 Thanks Emily. Tonight's agenda we've got item number one of public forum. Item number two is the growth management overview by staff and then agenda item number three is a hearing for the three residential projects that are being considered for allocation tonight. First up is the public forum this is an opportunity for people participating here in the room and participating by Zoom to address the board on items not on tonight's agenda. Is there anyone present here in the room they'd like to address the board or on Zoom. No chats no raised hands on Zoom. Okay next up agenda item number two growth management overview Emily. Thanks Pete. So what follows on my screen is the area map for the town of Williston and tonight is growth management where the Development Review Board is allocating new residential units to three main areas of town the growth center shown in red which includes the form-based code area I'll get into that in a moment with the light hatching the sewer service area outside the growth center is shown in yellow and then the agricultural rural district outside of the sewer service area is shown in green. The three projects this evening are in the growth center in red and the sewer service area in yellow the blue areas of the map are Williston's industrial districts where industrial or where residential uses are not allowed. So growth management is approved by the Development Review Board and it's one of the many paths for constructing new dwellings in Williston outside of the Taft Corners form-based code district TCFBC all new dwellings must receive pre-application and discretionary permit review from the DRB. Some projects must also participate in growth management and there's three participating this evening. Tonight the DRB will score and review the projects based on the most recent version of the unified development bylaw most recently amended January 16th 2024. Staff wants to note that representations made by applicants at this meeting in the questionnaire or at the hearing are binding and they must be fulfilled in all subsequent permits. If changes are proposed at discretionary permit that significantly alter a growth management score the project may not be approvable. There are some projects that are not participating in growth management tonight. So DP 2211 Rice they withdrew and forfeited their allocation they received in 2021. DP 2406 Glazer riversedge development they are not participating because they're going to pursue specific plan. DP 2408 McCullough is not participating they've indicated to me that they plan to proceed under inclusionary zoning which I'll explain further in a moment and DP 2402 Willard 2405 Fornir and 2409 Benedetto. Each of these projects propose fewer than four units each and therefore are fully exempt from growth management. Table A is a summary of the recent changes to growth management. So going back to October 2022 when form based code was adopted the standards were revised whereby form-based code projects get their allocation administratively by the zoning administrator rather than the development review board. A significant changes to this chapter were adopted in October 2023. Small projects proposing for fewer units are fully exempted from the growth management process. Inclusionary zoning was adopted as an alternative to growth management and to encourage the inclusion of affordable homes in new development projects. With that there is a payment in lieu requirement a fee for any project that is not proposing affordable homes. The minimum score was increased from 30 to 40 points and slow build which was a successor to expiration was also eliminated. The most recent amendment in January 16th was for the adoption of the Glazer specific plan. However that's not something that the DRB really needs to worry about even though the most recent bylaw that we're looking at says January 16th it's functionally the same for your purposes as October 17th. Table B is a table that shows how the permit process is different depending on where the project is located and what kind of project. So at the bottom of the table is TAF Corners form-based code where allocation happens administratively. If you're not in the form-based code district if you're constructing new dwellings if you're for fewer you're exempted from growth management you go from pre-application to discretionary permit. If you're proposing five to nine units you either need to have one home that's affordable or be a market rate project and if your project has ten or more units you're either inclusionary with various levels of affordability or you're a market rate project and you're subject to that pay-and-luffy. There's a different process if you're converting an existing structure for example an existing office building or a hotel. So before every residential unit in town had to go through growth management now the table highlights and yellow the two types of projects that have to go through the development review board process this evening. Inclusionary zoning so projects that include affordable homes can proceed without growth management they go from pre-app review to discretionary permit and if they aren't if they propose more than ten units and