 in real time. Planning staff will provide Zoom instructions for public participation before we begin. All votes taken at this meeting will be done by roll call vote in accordance with the law. If Zoom crashes, the meeting will be continued to April 11th, 2023. First order of business is to take a roll call attendance of DRB members participating in the meeting. Nate Andrews. Here. Paul Christensen. Right here. John Hemmelgarn is absent. Scott Riley. Here. Dave Turner. Here. Lisa Brayden-Harder is absent and the chair is present. Five are in attendance. Four are needed for a quorum. So we have reached a quorum. First order of business tonight is to hand it over to staff for Zoom instructions. If you have a laptop or a phone, please make sure that you're also muted. For participants on Zoom, we have a lot of features. Few important ones are the microphone button, which turns your microphone on and off. Please keep yourself on mute. It's not your turn to speak. The video button turns your video on or off. Video is optional. Additionally, public testimony will be taken verbally. The chat is for technical questions. Please direct questions to Meade, or Emily, or Simon. If you have them. Additionally, if you're during a public comment, you'd like to speak, please press the raise and the button. And we'll call on you when it's your turn to speak. We'll 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 even change it, you can click the free rectangle at the top of the screen. Same place, side-by-side mode. 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 need any help with this, please use the message medium, and I'll help you. OK. Thank you, Andrew. First order of business is a public forum. This is an opportunity for anyone participating in tonight's meeting to address the board on topics not on the warned agenda. Is there anyone here present in the room that would like to address the board on items not on the warned agenda, or are there any members of people participating in Zoom that would like to do the same? OK. So agenda item number two is growth management overview by staff. Then after I hand the reins over to them, we will do hearings for each residential project that is being considered in tonight's growth management hearing. There are three different categories tonight. The first is projects within the growth center and outside the form-based code overlay district. There's one applicant vying for growth management allocation in that category. The second category is projects outside of the growth center, but inside of the sewer service area. There are four applicants in that category. And the last is projects outside of the sewer service area. And there's three projects vying for allocation within that category. So there's a lot on the agenda. Staff is going to do an accelerated, truncated overview of each application. And we'll just plow through this. But before we get to that, I'm going to turn it over to staff for an overview of the growth management process. Thank you, Pete. So welcome, everybody, to growth management of 2023. The purpose of growth management is to phase residential growth development in line with the town's growth target. For a project to be eligible, it must go through pre-application, a.k.a. sketch plan review in calendar year 2022. And it's one of many steps a project must take before construction. At each step, more detail about the project is required. The DRB reviews pre-app, which is sketch plan level review, and full site engineering and full site design, including wetlands delineation, are not required until the next step, which is discretionary permit phase. It's not uncommon for a residential subdivision design and its unit count to change either between pre-application and growth management or between growth management and discretionary permit. There are some projects here tonight that have already been through a phase or two of growth management that have a full discretionary permit already approved. There's others where this is their first time, and we just know pre-application sketch level information about them. So projects are at different phases of review, depending on if they've been to growth management before or not. Representations made by the applicant in the questionnaire and at the hearing tonight are binding. And they must be fulfilled at all subsequent permits. If changes proposed at discretionary permit significantly alter the growth management score, that project may not be approvalable, and it may need to come back before the DRB. So applicants are encouraged to do their due diligence around these questionnaire prior to the hearing and any commitments made tonight need to be upheld at discretionary permit and when you're building the homes. There's some important highlights for this year. So there is the newly adopted form-based code overlay district. Growth management allocation in that part of town is now done by the zoning administrator. There is a project tonight that is in the growth center but outside the form-based code area where the DRB is still doing growth management allocation. With the adoption of form-based code, there were some minor amendments made to the allocation rules. I'll get into those in a moment. DP2201 Trinity RZD has withdrawn