, you know, I don't think anybody committed to a heated pool back when growth management happened. There's pools that aren't heated. Nobody said anything about it. So I might look at the list of things that are in dispute that haven't been agreed on, which is more that upper list in the letter and say as a DRV member to myself, do I need to know that any of these things are going to happen or not in order for me to make a ruling on does this proposal change how this project would have scored in growth management? So ma'am, I'm going to step in here because I don't necessarily agree with you here. I'm going to go back to your heated pool example. Yes, I saw that in the letter from the neighbors. I do not see that in the applicants, in the application. And therefore I am intent tonight to limit this to that which the DRV has purview over, which is, as you said in your report, does this or does it not? Do the common elements on the flow site plan uphold the growth management score of 8 of 10 points? Sure, so I'll agree with you on that. Okay, so what I want to do is I want to hear from the applicant of how he's changed this application, what he's proposed, and if it's not in this letter and he wants to put it in the record tonight verbally, that's fine. And then, and only then, do I feel that we can consider that kind of in the context of what you were talking about. So whether he's still meeting the 8 of 10. In the end, it's whether this new proposal meets 8 of 10. That is really our only decision here tonight in my mind. I think you're right. And to maybe state what I'm saying a little differently and more in agreement with you, John, I would say what's in front of you is what the applicant's proposing. And what's in the comment letter from the homeowners is some suggestions of well, if they're proposing this, but I'm not seeing that, DRB, do you agree with me that we ought to see that or not? But as you know, I'm intent, I'm not designing applicants' projects. And I'm not going to suggest they put in a heated pool. I'm not going to suggest they put in a waiting pool. I'm not going to suggest any of that. I want to decide on what the applicant's put in front of us and whether I feel that meets the 8 of 10. If it doesn't, then we'll deny this. And I don't know what happens, but we'll probably see another application at some point. So that's how I'd like to proceed. Good evening. Good evening, Ben. So I guess I would like you to start here with a summary of the components that have changed, how they've changed, and your opinion on why that still meets the 8 of 10 that's equivalent to what you were proposing. Certainly. So I'm going to start Benjamin Avery representing Northridge-Williston, LLC, 68 Randall Street, South Browington, Vermont. Ben, I've got an interrupt for one second. Just as a point of order, should we have staff run through the staff notes before Mr. Avery gets going? Or is it okay if he's okay with letting Ben go from here? Normally we do you first, then Ben. I did that. You did that? Yeah. I know you did it. Okay, go ahead. Then we had a conversation. Yeah, I got to wash my hands. Thank you. Sorry for that. That's all right. Yes, you did. Just to get started, only one point on the staff notes. I did speak with Tim Gary yesterday, and he had indicated that he would circulate an email. I will send an email tomorrow to ask him to circulate that email that he was satisfied following our discussion. Ben, I'm not sure I know what any of that means. In the staff notes, the fire department had requested a discussion regarding access and partnership services. So I did speak with the system chief Gary yesterday. As for the original application, a lesson learned going forward, I will be more detailed in my application. When we submitted the application, the broad strokes was that we would have a swimming pool and a play structure for the benefit of the community. When that was drawn in there, I simply had it drawn in. To be candid, I did not scale it out. It was a plug and play that the urban planner used, stuck it in there, and detailed to be figured out later. Without going back through everything Matt has gone through in the timeline on March 21st of this year, I had the opportunity to have a Zoom call with all of the existing residents at Northridge to get their feedback on what a more detailed plan for this particular community element would look like. And in my opinion, that input really produced a better overall product. So in my opinion, this should easily score as well as if not better than it did in the past as we have taken a bit more time and a bit more input to look at what other components can we add and how can we make them usable. So a couple of the big ticket items, we did take the swimming pool and instead of centralizing it and using a lot of space, we moved it to the northeast corner of the public space and that A, it allows for more green space, B, it moves the noisier component away from people's homes. So in the northeast corner of that, it's across from the mailboxes and there is not any residents as being