they're not inclusionary then there is a payment in lieu requirement. There is one project this evening that would be subject to that fee if their reallocation request is approved tonight. Section 11.4 of the bylaw is the residential growth target. So the town's growth target is 80 dwelling unit equivalents per year. Most of them 50 are in the growth center 20 are in the sewer service area outside the growth center and just 10 are outside the sewer service area. The DRB or zoning administrator can also shift units from outside the growth center into the growth center. So on that large table you see in your packets you'll see that we shifted 10 of those units. There's no projects competing in that rural part of town this year. Dwelling unit equivalent is used in growth management whereby a studio or a one bedroom dwelling is half a DUI and a two unit with two or more bedrooms is one DUI. 11.5 growth management procedure. So new developments must complete pre-application in the preceding year and as of those October 2023 amendments projects that have partial allocation that are quote in the queue they are automatically eligible to participate. Applicants are notified of growth management in January and they must submit their questionnaires by March 1st. The DRB has copies of the applicants' questionnaires in their packets. The DRB evaluates and ranks the projects based on the criteria of 11.7 through 11.9 and then they allocate the growth target and applicants are notified by a written decision. 11.6 allocation rules. So most of these rules are baked into the allocation table which you have on 11 by 17 paper in your packets and I'll also share here. So this table visualizes the 50 units in the growth center, the 20 in the residential, outside sewer service area and then it breaks them up by fiscal year. So there's this 10 year rolling cycle. This table that the DRB is looking at is fiscal year 2025 which would start on July 1st of this year 2024 and it runs fiscal year 2025 to 2034. You can also see in the growth center where we've shifted those 10 units from outside the growth center into the growth center. The DRB may also notice on this table that it doesn't talk about affordable units. So in years past there were separate columns, one for market rate, one for affordable. Because affordable units are now this whole separate inclusionary zoning process, everything on this table is for market rate allocation. There are some prior projects that were allocated years ago. You might see an asterisk A next to them. That's indicating that that was an affordable unit from prior years and we're just carrying that old rule forward for those existing projects. Other rules that are baked into this table and baked into what is proposed by staff that shown in red that no more than 75% in any given year can go to one project and the gray shading indicates that no more than 50% is available more than two years out and no more than 75% one year out. So that's why some cells on this table are shaded gray. Staff does note that in the growth center in form-based code the zoning administrator can put units in the white cells or the gray cells anywhere on this table and you will see in the growth center in fiscal year 25 and 26 there is an AP number referenced where a form-based code project got allocation earlier this year. Construction of units allocation does not expire and as of October 2023 that slow build provision was also eliminated. The only deadlines are to file a discretionary permit and to file final plans like any other development in town. Emily could you explain to the audience what slow build means? Yes, thank you Pete. So slow build was a provision in the bylaw for projects that had a lot of units they could only pull a certain number of administrative permits every year. So after five years your allocation was slow build you could only pull a couple of units. It works well for smaller projects that only have a couple units and it basically doesn't affect them and it encourages projects that have an apartment building. You know you can't pull a 30 unit apartment building permit three units at a time it encourages those larger projects to come back in and get reallocated. So it was a provision that was intended to encourage projects to keep on pace or revise their project. There's no more slow build or expiry so once a unit is available on that allocation table the development can build any units that it has across the board. So the evaluation criteria there's three areas of town so there's three sets of evaluation criteria. Tonight the DRB is really focused on 11-7 and 11-8 because those are where we have projects being proposed and these criteria were also amended in October 2023 and carried over in January 2024. So this table visualizes those changes. There's currently eight criteria formerly there were 11. The criteria that were eliminated are shown in orange and the criteria that gained points are shown in blue. No new criteria were added. The conserve energy criteria was substantially revised so there's new options to score points in that category as well as more points it increased from 10 to 30 points. Build affordable housing was eliminated across the