and forfeited allocation. Those units are made available on the table. In your packets, you have a white 11 by 17 that shows striped through units on page two. That's some of that forfeited allocation. Similarly, DP2105 Mushoed has also forfeited some units. Their wetlands delineation and subsequent discretionary permit had fewer units than what they got allocation for. So those have been returned back to the system. Lastly, this year, we are proposing to shift units to the growth center. So the DRB is allowed to, within the growth management rules, to take unutilized allocation outside of the growth center and transfer it into the growth center. In this case, it's only happening in the outside sewer service area. So if you look on your yellow sheet of paper, and I can screen show this later on for folks on Zoom, you'll see that in some columns, we say transfer to GC. There are several rules within growth management. Most of them are baked into how staff sets up the table and assigns allocation. It's important to note that there's some nuances with affordable housing. If we have questions on that, we can jump back into this section. But in general, a unit that is affordable at 80% or below the area median income is not shown on that allocation table. It's only units at 100% and 120% that go on that table. In terms of the growth target, we use a dwelling unit equivalent, whereby a studio or one bedroom unit is half a dwelling unit equivalent, and a unit with two or more bedrooms is a whole dwelling unit equivalent. That's each one of those cells on the allocation table. The dwelling unit equivalent is also used for density analysis. However, it's not used for the density bonus, and that comes into play with a project like Catamount. In terms of the procedure for tonight, projects are evaluated and ranked based on the scoring criteria in Chapter 11. So folks may recall, we have a big bylaw. There's 46 chapters. Tonight, we're only focused on the design criteria in Chapter 11. Projects are scored on that criteria and given a rank, and then they are given an allocation schedule according to their ranking. Projects must have a minimum score of 30 points to be assigned allocation or be eligible for the exemption. The exemption is for a project that's less than 10 and 1 half acres and is requesting no more than two units. So tonight, we have one project that's eligible for the exemption, or maybe two. Two eligible for exemption. There's a third one that is not eligible. So that's a third project that did not score 30 points, but that third project is not eligible for an exemption. They're less than 10 and 1 half acres, but they're requesting more than those two units. So there was a change recently to growth management in October 2022 related to the maximum allocation. So you'll notice that there's two columns in each fiscal year for affordable and market. Before, there were holdbacks on per project limits, how many units go to a project, and how far out you could allocate units, the gray shading. That was changed for affordable units, so there's no more holdbacks for affordable units, and you can give out more than 75% to one project. So where you see gray shading for market rate columns, there used to be shading in the affordable columns. Now they're not shaded, and a project like Catamount can receive more than that 75% of the affordable units, because that language was changed, only applied to market rate, not affordable. This year, we have no high scoring developments that score higher than 70 points and achieve full points in the energy efficiency category. We do have a project that scores 71 points, maybe 72, but they're not proposing any points in energy criteria. So in terms of applicants tonight, the notice of decision will be sent out at the next meeting, and they would have a year from that letter to file their discretionary permit. So if someone receives allocation for the first time tonight, that deadline is very important to file a complete discretionary permit in order to retain the rights to that allocation, otherwise they would need to begin again at pre-application. There is some timing limits with the construction of units. Folks may recall that in previous years, allocation expired no longer. Allocation does not expire, but it does go into a slow build phasing. So that's something for larger projects to keep in mind where once units lapse into that slow build phase, they can only pull permits on those a couple every fiscal year. For a smaller project, that would be less of an issue if they're building a smaller number of units. So in terms of the review process for tonight, we have planning staff has prepared draft scores in an allocation schedule. That's the pink sheet for each project. And we've done that for all projects in the three allocation areas. And we've built in some of the rules. So the proposed table in yellow, where units are shown in red, is a proposed allocation schedule that would comply with the rules of Chapter 11. And we can refer back to this overall staff report with each hearing item if we have particular questions. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Emily. Before we begin with the first application, walk us through how the staff scoring worked and the independence of each person's input and just walk everybody through how that was done. Yes, so once all the questionnaires are submitted, they're due on March 1st. Each person, there's five people in our office, give them copies and a blank scoring sheet. And everybody scores them independently. Then we come together and we come to a consensus on a score. So when we get to each projects, I'll share a table. Our collective score isn't necessarily an average. We have a discussion and we provide some comments about why we decided on that score. For projects that have been to the DRB before, we try not to look or try not to remember what last year's number is. We try to score everything fresh. Great, okay, good. Any questions on the process? Okay, you can't leave until you have a quiz afterwards and you score at least 80%. Just kidding. Okay, first up, DP 21-18. Chris and Andy, are you the two representing this project? If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Chris Snyder, with Snyder Homes, 4076 Shelburne Road. Andy Rose, Snyder Homes, 4076 Shelburne Road, Shelburne. Welcome. I'm going to recuse myself to take a financial interest in the budding properties. Okay, thank you. Okay, Emily. All right, this is DP 21-18, the Annex, also shown on the allocation as Snyder EAC, EAC standing for Essex Alliance Church. This property is located off Route 2A where they're proposing 276 dwelling units as 241 dwelling unit equivalents. These parcels were created in 1995 and there's one existing dwelling with two bedrooms on it. There's also a 65-unit senior living housing facility proposed as part of this project. However, that does not require allocation it's seen as a commercial use. Therefore, the entire project requires allocation for 240 DUE. Staff is proposing a score of 56 points. This is two points more than what they scored last year in 2022. With 240 DUE requiring allocation, they received 173.5 last year, which means 66.5 DUE need allocation. There was a typo in the agenda where it said 67.5. We are recommending 31 DUE market on the allocation schedule. There are some affordable units, however, they have all received their allocation, so everything that's left is market rate allocation. And after tonight, if they received those 31 units, they would need 35.5 DUE more. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Emily. Chris and Andy, any comments on the staff report? Great. DRV members, questions? The only question I have is I think it's a typo on the proposed by staff, the two that's on Conserved Energy. Shouldn't that be zero? You are correct. Let's make sure those numbers add up. They do. Because there's only one other category that the provide neighborhood space went up by two. Yep, yep. Okay, any other questions from DRV? I'm going to ask the question on affordable housing even though someone was allocated in the last one. So the rental units that are in the unit for affordable housing, how many rooms are they? So there'll be some one bedrooms and some two bedrooms. It's a mix. But collectively, they would need to add up to the 28-dwelling unit equivalence. Right. So then I do have a concern on housing choices because basically by making all the affordable rental units, we've eliminated any possibility families with affordable income from purchasing a unit in the project. I'm wondering if we should score that a little lower. I'm looking for input, I guess. Yep. So staff, thoughts on that? So it scored 20 points last year and there's a statement for offer housing choice. This criterion encourages each subdivision to include housing options for a broad spectrum of affordable housing. So the goal is not merely to promote affordable housing as WDB 1162 does, but to ensure that limited housing choices do not result in a community with limited cultural and social diversity. So I think that statement, not merely to promote affordable housing and citing 1162, is trying to keep those two things separate, affordability and the diversity of housing types. Emily, if you read down below in that paragraph where it has the example, it says something about a person, a worker on this project should be able to... Right. The proposed residential subdivision is part of a mixed-use development. It must include units that are demonstratively affordable to the typical employee who will be working there in order to be awarded any points for this criterion. So the only commercial use that's being proposed here, mixed-use is talking about mixing like residential and commercial would be the senior living facility. But it does say both owners and renters is part of your concern, right? Yes. And this is only affordable for renters? Is that right? The way we're classifying our manager. It says poor. I believe it says poor. Well, proposed residential subdivisions should include a mix of dwelling types and sizes that will result in a mix of different housing costs and tenures. That's the sentence? Yes. Yes. My read on that sentence is the overall unit mix regardless of its perpetual affordability or market rate status. Throughout the project, there's a mix of owner and rental units available. That's me. Any other questions? Yeah, sorry, I just want to go back to that. I'm still confused. Does it have to be for, we have to have both rentals and ownership opportunities available in the affordable housing category or one or the other? No. The affordable housing category is agnostic on if it's owner or if it's rental, if it's a single family or an apartment or anything. The affordability criteria is just based on the percentage of units and the applicant can decide where they want, what they want them to be in the project. Offer housing choices is the overall unit mix regardless of market rate or affordability. Are they providing a diversity housing type throughout the project? Okay. Other questions? I'll open it up to the audience. Any questions both here in this room or on Zoom? No raise hands, okay. Chris or Andy, any final thoughts? No? Okay. We're going to close DP 21-18 at 7.28. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Riley's back. Next up is a list here. Next up is DP 20-18 which is a summer field also known as Catamount Golf. Would the applicant please come forward? Okay. Good evening. Good evening. If you would state your name and address for the record, please. Cambelevo 683 Maple Street, Waterbury Center, Vermont, 05677 here representing Ethan Allen Holmes. Brian Currier, 13 Corporate Drive, Essex, Vermont representing Ethan Allen Holmes. Thank you. Staff goes first. All right. This is DP 20-18 summer field shown on the allocation table as Catamount. This is the third round of growth management for this subdivision which proposes 122 DUI as 141 dwelling units at 1400 Mountain View Road, roughly 30-acre parcel in the residential zoning district. Staff is proposing a score of 72 points. This is one point higher than it scored last year. It increased points in the neighborhood design category. And I do note that it is over 70 points. However, it is not a high flyer because of the conserve energy category. And no comment letters were received at the time of mail out. So this project has been awarded 76 DUI total as 16 affordable and 60 market units. On the allocation table shown in yellow, we're proposing 13 DUI market and two affordable. This is the maximum amount of market rate units it can be given due to the allocation rules in the bylaw. They are proposing 12 points in the affordable housing category. And those two affordable units would have them reach all of their necessary allocation, 24.5 DUI affordable, including 6.5 DUI at 80% AMI. Keeping in mind that that 80% level does not go on the table. They can just be built. There is also the density bonus, which is based on the actual dwelling units, not dwelling unit equivalent, whereby 43 dwelling units would need to be affordable. There are many combinations of one and two bedroom units that can concurrently achieve both that 12 point growth management score where 24.5 DUI are affordable and the density bonus where 43 DUI are affordable. Ultimately, it's up to the applicant to decide what configuration they use to uphold that growth management score and density bonus. After tonight, 24.5 DUI will still need allocation and it's up to the applicant to decide the breakdown of market and affordable. Tonight, if requested by the applicant, the DRB could allocate more affordable units across the 10 year cycle and the DRB should discuss this with the application. Because of those recently amended holdback rules, there is no more per project limit for affordable DUI, which means if they have all their 24.5 DUI that they need for that score, but if they want more, the DRB can allocate it. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Emily. Okay. Mr. Bellovo. Thank you. So, I'll try to keep my comments brief. Very difficult, but I'll try. The Board's Wall Awareness Project has been in front of you, you know, more fingers, more times than I have fingers on one hand. This is our third time here for growth management. We would like to get all the allocation that we possibly can so we don't have to keep coming back understanding the limits that are built into the bylaw. I will note that our score seems to go up every time we come back. I don't know if that's inflation or what, but it seems to go up every time we come back. So, we have no qualms with post score from staff. As on the question that Emily raises about additional units that would be pledged as affordable, you know, developing a project that would have affordable dwellings like this project, the economics of it are very important and there's not a lot of tolerance. So, we feel like we're at the maximum level of the number of units that would be affordable at 100% of the area median income or less. So, we wouldn't be able to promise any more than that. So, we're not going to promise, we know that our promises are binding and we're not going to promise anything that we don't think that we can do. So, do you have any to add, Brian? I do not. Okay, great. Did you look at the, on the staff report, the staff math and because I know that you used to be a staff member here again, so I know you know this really well and you didn't have any corrections on the methodology or comments on the methodology? No, my comment that I remember before is that we're grateful for going up and score by one point this year. I meant in terms of the allocation for this year and the remaining allocation that's needed and that whole math under staff comment