planned directly across from it. Additionally, and again at the direction and suggestion of some of the residents, we looked at the opportunity to make a green space with less concrete that was more conducive to kids being able to play. As I said to Assistant Chief Gary yesterday, the soccer nets are not meant to be regulation or anything for organized play or community events. It's simply the concept was it's for kids to be able to kick the ball around. I don't think a baseball diamond would be a good idea with that many homes in close proximity. So really what I think we've done here, we've added a little additional landscaping and I think what we have here is a better thought out layout that accommodates input from the residents and really allows for a better practical utilization of all of the space as opposed to a swimming pool in the middle of a great big grassy area. Are there any questions on that redesign? You've proposed some changes to the pool house. Can you be more specific about what those are? So the pool house, which again, when it was plopped on a plan seven years ago and not really thought out, our concept for the pool house was to have a restroom changing room in a mechanical room. That was what was envisioned seven or eight years ago. There was... But not really spelled out. We didn't spell any of that. I went through the notes of growth management and none of this was discussed. But in fairness to the folks who've offered their input, I'm happy to address a few of these things.  It was removed as soon as it was brought to my attention. However, in fairness to them, we have modified this pool house design to include a bathroom, a mechanical room, a sort of a... for lack of a better term, it doesn't have a thatched roof, but like a tiki bar type area and a covered space where there would be a picnic table. And it would be designed to have a wash-down shower, a foot shower, plumbing and electrical associated with having a sink in the back bar area with the ability to further the association to put a TV there, ceiling fans, things like that. So it is a seasonal building. It is not meant to be any sort of a four-season year-round building. It is slab on grade. It is a two-by-four construction. It's pretty basic. It's a pool house. But it incorporated some additional amenities that weren't originally envisioned. Without getting into the nitty-gritty of the entire letter, I'll quickly just address the bullet points. Following that meeting on the 21st and subsequent submittal, there was a suggestion that it should be larger for storage of common area furniture. Andrew can attest. And you will note on page one of the staff report that looks different than your packet because page one of the staff report was probably a screen grab. We did revise the size of the building and the size of the apron, pool apron, and we did add an additional, I think, 10 feet, 8 or 10 feet on the north side per the request of the neighbors. Just hang, hold on there one second, Matt. At this point, we would normally expect to see, because this is a permanently amounted fixture, although I know that there is some form of square footage limitation. We would expect to see some form of drawn elevation, correct? Isn't there a square footage limitation that we're below a certain square footage? We don't have to see it, but above we do. To see an elevation, you know, anything that by itself would require a discretionary permit, which is non-residential building over 120 square feet, the discretionary permit checklist starts asking for elevations. Doesn't really specify a lot of just how much detail you're supposed to see. I mean, I'm hearing from the applicant that what was originally proposed is changing. You know, so there's a likeness in your packet and the reality is, yes, and all I did was stretch that building out another 8 feet. There's also a floor plan in your packet. The floor plan has not changed. The dimensions of two of the spaces are just a little bit longer. Other than that, there's no changes and the packet is completely updated. Okay. They request lighting around the common area of safety and security. We would not suggest any pole lighting. We would have motion sensor lights on the building and they would be in accordance with zoning regulations, darkside and blind, et cetera. The electrical schematic, I can provide to them the green space item. Happy to accommodate. We are fine with the budget. I will work with those folks on that. The fencing around the pool will be black decorative metal. Hang on. Hang on one second. I got, you mentioned lighting. The lighting added around the common area. That was something that you're okay with? Yes. I did not hear you say the addition of the outdoor shower or foot wash. Yes, that is in the plan. Okay. My hearing is terrible tonight. That's okay. I did hear the electrical wiring for future additions. That's something that you're fine with on the schematic. Yep. And it is in the plans in your packet. Okay. All right. Thank you. Is there a picture of the fencing material that you're proposing? No. I'm