board because of that inclusionary zoning process that was added into the bylaw. Offer housing choices stays the same. Provide neighborhood space increased by 10 points. Build close to services was eliminated. Neighborhood design gained five points. Build paths and trails gained 10 points in the outside sewer service area. Conserve open space, sustainable transportation and minimize visual impact all stayed the same and design for context was eliminated across the board. There's options to score 100 points and five bonus points are available in the 11-8 sewer service area outside growth center part of town. So part two of my staff report the review for this evening. Each applicant has submitted a questionnaire and they've described how their project addresses the criteria. Planning staff have reviewed their responses and have generated a proposed score for each project and the allocation table proposes a schedule with the allocation rules in mind. As proposed all projects score at or above the minimum 40 points. So the annex this evening DP 21-18 is looking for 35 and a half DUEs of allocation 20-18 summer field is looking for 24 and a half DUE and Sally's way is looking to allocate reallocate three affordable to three market rate. The proposed scores for each project are 52 for the annex 70 for summer field and 40 for Sally's way. And what follows table three is just a different visualization of what's shown in red on the 11-by-17 table where following the allocation rules all projects can get their requested allocation. Part three of the staff report are proposed findings and motions. So in years past we've done the motions by the three growth areas because we have two major projects the annex and summer field that were approved and are partially vested in the previous version of the bylaw. We have specific findings that codifies their requirements. Both of those projects scored points under the old criteria where affordable housing was incentivized and we're just codifying that those carry forward in in their approval and just keeping a clear record of the scores and allocation over the different years. And with that that's the overall staff report. Thank you. All right thank you Emily. Comprehensive as usual. Okay so now we're going to go to the individual projects that are seeking allocation. And first up is DP 21-18 the annex. Who is present for that project? If you would please come to the front table. I'm going to accuse myself. Okay thank you. Chris and Andy welcome. If you would state your name and address for the record please. Andy Rowe, the Snyder Williston Properties LLC. Chris Snyder, Snyder Williston Properties LLC. Staff is next. Thanks Pete. So this is DP 21-18 the annex. It proposes 276 dwelling units as 241 DUEs. The two parcels were created in 1995 and there's one existing dwelling with two bedrooms. The annex is located on a property just under 55 acres in the Taft Corners Zoning District. Parts of it are currently under construction behind VSECU Bank off of Route 2A. So this is the third time that the annex will participate in growth management. In 2022 it scored 54 points and received 173.5 DUEs allocation including 28 DUEs as affordable. In 2023 it scored 56 points and received 31 DUE market. Staff is proposing a score of 52 points. No comment letters are received at the time of mail out nor up to this evening. And what staff proposes is allocating all remaining allocation that's needed 35.5 DUE market. Staff notes that when we scored the project so for example in neighborhood space the criteria went from 10 points and last time they scored 10 out of 10 so we just increased it to 20 points. So where a score changed we just appropriately multiplied that score. So they got full points when it was 10 out of 10. They get full points when it's 20 out of 20. That's it. Thank you. Okay great. Thank you Emily. Kristin Andy anything to add to the staff report? No. DRB members. Questions? Members of the audience either present or participating by Zoom. Any questions or comments? I have no raise hands on Zoom. Okay. Last chance for questions, comments. DRB members. Members of the audience. Just one one question just for the record. There are no changes to your site plan. This is simply a re-calculating of the scores from previous applications. Okay. Anything else? Nope. This was easy. Yep. Okay. I'm gonna close close this hearing this application as 723. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay next up is DP 20-18 Summerfield. Who is present for the applicant? He I'm gonna be refusing myself on this one. Okay. Butting landowner. Chris and Brian welcome. If you would state your name and address for the record please. Brian Currier, Larry Berksville Associates representing Ethan Allen Holmes. Chris Sunacek, Ethan Allen Holmes, 86th Ethan Allen Drive, South Burlington, Vermont. Thank you. Emily. This is DP 20-18 Summerfield formerly known as Catamount Gala for Catamount Country Club. So this is their fourth time participating in growth management. Summerfield proposes 141 dwelling units as 122 DUE at 1400 Mountain B Road. A parcel just over 30 acres in the residential zoning district. Staff proposes a score of 70 points. One comment