here, I'm just doing a double check because this stuff is, there's a lot of moving parts. You're in concurrence with that? The big spreadsheet is what it is and it has limitations that are built into it and we understand what they are. We wish they weren't there but we know that they're there and the board is going to need to be guided and we understand that. Okay. DRP questions. Did you have anything Emily? No. Okay. Public feedback. Is there anybody present who would like to address the board on this application, either in person or participating in Zoom? Okay. 736 we're going to close this up. Thank you. Okay. Next up is DP 22-11. Who is here for the applicant for the Rice subdivision? My name is Jamie Simpson and I'm on Zoom and I'm with Landmark Engineering and Design and we represent it. Okay. Staff goes next. This is DP 22-11 Rice subdivision. This is the first time the project is coming to growth management. Cody Rice proposes a 30 unit residential subdivision on a 9.93 acre parcel located at 669 Essex Road in the residential zoning district. The two units are pre-existing. One of which, the trailer will be replaced with one of the new house units. Overall, the project proposes five new one bedroom units and 23 new two or greater bedroom units. Therefore, 25.5 we require allocation. Staff is proposing a score of 29 points. This is one point below the 30 point minimum. We've received no comment letters at the time of mail out or by tonight's hearing. We do note that if this project were to score more than 30 points, we've have that allocation schedule there. That why we're not trying to do any math late at night if that were to come up. But that is not proposed because it's below that 30 point score. Because this is below 30 points, I'll go into a little bit more detail on the scoring criteria. No points were proposed for energy conserve energy. Therefore, they scored 30 points. For affordable housing they score three points for proposing units at that 100% AMI level. So they do have several units noted at that 120% level. However, that four point category is based on the definition of affordable housing, which is that 100% AMI level. It's only when you get to those higher point scores that you get into the tiered 80, 100 and 120% levels. Offer housing choices. We've given partial points because they're providing some one-bedroom units and a mix of single and duplex homes. So they were proposing 10 out of 20 points. Provide neighborhood space zero points because they've offered no space like a pavilion or a pool or a gazebo beyond just you know, mowed lawn. Paths and trails. They did offer up easements for the multi-use path along Route 2A. So we gave two points there. However, their offer for trails isn't shown on our map our townwide official map. So the town doesn't have a stated goal for any footpaths in this area. So they can get some points for that multi-use path easement, but trails are not desired in this part of town. Design for context. We scored the full five points proposing homes around neighboring residential uses. Neighborhood design. We scored two points out of a possible five and five bonus points. You skipped bill close to services. Oh, I skipped billed close to services. Yep. That one is zero points because it's quantitative based on its distance to focal points in the growth center or village. So it's beyond those distances. Neighborhood design two points. There's some space between the trailer and the proposed homes could be used more creatively as well as the space between Essex Road and the first set of duplexes. Lastly, they do score six out of 10 points for sustainable transportation for providing a bus pull off area and EV charge spaces and secure bicycle storage spaces. These would be accessible to the public for people who do not live in the neighborhood. And that brings the total points to 29. Thank you. Okay, thanks Emily. Jamie, so the floor is yours. The project does not score as staff has scored the project. The minimum of 30 points and I'd like your comments and feedback on the staff and the proposed scoring. And I'd also like to hear from you and I'm sure that the other DRB members feel the same way. I'm going to speak for them of what you would consider to add to your application to increase the scoring total. Yes, thank you. So looking at the staff scoring, I really don't have much in the argument of most of the categories. The only thing that I would say is we've discussed this with the applicant Cody Rice and we'd like to propose increasing the number of affordable housing units. And essentially we'd like to get into that eight point category, which I believe is the 15% of the proposed units. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I think that would be the 20% MHI value and then 5% of the proposed units at the 100% or less MHI and then 5% at the 80% MHI. And that would kick us into that eight point category, which would get us above the 30 minimum requirement. Do you think we would be aligned with your understanding of the bylaw? Yes, I would have to do a little bit of math on the fly to know what number, how many units that would be. And then we would need to figure out how many we would be at that 80% level that would not require allocation. Okay. But conceptually at this point that. I think we can work the numbers out in deliberations. Got it. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Jamie. Okay. If it does, if it helps, I did do a little bit of that math. If I can just state those numbers as I understand it so Emily could correct me later if needed, but go ahead. Go ahead. Oh, I think you're muted. I still muted. You got it now. Okay. I'm trying to run two different programs at the same time, but essentially the math works out for the 5% of the total proposed number of units of 28. The math works out for two units to be proposed at that 80 MHI level two units to be proposed at the 100 MHI level. And then five units would need to be proposed at the 120 MHI level. Okay. Okay. I'm going to turn to an alternative connecting with Vermont power and putting in some Tesla power walls and get your points from the conserve energy sector, which would mean no change to anything else other because all that would be pushed down the road on cost. Right. We would have to discuss in the alternative, such as more public space, you know, like a gazebo or a gathering space or something that would be, you know, used by the neighborhood. So remember what we what what you propose tonight is binding. So so your you're not going to. So what I've heard so far is you're going to increase your affordable housing as you've outlined and you've offered no other affordable housing. At this time, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. So my math, so it would be based on the 25.5 So where it says all proposed dwellings for the purposes of growth management and density, we're using dwelling unit equivalents and we're talking about proposed. So there's 30 units proposed, but there's 27.5 overall and we're subtracting those. So they're, you know, kind of existing. Therefore, this calculation is based on 25.5 dwe and there's some backwards math here because of the way the ands and the commas are 5% at 80% 5% of the dwe at 80% AMI is 1.5 dwe 5% of the dwe at 100% AMI is also 1.5 dwe You would take that 15% of all units of 120% or below is four and then you would subtract three. So one unit at the 100% 120% level and then one and a half dwe at the 180% levels which would be four dwe total How many how many units at the 120% One would have to be at that level but that 15% is inclusive of the 180% levels the 100, 80% comma 180 sounds like a 180. I'm having trouble with that. I got 1.5 dwe at 80% 1.5 dwe at 100% any total at 120% There would only need to be one at the 120% level but that 15% is based on that means a definition of affordable below 120% so it's inclusive of all of the three levels. So it includes the 100% backwards math calculations where you start with your 80 and 100 and then you subtract that from your 120 So for a total of four Yup Jamie, you in agreement with that math? I'm in agreement with that, yes. And that unit at the 120% level would be allocated out of the market rate column because that affordable column is only reserved for things that are at the definition which is 100% AMI or below. So that's why I added to the table, you see the note affordable between 81 and 100% AMI in the affordable column and then greater than 100% in that market rate column. So 1.5 dwe at 80% doesn't need allocation one goes in that market rate column and then we do the math on everything else from there. And that's worth an additional four points. Yes. Yup, which brings it to the 33 and I don't want to make the muddy water even muddier but should the applicant decide that it makes sense to have all of the units proposed at that 80% MHI level with that basically exclude him from this process being at the 80% MHI level. So no units that are at that 80% level or below don't need allocation on that table. So say you're scored at eight points and later on down the road you say you want to do all of your affordable units at that level. It won't penalize you and if some of those still need allocation but you say you're going to do them at 80% then they wouldn't have to go back to the DRB for allocation. The market rates that are left over still would but because it's that tiered point system even if you're doing all your 15% at that 80 level it would still be that eight point category. Great. Thank you, Emily. Jamie, anything else to add at this point? I think it's complete for us. Thank you. DRB members, questions? Members members of the audience any questions? Participants any questions? Okay. Okay. It is 751. We're going to close DP 22-11. Thank you, Jamie. Thank you. Okay. Next stop is DP 23-04. It's the short sleeves project. George and Patricia short sleeves. Brian, are you representing an applicant? Yes, and George is here as well. Okay. Hi, George. If you would both introduce, state your name and address for the record, please. 