waiting for that from the fencing folks, but it is a black metal sort of stockade style. The pool is about 1.4 feet. Is it solid or is it? Solid. It would be a solid. It's a totally opaque fence. Yes. How tall? Four feet. Thank you. The pool will be heated. The snack bar area will have a sink with running water. And the last item, the timeline for the project. If the board can accommodate, that would be great. If not, I completely understand. In the event that the board deliberates and makes a decision tonight, if there is any opportunity for the board to come back out of deliberative session and approve it, that would be helpful. I currently have this work scheduled starting the last week of May. If we have a delay on the approval, then I will have to push that. And I don't know if anybody knows about putting swimming pools in, but if I lose my window, I do not know when I will get this pool in. So I have worked in earnest to meet the timeframe requested by the homeowners. I completely, I want to deliver them a pool to use this year. I'm happy to do so, but this is one where I think if the board sees fit to approve this on some level, we could all use your help if at all possible. And that is a 40 by 16 foot pool. Correct. And that size is driven by the pool type. It is a rigid fiberglass pool and that is the largest type that they can move on a truck and set with a crane. Anything larger than that and it's a different type of pool construction. So you've reduced the amount of sidewalk in the neighborhood by a fair amount by eliminating it on this inner side of the circle. Have you compensated that other places or do you feel that it's being compensated by the other amenities you've added in here? We think, and again, I would agree with the homeowners who suggested that given that there are sidewalks on the other side of the street that the additional sidewalks on in the rectangle were sort of sidewalks to know where the idea is that should be green space and we want to maximize the utilization of that green space. And I think it gives a softer character to the area. The whole idea is to utilize the field and we've added ample access from the other main walkways. The plan does show that the sidewalk continues there along the main road between the pool and the, I don't know, was that Chloe, whatever? I don't know. Sidewalk continues where now? Along, I don't know the name of the road. It's Chloe, something or other street, road. Correct and that sidewalk along Chloe is already in. Right. Right, so we're tying in to that. Any questions from the board? No. Is this a call? Outside our purview, but I got a bunch of questions outside our purview. Okay, you can have those with yourself later. Yeah, that's why I'm outside. Scott, anything else? No. Okay. Thank you, Ben. So at this point, I'd invite comments from the audience. I would ask you to address the board as it pertains to the eight of 10 scarring that we've discussed and your feelings of whether that is in compliance or not or how it does or doesn't meet those requirements. If you've got something you'd like to say, come on up to the table and give us your name and address and speak away. Good evening, Dan Clark, 53 Kaden Circle here in Williston. I'm one of the Northridge residents and one of the people that signed on to the letter. Okay. So as Matt Bollinger pointed out, to go back in time and determine a competitive process for wealth management, how that would have gone with the current plan versus the plan that was originally submitted by Mr. Avery's company is impossible to do. To know whether the score goes from zero to one, as Matt said, that's easy, right? But would this revised plan have scored an eight? And I think the differences are material enough that it would be very difficult for us as homeowners to see how the staff would have scored that as an eight. The pool is 36% smaller. The space that was originally in four season, and as the scoring provides. Dan, you're talking about the pool house? Yes, thank you. Sorry. The scoring provides for construction of a building space that can be used as a meeting room, a fitness center, a daycare center, or other neighborhood space acceptable to the board. So it's clear that the new proposal from Mr. Avery does not meet any of those. So would it have scored an eight? I think it's very doubtful. Would it be a six, a five, a seven? I think it's probably impossible, maybe immaterial, but as one of the homeowners, what I would request of the board is two things. One is to ask Mr. Avery here while he's on the record to go through all the other details that the homeowners have requested. I realize that's not really the part of the job, but we really would, I think, benefit as residents of the town by having these stated for the record. And secondly, to find that the revised plan without the waiting pool would not have scored eight out of 10. And so to send it back to the staff or however it's done, but to require that in order for the board to agree that this revised plan would score the same, that there have to be some addition in