letter was received at the time of mail out from the applicant's attorney. No further comment letters were received up to today. So staff recommends that score of 70 points as well as allocating all remaining units, which is 24.5 DUE market rate. To date, they've been awarded 18 affordable and 73 market rate, including six and a half DUE that are affordable at 80 percent AMI. So reminder under those old growth management rules, units at or below 80 percent area median income weren't shown on that table. So Summerfield is vested in and must uphold prior commitments made in 21, 22 and 2023. And they're also vested in a discretionary permit with the density bonus where 30 percent of the dwellings are affordable at or below 80 or 100 percent AMI. So that older growth management score for affordable housing had tiers at 80, 100 and 120 percent AMI rather than building units at 120 percent. They're building them all at that or 120 percent. They're building that 100 percent level to concurrently meet the growth management score and the density bonus. What follows is the staff score. So following that same methodology where 10 out of 10 points was scored in 2023, they're getting 20 out of 20 points under these criteria. And what follows are notes on that affordability requirement. Staff does note on sustainable transportation that they're showing six space, six carpool spaces, six car share, that kind of thing where there would only be required to provide five. So the reason is in the scoring criteria, the number of sustainable transportation features are based on per 25 DUE. In 2022, the overall project was based on more dwelling units. Therefore, the math factored out to six. Now there's fewer units, so they only have to do five EV charge, five car share, five carpool and 10 bike storage. I think that's it. Thank you. Okay. Brian and Chris, any comments on the staff report? Only one. As Emily mentioned, Ed Fitzpatrick submitted a comment letter. Essentially what it boils down to is this project's in a little bit of a unique situation where we started the growth management process in 2021 and this is our I believe our fourth year coming back, hoping it to be the last. And obviously, growth management has changed substantially over the last year. So the letter is basically acknowledging that this project should be vested in the version of the bylaw that we gained our discretionary permit under, which is the 2022 version of the bylaw. Whether that can be incorporated in this decision as a finding of fact, we'd request that either the letter would be referenced or potentially a acknowledgement that the project's vested under the 2022 version of the bylaw. And I think the reason the attorney had the question was we're using the updated scoring sheet that's part of the newest version of the bylaw, but we're vested under the 2022 version. And we're still scoring 70 points of very high scoring projects. So we were okay moving forward with the new scoring system, but just want acknowledgement that the 2022 version of the bylaw would be utilized when issuing administrative permits for the project. Brian, if you're approved tonight, it effectively, without the board actively acknowledging that letter, which none of us are lawyers, but if the board approves it, it effectively does the same thing. Well, we would like to ask that the letter that was dated February 28th from BPNF along with the associated paperwork, which also includes the old affordability housing restrictive covenant, and then the methodology to gain that. And the reason we're asking for that is simply this is that, you know, we love Emily, we love Matt, but they may or may not be here forever. And if I'm faced with somebody down the road that's taken their place that has no knowledge of this and there's nothing around to solidify my position, I'm going to have to explain myself. And it's just a general assumption that people do move on and maybe they don't. But we would ask that this become part of the decision if in fact they are approved tonight for that reason. Okay. So, so there's a knowledge you're concerned. So, did you read the proposed staff's proposed authorization? The reason the reason, and I don't have any problem doing what you said, but I don't think it's necessary. And here's why. It references the proposed motion. I'm not going to read the beginning part of it. It's kind of boiler play. But having reviewed the applicant's questionnaire, the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony, it references what's in this packet, which includes the attorney letter. It includes the vested rights. It includes what you are asking for. Yeah, it's our opinion that we can never have enough clarity, I guess. We could add a finding of fact that references the date that the discretionary permit was approved. So, like the first one and then the subsequent based amendments because that affordability covenant all comes out of those discretionary permit conditions of approval. So, I think adding a finding here, referencing those discretionary permit approval dates, I think would help. Yeah, our attorney just felt that if this was became part of the decision that there would be no question down the