6-07, North Wolfson Road. Okay. And Brian, if you would formally do that as well, please. Brian Currier, 13 corporate drive, 6 Vermont representing Mr. and Mrs. Schrickley. Great. Thank you. Emily, you're up. That's me. Up. It's DP 23-04. It's located in the area that has sewage but is not within the growth centre. It's located at the corner of North Williston Road in Keystone Drive. It proposes a two lot subdivision to create a new lot and they're requesting one unit of allocation. There is already an ADU present on the property and essentially that this allocation, if they get it, would make that ADU a dwelling in its own right. We did not receive any comment letters for this request. This is the first time this project has competed in growth management. The project is eligible for the minor subdivision extension because it's less than 10 acres and I'm proposing less units of allocation. Staff has proposed a score of nine against the criteria listed in Chapter 11 and we are recommending them to the DRB for an exemption and to be allocated one unit in 2024 taking one of the forfeited and mis-showed units. That's it. Thank you, Simon. Anything to add? This project was in front of you towards the end of the year in 2022. It's an infill project on an existing private drive creating a lot where there is an existing ADU. I just want to be clear. There is a structure there. Our plan doesn't show it because the ortho photo is not new enough but there is a structure there. The minimum lot size in the district is .33. We're barely over at .34 but we do our limited ability to meet growth management criteria. We're here asking the board to use their ability to grant an exception for one allocation unit. DRB members, questions? No. I don't either. Members of the audience, any questions for the board? People participating in by Zoom. Any questions? We're going to close DP23-04 at 754. Thank you. Next up. DP23-06 McGuire subdivision 376 Mt. View Road. Good evening. Good evening. I have state your name and address for the record, please. Don Welch, 410 Colchester Ab, Burlington. Welcome, Don. Staff goes next. This is DP23-06 McGuire subdivision. This project proposes a three unit building on a 6.2 acre parcel located at 376 Mt. View Road in the residential zoning district. This parcel is currently developed with a single unit dwelling. The subdivision proposes one unit at 80% AMI. Therefore only two DUI require allocation. We have a score of 66 points, including six points in the conserve energy category. No comment letters received at the time of mail out. However, late this afternoon we received a letter from Devorca Desmal who lives next door at 374 Mt. View Road. Her letter mainly pertained to their shared property line. The overall site plans are on digital mapping files whereas the clap shows a jog in the property boundaries. Pre-application and growth management review are both based on sketch level plans. If and when this gets to discretionary permit, a full survey will be required where the plans would be based upon true on the ground monuments. So this is the first time the subdivision is participating in the project. It is the second highest scoring project of this year. I do note that there's an important rule of growth management that construction timing. So once that first unit becomes available in FY 2024, everything across that 10 year cycle would be eligible to build. And I bring that up because we're proposing an affordable in FY 2024 but that first market rate unit isn't until 2007. But it's one structure. But it is one structure, one three unit building. I do note that they proposed four points in the sustainable transportation category. This is about creating publicly accessible facilities like bike lockers and an EV charge. We're saying don't score this project on points in that category. They're well above the 30 point level. And it would be challenging for them at discretionary permit to provide these publicly accessible facilities off of a shared private gravel driveway. I do note that for their affordable housing criteria, one unit at 80% AMI, one unit at 100% AMI, and then three units total to be affordable. Is that it? Okay. Don, anything to add to this? No, sounds good to me. DRB members. Any questions? Not anything to really do with it but I was just curious about the efficiency high certified levels and what you're going to do there for that? I think it's just more in the walls and more insulation in the walls and ceilings. But I forget all of the specifics of what it is. But we agree to conform to it. Even if it drives your price through the roof? Yeah, actually you're about the only applicant who's agreeing to it. It's not the highest level. The highest level is crazy. I mean three days of energy storage, things like that. Level 3.0 is pretty attainable I think. Good. Okay, that's great. Thank you. Someone's listening to the state legislature. Any members of the audience want to weigh in? Either present here or participating by Zoom? Hearing none. Okay, it's 7.59. We're going to close D.P. 23-06. Thank you. Okay, next up is D.P. 23-02. This is the Trinity application. Trinity Baptist Church at 425 Mountain View Road. Brian, you have identified yourself so you're good previously. Okay, staff goes next. Okay, that's me again. This is a proposal located outside the service area. It relates to 425 Mountain View Road, which is a parcel owned by Trinity Baptist Church. Sort of this parcel here. You may recall Emily mentioned that the RZD parcel that Trinity also owns as withdrawn and is not participating this year. That's just to make sure everyone at home knows which parcel we're talking about here. It is a two lot subdivision and they are requesting