functionality. And this would be the waiting pool that we're talking about. So the language that you quoted there, was that from the original application? The language I quoted was provided by Mr. Bollinger. It's 11.7.4, provide neighborhood space, zero to 10.0. To clarify, that is from zoning, not from our application. All right, so that's what I'm trying to find out is whether you are you saying that I guess I'm not clear. That's part of the decision making as I understand when the staff recommends, oh, this is an eight or this is a six or this is a two would be to use that very, those kind of criteria that I'm stating. Those are components of the scoring process. Of the scoring process, but they're not. The scoring process, thank you. They're not, they're components of the process. So we had an application in and 2020, 19, whenever. 17 and 20. The first one was in 2017. But we're looking at the second one, right? Well, you can essentially hold an applicant to both. One allowed for the first phase of the development to go forward, the other allowed for the second. Right, but there were certain amenities shown and advertised in that application and we at the time deemed it to be an eight of 10. Yeah. We have to trust ourselves. There's nobody in the world that has more experience judging those than the people at this table. This is true. Speak for yourself. You've done it more than me, Scott. So again, so all we can do that is judge whether what we are looking at now is equivalent to what we would have been looking at in that. I think so. And can I, and Dan, let me just ask you a couple of questions based on what you said. I heard you say the pool house was supposed to be a four season building, not a three season building. Was that something came from marketing materials? That was in the marketing materials and I know several of the homeowners ourselves included use that as part of the reason that we moved into that development. And I understand that's not something for the board to review, but that was something that was presented and I assume used by the board in assigning or judging that it was an eight out of 10. And how about the waiting pool? So there was no waiting pool at the time. The pool was quite a bit larger. It was 40 by 25. Now the revised one is 40 by 16. So it's about a little more than a third smaller. And so the homeowners have proposed to Mr. Avery and his company that while we understand that a fiberglass pool of 40 by 16 is available and would meet a better timeline. And so the homeowners requested, well, since this is a material change, perhaps then BlackRock could in addition put a waiting pool in, as many of you must know, there's a neighbor of a lot of small children. That would be of value to the community. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. I'm bored. I'm Chris Clark. 53 cadence. I just wanted to add one thing which is that residents are worried about lighting. That whole end of the circle doesn't really have lighting on it. And they're worried about teenagers hanging out in this big old empty field and playground and things without any lighting. So to me that seems like something DRB would maybe have some say over that maybe there needs to be more lighting around that circle area, that green. Your concern is mainly around the circle and this would be normal light street lamps? Right, because there's really, there's not a lot of street lamps in the development. And so we're just a little concerned that, trouble could happen in a big old field. Including the pool or just the ball field. Including the pool or just the ball field. I'm talking about in addition to whatever's proposed that somehow that circle had a little more lighting on it where the grassy area is. So that, you know, trouble doesn't happen. Thank you. I'm Holly Amin, future resident of Northridge. Haven't moved in yet, but 327 Chloe Circle will be my address hopefully soon. Sorry for the amount of details in the note that we did send, that's just kind of where we were at. Didn't know the process well for sure. I think as Dan pointed out, the largest concern for me from the get go has been the pool, the size of the pool shrinking. And so Matt, one of the things that you quoted, which I think has to do with that score, talked about size, diversity, neighborhood space. And so shrinking a pool in a neighborhood of the size that it is with the amount of people and kids to me poses a massive safety concern and does not allow for use of true neighborhood space if we can only limit one family to be in the pool at a time for safety purposes. The waiting pool was a kind of add on ask. It's probably, Ben corrects me if I'm wrong, but in the letter, I think the only thing that we, as neighborhood members as well as Ben haven't agreed upon, he said no, we pushed for, let's ask the DRB. And that was to make up for that reduction from the original plans. So that original, we bought in to a 40 by 25 foot pool. It's a to scale drawing. And so it does anger me that Ben wants to say, oh, we just plopped it on this for now. The drawing itself, I bought