road as to what type of procedure you use in order to establish what's affordable and what's not because that has changed quite dramatically from what we got approved on and that's all we're asking. Noted. DRV members, any questions for the applicant? I'm just interested since this is the second one where we had conserve energy with a score of zero. So, the new rules around that scoring, I'd like your thoughts on this. Well, the first round of conserve energy was dead on arrival. I think you probably saw that from the application. Honestly, we really didn't dig into the next opinion as to what they wanted for conserve energy. You know, we just thought the first one was it was reaching for the sky and being on a ladder. And, you know, we just felt that it was no go to begin with. So, we did not look at hard at, you know, what the new regulations are asking for. Obviously, we would have to change everything over and become part of the new plan. We like the whole plan. Okay, fair enough. Thank you. Yeah, it used to be more of an all or nothing category. Now there's, you know, stages to it, you know, electric heat pumps are considered and the project may end up utilizing that sort of technology. But we'd like to have that still be a voluntary process, given that we're still 70 points scoring process or project rather. Oh, I agree completely. Yeah, so that's mainly the reason. Thank you. Brian's got a good point. We've been in contact with Vermont gas. There is some question as to whether or not they'll even service our project for a variety of reasons. And, you know, if we have to go to heat pumps, I'm not crazy about it. But, you know, that if that's what happens, that's what happens. So we may meet the part of the requirements for conserve energy without having scored any points. But it's just a facet of what we want to bring to market. Fair enough. Thank you. Good question. Anything else from DRB members? Members of the audience, any questions for the board? That includes people on Zoom. Reminder to folks on Zoom to comment in the chat or press the raise hand button if you'd like to speak. No chats and no raised hands. Okay. Any final comments? Chris and Brian? Okay. Okay, we're going to close DP 20-18 as 734. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP 21-05, who is here representing the applicant. How are you, Carl? Good evening. Carl Marshall, Sol, Larry Burke, 13 corporate drive. Essence. Thank you. Staff goes next. I will note that Scott Michaud is on Zoom. Okay. So this is DP 21-05 Michaud, also known as Sally's Way. They are seeking reallocation for three affordable units to become three market rate units. Overall, there are 15 dwelling units proposed as 15 GUE at 230 Mountain View Road, a parcel just over 10 acres in the residential zoning district. There is one dwelling existing, so there's 14 new homes proposed. Staff is proposing a score of 40 points. No comment letters were received at the time of mail-out, nor were any letters or emails received to date. Staff is proposing a score of 40 points and the allocation of three market rate. Of the 14 GUE originally required and allocated to this project, only five are seen on the table, that FY 25 to 33 table. Some of the years have fallen off, and then one of those units was affordable at 80% AMI, which wasn't even shown on the table to begin with. If the reallocation request is approved, this project will be subject to the inclusionary zoning pay and loo provision of WDB 1137, because it will be a project proposing all market rate units and more than 10 units. The DRB does not need to make any decisions about that fee, like impact fees, it's handled administratively by the planning staff. After growth management, the project would file a minor amendment to final plans, noting on their civil plan set that all the units are market rate, no affordables, and then that fee that's paid goes into the town's housing trust fund. It's managed by the slide board with recommendations of the housing committee to note that fee would be $49,000. But the DRB doesn't need to worry about the fee. So there's 15 dwelling units existing and proposed. There's one unit dwelling that's there today, one unit at 80% AMI. So there were 13 that got allocation previously. And because those older units have fallen off, there's new units that are shown on the table. So we don't have to cross anything off the older year because those older years have just fallen off. What follows is the staff recommended score. So we did the same thing where the score is carried over, for example, a score of three out of 10 for neighborhood space in 2021 is equivalent to six out of 20 today. Thank you. Thanks, Emily. Carl, do you have any anything to add to the staff report? No, she does a great job, isn't she? Yes, she does. Yes, she does. Okay. DRB members, comments, questions? This may be a question for Emily. Proposed staff, a conserve energy, I'm trying to get up to speed on it. So you have a 10? Yes. So they are proposing 10 points in the conserve energy category. The minimum score increased from 30 to 40 points. So in order to get those 40 points, they propose 10 in the conserve energy criteria, which means half of the homes. And it's a new criteria, so let me make sure I quote it correctly. Yep, half of the homes will use cold climate heat pumps, ground source heat pumps, or geothermal. So they're proposing to do the heat pumps in half of the homes, half of the proposed homes. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? Yeah, I've got one. You've got five points for build paths and trails, and I'm just curious looking at the plan here, why the sidewalk was not continued on both sides of the proposed road. Can't recall. It was a lot of wetlands. Okay, got it. Thank you. We were trying to not minimize, you know, minimization of wetlands and associated buffers. Okay. Yeah, thank you. Good question though, but I think we spent a lot of time with that with staff because we kind of went back and forth with that. That was the rationale. And we're, you know, we're not proposing any changes to the plan. Okay. Yeah, I remember that from the DRB review with balancing the bylaw wants sidewalks on both sides of new roads, but also wants to minimize impact into wetland areas. So the compromise was making sure there's crosswalks to connect all the homes have a sidewalk outside their front door. Any other questions? DRB members? Yes. So on neighborhood design, there's, it's getting 10 points. Was that, I'm not, I'm a little confused when it says scoring options zero to 10 and then it says plus five. Does that mean there were five added from, it was five before and now it's 10? No, there are five bonus points in that category. So you can get the maximum score you could have in this district is 105 points. So you can get 100 points and then there's an option for five bonus points. And what would, what would qualify you for the extra five? I believe it is doing some kind of dedication. Oh, okay. I only asked because this project has gotten the maximum number of points in that category. And previously tonight, we've been kind of pulling across the maximum number of points available in that category. Right. So it used to be zero to five points plus five bonus points, which would have been a maximum 10. Okay. Now it's zero to 10 plus five bonus points, maximum 15. That additional one to five points is permanent protection of open space. So via a conservation easement or dedication to the town. I see. And that's not part of this proposal. Correct. It would just be private open common land homeowners, homeowners association common land. Okay. And the other question I had was on providing neighborhood space. What was the, what was the score previously on that? I'm, I'm, I'm trying to, I'm having a hard time finding all good. Um, on page two under the table, there's a staff score explanation. So they got neighborhood space three out of 10 in 2021, uh, which is equivalent to six out of 20 today. There we go. In the middle of the development on the site plan, there's a little pavilion proposed. All right. Good. Thank you. And Emily on a 15 DUE, how many would be affordable if they weren't doing payment in lieu? So they would have been required to have three, one at 80%, one at 100%. And one at 120% area median income. And what will that payment and low be? I know we're not concerned with it, but 49,000. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Members of the audience, questions for the DRB? Sir, if you would please come to the table and state your name and address for the record, please. I'm Carl Fowler from 178 Middle Run Road. And I have a couple of questions that may simply resolve my concerns. And they're not aimed at this particular project, but at both of the projects that would sort of occupy that farm that is going to basically be redeveloped by the show and then also McCullough. The first is as originally proposed, there was a road in this development that's sort of headed towards the McCullough land space, but just terminated. And then I believe in a later version of it, is there plan to be internally a connection to the McCullough project? We're providing that on the flat. We haven't had any communication with the adjacent. So there may be such a connection. There may be. How many exits to Mountain View will there be? This has evolved since the version of this that we've been done around so long. So I'm going to give you a little bit of latitude. Tonight is growth management. And so what you're talking about is really more scrutiny of the project plan. We're not here to do that tonight. We're here to score the project based on the growth management criteria. I'll withdraw the question, although I think it's a reasonable question to ask. It's not confrontational. I simply wouldn't know how many exits there are going to be, but I note your reluctance to present it and I withdraw the question. My final one now is philosophical one. The project has gone from providing for low income housing or at least moderate income housing to none because it changed apparently its category. What did the town feel it gained institutionally or in terms of the interest of the citizens by basically adopting this new inclusion versus simply even have all what you want kind of system, except we give you $49,000 to not know what we first said we were going to do. Why is the town feeling that's the benefit of the citizens? What are we actually getting at? Is there a pot of money that will help us with other projects later? You hit it on the nose. That's it. There's a pot of money over time. It's not just doesn't one one project doesn't solve the entire problem that the town has. Does the town still have objectives to accomplish a certain number of affordable housing units? It depends on the projects that come before the project. So there's no longer any town target. I think there's probably a town target but it's going to be based on it's going to be based on the on the developers who are bringing projects before the town for approval. When do we expect the McCullough project to come back for its new revised version? They were originally on the list for tonight and they vanished. So when do we expect them to Yeah, I think they'll file a discretionary permit this year. They have one year from that pre application which that sketch plan took place in December of 2023. So they have a year from that date to file a complete discretionary permit because they are planning to be inclusionary zoning. They don't have to go to growth management tonight. They can go straight from pre app to discretionary permit. You bring up a good question about that road connection and I would like to address it. Their site plan shows the wetland extending in a different way. Whereas the Michaud development where their wetland was delineated on their property would have allowed for that connection. The site plan for McCullough shows the wetland being a little bit different along the property line where that road connection might not be feasible. So both the town zoning standards and state wetland rules like to discourage incursions into wetlands like to discourage road crossings as much as possible. So in the Michaud review it looked like it might be a possibility and we asked them to plat in that right of way. In the McCullough wetland delineation it's not looking like it's going to be able to move in a route where these two developments can reasonably connect but we're anticipating they would file their discretionary permit at some point this year to your other question the philosophical questions. Emily let me interrupt you for one second and say that what the description Emily just gave you is for a project that is has neither been proposed nor approved. So nobody knows or reviewed or reviewed right so no so complete conjecture. My last follow up my last following question then was one might be expect to see revised maps for the two developments. If you're approving going forward with Michaud tonight which I am not opposing necessarily I'm just trying to get information if we're approving going ahead one might we expect to see but there on the board is a map that I at least at home couldn't find and I dug deep trying to find those maps today and could only find the score is one might we expect to see those. My deepest concern actually is about the placement of a settling pond for wastewater in the color development but yeah so for the Michaud project which we're reviewing tonight they have their complete final plan review so we have an entire civil plan set for roads utilities water sewer lines etc store water ponds and basins for the McCullough project we don't have that yet. If and when they file a complete discretionary permit then you'll see the concept plan that's shown here worked out in more detail where utilities are going to connect how storm water is going to be managed. The McCullough project proposed a couple of concept plans with different unit types and layout so at discretionary permit that's when we would also know they would hone in the details of we're obviously a long way from having those designs and I'm I'm satisfied thank you. Which you need to do is you need to get your name with Emily so and then that thing does come up for the DRP you know to fight so you can. I will do so. I'm satisfied. If you have any questions and extremely responsive thank you. Thank you. Okay anybody else from the audience that would like to address the the board. Uh anybody on zoom? Any raised hands? We have no raised hands on zoom. Okay DRP members last chance for questions. Good. Carl are you good? I'm good I just like to know and I'm sure you've read it um we're anticipating putting heat pumps in you know mainly for maybe heating these and you know there could very well be all the units so we would have scored a higher score but sounding like you know feedback from the board like we're all set um and kind of like what Brian my business partner you know alluded to earlier I mean we're just basically trying to meet the same criteria and you know that we did before so yeah we're all set. Okay okay uh thank you I'm gonna close DP 21-05 at 750 thank you. Thank you very much. Recording in progress. Great thank you Scott uh welcome back to the Williston Development Review Board of March 26 2024 it is 808 the board is out of deliberative session uh is there a motion for DP 21-18? Yes as authorized by Chapter 11 of the Williston Development Bylaw I Nathan Andrews move that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the applicant's questionnaire the recommendations of