a lot of land based on a to scale drawing. I bought 0.56 acres for a certain price based on a to scale drawing. I don't see how a pool on a drawing that was also approved would not be to scale. There's nothing on that that says the rest of this is to scale, but this part is not. So I'm thinking and hoping that when you made your eight point scorecard that it was based on what you saw, right? That it was a visual, because you knew it was a to scale drawing that held that piece accountable. So the production in the pool size, adding that waiting pool is just a way to try to get more of that pool back, but to still be able to go forward with the 40 by 16 because it's fiberglass, because we think that that's probably the better approach for long-term use in a neighborhood space. So take it or leave it, but the waiting pool was definitely the big piece and once again, size, diversity and neighborhood space being able to be used by more than one family at a time. Thank you. Any homes in this neighborhood? To address the size of the pool, there are 39 homes in this neighborhood. If you were to compare it to every other pool, be it Southridge, be it Finney Crossing, and you divide by the number of units, we are a fraction of the number of units per square foot of pool compared to any of the other pools this board has approved in recent time. And where we recognize the requests of folks and where some of the concessions we made, partial concessions of the items that were discussed on the 21st of March, we did reach some level of compromise on every item addressed, which are outlined in these bullet points with the exception of the waiting pool and just being candid and maybe over sharing here. It's a complex item because it doesn't just feed off the larger pool, you are spending the money to add an entire another pool system and an entire another filtration system if it was a minor financial or logistical matter, I probably would have conceded that, but after discussing it with our supplier, it's a thing. So that's why we sort of threw the line there. I don't think that with or without the pool affects the spirit of the community element or the waiting pool. I mean, I don't think it really swings the spirit of what we're trying to provide as a community element. And again, going back to 2017 by comparison and giving credit where credit is due to the homeowners who gave us input, I think this is a better overall plan than was before you in 2017. There might be some disagreement there. There may be. Andrew, I'd like to make sure that people online have a chance to speak. Is there anyone there? Is there anyone there first off? And if there is, do any of them wish to speak? There are, yes. I would ask them to raise their hand if they would like to speak to the board.  Is there anyone else in the audience here that would like to speak? Something that hasn't been stated already. All right, I'd like to ask the audience a question. You heard, this is input for the board, okay? There's a list of things that sounds like that the developer has agreed to do that I think you have agreed with them on. The big outstanding one sounds like it's the waiting pool. That doesn't show up on any of our applications and whether the new application or the one that was actually approved by the board, okay? Hang on one second. So right off the bat, it makes it hard for the board to approve that. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean we couldn't, as a group, say we're modifying the plan. We probably could do that. Not sure we would, but it's possible. How do I reconcile that with Ben's statement that says that if either we delay or we kick it back to you guys to continue to work this out, you're not gonna get a pool this time. Feel free to ask, okay, now go ahead. Do you want me to come out for a second? Yeah, sure. So I don't wanna speak for everybody, but obviously 30-some signatures we've talked. There is definitely this back and forth of we're living here for life and we want this done right and delaying it for a certain amount of time. Is not something we want, but it may be something in the bigger picture matters to the greater scale, right? So if I'm living here for life and I've literally built my house with the downstairs master bedroom because I'm retiring there, it does matter in the grand scheme. I guess, once again, not knowing the process that this happens with is in Ben's plans as they stand today, tell me if I'm wrong, but I think that we're a pretty united front to say we're asking you to approve that. The only asterisks I put on that is the waiting pool such that is there some opportunity that you can say, yes, we're gonna approve this, but we also want this later and can Ben install to his point if this is to have these two pools, if that's two different filtration systems and whatnot, can he be held accountable to add the waiting pool as a second phase so that we can still have a pool this summer, do our thing and get a waiting pool later. So by rights, John, you can tell me I'm jumping here too but by rights, a second pool would be a revised application that you would work with the developer on and then come back in front of the board with a revised site plan that shows the pool that's right here and then another one next to it. The same hearing we're essentially having. We'd have another hearing that says, hey, as a group or as, you know, whether it's the developer or at this point that you own, you've taken over the Homeland Association, it would be you, not the developer. Right. You would, somebody would hire a engineer, civil engineer and go through the whole process and we'd end up doing this again. Hey, we're here, we want to put in a waiting pool. That's the proper way to do it. So yes, they could do that. Yeah, I mean the statistics also, FYI, to talk about Southridge, the quantity of homes, the size of the pool, we did some due diligence on that as well, talking to someone on the board there, they're talking about potentially expanding theirs. So don't take current metrics to base some decision off of if the reality is the amount of growth our town has seen, right, we see it in the schools day after day that we're busting up the seams.  We know people that have put that in in their personal homes. That might be excessive for their personal homes, but I think if you start to look at those dimensions and what that looks like on a one family type environment versus a community pool, that's once again where that waiting pool kind of came in. Me personally, it was a safety thing. It was a holy cow, that many kids, they jump in pools, you know, what if there was a separate ones that the younger generations could be in? So hopefully that answers your question. Yeah, I think so. Thank you. So fun. Who's in the board still? What? Yeah, I suppose you guys still don't have any additional questions. Are you good? Well, one question. I've got to make one more. One more question for back. All right. I have one question. Well, I got a second. The items that we went through on here, you're agreeing to. Yes. They would become part of the record if the board read them into the record as part of the approval. All of the bullet pointed items. There's, yeah. Correct. We want to go through them again. If that's the intent, let me just clarify. The expansion of the now seasonal pool house to allow for storage of common area furniture that has been accomplished. That is what you're approving tonight. Yeah. And that is revised from the original plan that was circulated to the homeowners and submitted to you as evidenced by page one of your staff report, which is the one place that it didn't get changed out. Lighting added around the common area for safety and security. We have no problem adding motion sensitive building lighting to the other comment about lighting. I believe what Mrs. Clark is speaking about is street lights in the right of way. I leave that to you folks whether or not we want more street lights. That's a different topic. Correct. The addition of outdoor shower and foot wash station, that's fine, already planned for wiring. That's planned for the completion of the field with fresh topsoil that is planned for. A predetermined budget agreed upon in writing specifically for outdoor furniture. We have actually have it with me tonight. We have to itemize what we would buy for chairs, what we would buy for stools. I can pass it all on to them and we will write them a check for that amount if they wish to make their own selections. Fencing around the pool, not a problem to meet standard. The pool will be heated, yes, the snack bar area. We'll have a sink with running water. And again, the last piece is one that we need. I cannot commit to being completed by June 15th, but I can commit to starting it by June 1st if we can get a little help on the board. I just need the appeal clock to run out before I... Okay, does that make sense? Yes, ma'am. Please, if you could state your name. I'm sorry, this is Chris Clarke, I'm sorry. You're doing great. I think you've done this before. My just, the plans are up there, but my one thought when I was looking at these plans was there is a sidewalk that goes from approximately where the mailboxes are, right here. Did that sidewalk be extended all the way across so that the people on this side of the street have, we're gonna end up wearing the path there anyway. So instead of going all the way around. So I'm working, are you talking about... The one that the house had, yes. Are you talking about this, doing this, then? Just to be clear. I think we would make more... This is exactly what we were trying to avoid, designing your project. But you're doing great, and we're doing it, so what the hell? Your alternative is to put in no sidewalks, let the people walk for a year, they just aid the area. Ben, set it up and down. Was that a yes? Yes, that's fine. Thank you. I didn't hear the head shake, I wasn't looking away. Is there, while the developer is in a magnanimous mood, is there anything else you wanna ask him?  