the town staff having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 26th 2024 assign a score and make an allocation of dwelling units as shown in table two and three above the DP 20-18 the annex in accordance with the growth target and allocation rules of WDB Chapter 11. Thank you Nate is there a second? Second. Uh John seconds it any discussion hearing none uh yay or nay uh Nate. Yay. Paul. Yay. Lisa. Yay. Scott is recused Dave Turner. Yay. John Hemmelgarten. Yay. The chair is a yay six in favor not opposed one individual recused himself motion carries is there a motion for DP 20-18? Uh yes um so as authorized by Chapter 11 of the Williston Development Bylaw I Scott Riley move that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the applicant's questionnaire the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 26th 2024 assign a score and make an allocation of dwelling units as shown in table two and three above two DP 21-05 Sally's way in accordance with the growth. You're not doing Sally's way you're doing Summerfield. You're doing Summerfield. Well thank you for reminding me. Go up six inches I'm reading the wrong dark. Okay that's okay just start fresh. Actually it's the same thing right okay sorry thank you I was reading Sally's way that doesn't sound right. Okay one more time that was practice as authorized by Chapter 11 of the Williston Development Bylaw I Scott Riley move that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the applicant's questionnaire the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 26th 2024 assign a score and make an allocation of dwelling units as shown in table two and three above two DP 20-18 Summerfield in accordance with the growth target and allocation rules of WDB Chapter 11 we are adding findings of fact number four I believe you could put that up on the screen so I can read it number four DP 20-18 is vested in the discretionary permit approval of April April 26 2022 and notice of decision open parentheses NOD clothes parentheses letter dated May 11th 2022 subsequent amendments are DP 20-18.1 and 20-18.2 thank you Scott is there a second Dave Turner seconds any further discussion hearing none yay or nay Nate yay Paul yay Lisa yay Scott yay Dave yay Don Hemmelgarten recuses himself the chair is a yay six in favor none opposed one recused motion carries is there a motion for DP 21-05 yes is authorized by Chapter 11 of the Williston Development Bylaw I Lisa Breden harder move that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed the applicants questionnaire the recommendations of the town staff and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 26 2024 assign a score and make an allocation of dwelling units as shown in table two and three above to DP 24-05 Sally's way in accordance with the growth target and allocation rules of WDB Chapter 11 thank you Lisa is there a second I'll second it Scott seconds is there any further discussion uh yay or nay Nate yay Paul yay Lisa yay Scott yay Dave yay John yay chair is a yay seven in favor not opposed motion carries is there a motion to approve the minutes of March 12 2024 don't move is there a second I'll second it Dave Turner seconds it any discussion I don't know if it's appropriate I know there's a typo there um on one of them on the decision I'll fix it let's uh let's read it into the record and and be uh and be tight so what what is it it is the mountain dew road kb kb project believe I admitted the the actual motion itself that has the second underneath let's uh let's not believe let's state it okay it is it is the actual motion that is not included the motion I know was made by yeah let's pull it up while we're doing that I just have one correction to the motion that I read 2118 the annex there was a typo in that and I read it as DP 20-18 but the annex is DP 21-18 okay yep we're uh I'll fix that right now okay so Nate you um read that uh who seconds it who's second that I second it Dave you did do you accept that um yeah change is there any further discussion by any members um is there any change to how you voted for that okay thank you thank you no over here good kiss I'm not used to looking there for the last minutes the motion was made by Paul I did not include the the motion text itself I did include the vote I'll add the text of the motion with Paul's name okay great and that was the one the vote was that did not pass correct that is correct okay it was highly unusual Paul made a vote made a motion and didn't didn't vote for okay I'm just following the republican practice in the congress right now okay Paul so you've made a motion to approve the minutes um there's a friendly amendment on the floor from staff do you accept that friendly absolutely and Dave you seconded do you accept the friendly motion amendment okay um any other questions or comments okay yay or nay on the amended minutes Nate okay Paul yeah Lisa Scott okay Dave yeah John yeah I'm going to abstain it was not present so six in favor none opposed I have abstained uh motion carries okay is there anything else bring forth tonight okay is there a motion to adjourn don't move is there a second Lisa seconds it all in favor all right anybody opposed okay thank you all