That's between you guys at a later date. That's right. Well, the one, you had a question. Yes, give back to my question. He was sitting there mentioning that, oh, I gotta go to two filtration systems if I put them in the waiting pool. But, waiting pools, what? 10 by 20 by three foot, 600 feet? You can filter that with a three, with one of those four two, and a one horsepower pump that you have in the backyard pool to run it. The other aspect, we're a little off the subject. I know. But the other aspect is. You talked to Paul about getting that engineer. But the other aspect is, is the fact that the reduction in the size of the initial pool has changed the filtration requirement for that dramatically. We'll be discussing all of that in terms of our understanding of what was included in the initial one. I mean, I for one had no other reason, nothing else to do but scale that pool. So I do think that there is a smaller pool in this proposal than it was in the original one. And we just need to talk about whether this is, whether it's been compensated for here. Okay. I think, any last comments, Ben? Thank you, board, for their time and their understanding. And I realize that this is a bit out of the ordinary, but hopefully we're all working together to come to a reasonable solution. Absolutely. I don't have all the future resident in Northridge. You're talking about using potentially the addition of a waiting pool to compensate for the scaled down pool. There's also an issue of the scale down utility of the clubhouse. So those two factors would seem to drop this growth management score that you're talking about. So we're not just compensating for less pool, we're compensating for less clubhouse. I'd like you to be specific about how the utility of the poolhouse is going to reduce. I think it's Dan, right? Yes. I think Dan mentioned that it was originally designed to be a full year daycare meeting area. I'm not at all certain that that's the case. Okay. Given the fact that we went back to that original application, I don't think there's anything that would make us assume that that was the first season poolhouse. Okay. And again, and I understand that, I'm sympathetic to that, but we definitely did not have the marketing materials in front of us when we were making those determinations. I mean, and I don't mean to be flip, and I don't want to just dismiss your perspective there. And I understand it could be frustrating, but it's really nothing that we would have even begun to consider. So. Thank you. We are certainly aware of that, and we, there are some of us at the table that know how to use scales pretty well. Any last questions from the board? Paul? Lisa? I'm set. Dave? I'm good. I'm afraid. Scott? Okay. Good. Let's close this hearing at 828. Thank you all very much. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. So for you folks, we'll be going into a deliberative session now. You can wait outside the doors. We'll be closing them. We'll turn the cameras off. We'll just deliberate and make a decision or you can call up to the office in the morning and find out what we decide. John, you're up. Thank you. Welcome back to the town of Wilson Development review board meeting of Tuesday, April 25th, 2023. The board is coming out of their deliberative session at 846 p.m. I'm interested in a, do I have a motion for DP 23-12, U-Haul moving and storage? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner, move the Wilson Development Review Board having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of town staff and the advisory boards required to comment on this application by the Wilson Development By-law and having heard and newly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing on April 25th, 2023, except the findings of facts and conclusions of law for DP 23-12 and approve the discussion and permit subject to the conditions of approval above. The 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. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Scott seconds it. Let's go through here. Nate's not here. Paul. Yay. Yay. Lisa. Yay. Scott. Yay. Dave. Yay. Chair, tonight is a yay. That's five to zero in favor. The motion, the application is approved. So I am now looking for a motion on DP 17, day 01.5, Northridge LLC requesting a discretionary permit for the proposed community elements. Sure. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I Scott Riley moved that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and the advisory board is required to comment on this application by the Williston Development bylaw. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of April 25, 2023, except the findings of fact and conclusions of law for DP 17-01.5 and approved this discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff and then seek an administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Additionally, Ben Avery, representative of the development company and the developer has represented the following items that the following items would be included with this application and are memorialized here. The pool shall be the size of 40 feet by 16 feet. The sidewalk to the, which way is that going? Northwest of the pool shall connect from one side of the street to the other. Currently it is only shown as connecting from the north side. So it shall connect from north to south. The expansion of the non-seasonal pool house, the excuse me, the non-seasonal pool house shall be expanded to allow for storage of common area furniture, lighting will be added around the common area for safety and security. The addition of an outdoor shower and foot wash station shall be added. Electric wiring for future additions by the homeowners association such as an outdoor fan or entertainment or entertainment shall be provided. Screened topsoil in the green space for safety purposes shall be provided. Defensing around the pool and potentially some of the green space. Not sure we wanna say that. Defensing around the pool and green space will be white or black and not chain link. The pool will be heated. The snack bar area within the pool house will have a sink with running water. The timeline for this project communicated by Ben Avery, developer's representative that it shall be completed, excuse me. Started. Started by the summer of 2023. Shall be started no later than June 15th, 2023. I think we need to... I wanna add something. Well, the conclusion of law needs to be adjusted here to say do. Okay. Regarding the conclusions of law, the common elements on the proposed site plan do uphold the growth management score of eight out of 10 points for WDB 11.7.4 provide neighborhood space. Thank you, Scott. Do I have a second? Second. Great. Any discussion? Good. Then let's vote. Paul. Yay. Lisa. Yay. Scott. Yay. David. Yay. And I am a yay. That's five yays, zero nays, and we have approved that. Do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Lisa. I'll move. I'll move. To approve the minutes of April 11th. April 11th. So, do I have a second? I'll second it. David seconds it. Any discussion? Nope, all right. Paul. Lisa. Yay. Scott. Yay. David. Yay. And I'm going to say yay, five, zero. Thank you very much, folks. Is there any other business to come before this board tonight? Good. Do I have a motion to adjourn? I'll move. I'll move. Thank you. Adjourned at 8.50. Recording stop.


Hello and welcome to another problem-solving session on sum of arithmetic progressions. Let's solve this given problem The sum of first six terms of an AP is 42. That's one information which is given then the ratio of its 10th term and 30th term so first of all there is a ratio 10th and 30th term is 1 is 2 3 find the first and 13th term So let's keep an eye on what exactly we have to find out first 13th term so we'll start with that only So solution So we have to find out a1 and a13 So it's always good to find out or write the objective In the first statement first step itself now what's given let's see Sum of first six terms of an AP is 42. So in terms we can write s6 is 42 Correct a and d are not known. So let the let the first term d a and common difference b d Right So I'm writing it common difference in abbreviated form whenever you are writing in an exam in a formal exam Please write full words So common difference bd Okay, so s6 can be written as by our formula. We know s6 is 6 by 2 that is n by 2 Times 2 times first term that is a plus 6 minus 1 d. This is 42 Correct this information is given as 42. So that means 3 into 2 a plus What 6d Or 5d rather 5d 6d not not 6d 5d 2 a plus 5d Is equal to 42, right? So you can cancel this 3 out and you will get 2 a plus 5d is equal to 14 This is equation number one Let's write it as equation number One now second thing is given as a 10 ratio of 8 10 to a 30 See it's given right ratio of 10th to 30th term is 1 is 2 3 So what this will be it will be 1 by 3 Okay, now what is a 10 a 10 will be simply n 10 by 2 So let me write the formula for sorry a 10 it is so a 10 is first term First term plus 10 minus 1d. So 90 is a 10 And this one a plus 20 90 is 30th term Is 1 by 3 So this is the knowledge of previous sessions that a n is equal to a first term plus n minus 1d Right now cross multiply and solve 3 a plus 27d is equal to a plus 29d Right So what will you get you will get 2 a is equal to 2d That means a is equal to d another equation You got a is equal to d Okay, so if a is equal to d from 1 From 1 and 2 What can you say you can say? 2 a plus 5 a because d is a is 14 So 7 a is 14. So a is equal to 2 Very easy a is equal to 2 What was the objective of the question to find first term a 13 So first term is now known. So a 1 is equal to 2 first is done And what will be a 13 a 13 will be a Plus 12d Now a is equal to 2 is equal to d because a and d were same. See so hence a 13 will be equal to 2 plus 12 into Correct So this is nothing but 26. So we got a 13 as well Right. So what was the learning learning is Some of first six terms of nap So you have to learn the formula sn Is n by 2 application of this formula was there Then the ratio of two terms were given and ratio of two terms means you need to know a n formula a plus n minus 1b these two things only were applied here And with the given constraint or whatever condition was given we could solve it and found out if a 1 and a 13