one unit of allocation from the DRB for this new lot. We did not receive any comment letters through about this one. The DRB may recall the last year the parcel requested two units of allocation but did not receive minor unit subdivision exemption from the DRB. This revised application differs. They're only proposing one unit of allocation now and they're also proposing a trail easement which runs from Mountain View Road around the perimeter of the property to Sweets where the town actually has an easement at the moment. So staff is recommending 25 points. The project is eligible for an exemption as it's less than take as and only proposing one unit and we are recommending that the DRB exemption this year. Okay, thank you Simon. Brian Any comments on the staff report or the scoring? I would just bring your attention with the elimination of the RZD section. I believe it was brought up last time that affordable housing might be supplemented by the RZD section as a project in whole, even though we're going through two different paths to get where they're going, that's no longer the case. This project is standalone. It is under active 50 jurisdiction that side of the stream as well. So we will be meeting the residential stretch code that's required as part of active 50. And also the RZD project had deeded access proposed to the northern, the northeast corner of the property where the official town map does have a desired trail connection to Winnowski Valley Park District own parcel just north of there. And I just like to say that there's a difference between a handshake agreement between the public and the church. They use the RZD side now. What we're proposing on the ARZD side is deeded easement for access to that corner. DRV members, questions? Brian, that really doesn't change the scoring as we consider here. And alternatively, you're asking for an exemption. That's correct. We are. Don't muddy the water. Correct. We scored 20 last time with the additions now around 25. But we are still asking for the exemption. Good. I think less is appropriate here. Yeah. Okay. Any other anything else? Members of the audience? Any comments from participants by zoom? Okay. 804, we're going to close DP23-02. Thank you, Brian. Thank you. Okay. Next stop is DP23-03 Olson. This is Michael and Cindy Olson, a proposed two-lot residential subdivision on at 98 Snowdrift Lane. You're up again, huh? Yes. Busy night? Yeah. Okay. Staff. So this is another project in the area outside the service area. It's located on Snowdrift Lane, which is just off Old Greenery Road. They're proposing a two-lot subdivision. There's already a home on the property, so they're requesting one unit of allocation from the DRB. We didn't receive any public comment letters at the time. This is the first time the project's competed in growth management. This project is not eligible for the mining unit subdivision exemption as the base lot area exceeds 10 acres. So it does need to score 30 points in order to be allocated any units. Staff is recommending that 30 points be scored for this proposal and that they be allocated for one unit in 2024. Okay. Great. Thanks, Simon. Okay. Brian, any comments on staff report or the proposed scoring? I do not. Okay. Thank you. DRB members, questions? You're good. Members of the audience, questions? Participants in using Zoom, questions? Okay. We're going to close DP23-03 Okay. Next up is DP23-03. This is William and Joan Boardman for a proposed subdivision to create two new dwelling lots at 10 Ricky Vista and Brian, you're representing the applicants again. Correct. Welcome again and staff is your busy guy and staff goes next. So this is the third and final project in the area outside the sewer service area. As you mentioned, it's on 10 Ricky Vista, which is off Walker Hill Road. This is a three lot subdivision. There's already one property on the parcel so they are seeking allocation for two units from the DRB. No comment letters received on this hearing. It's their first time competing in growth management. The project is not eligible for the minor subdivision exemption as the base lot area does exceed 10 acres. So again, it does need to score 30 points to receive any allocation. Staff is recommending 35 points in this case and allocating two units in 2024. Great. Thank you, Simon. Any comments, Brian, on staff report or proposed scoring? The project's over 10 and a half acres so we're required to conserve 75% of the open space. We're still meeting that criteria, but if you remember at the end of the year when you saw this, it was a two lot subdivision. The staff report does reflect it, but I just want to bring it to your attention. It's now a three lot subdivision. We're asking for two units of allocation rather than one. And the septic fields end up in the proposed open space? No. We plan on keeping those primarily within the developable area. Within the one acre area? Nope. We have a lot one is five and a half acres. Likely it'll be within an easement. It might not be on the proposed one, but it will be on the retained land. Okay. DRB questions. No solar on any of these projects that you're doing? Not as part of growth management. Scott, how's that? Any other questions? Members of the audience. Zoom participants, any questions? Okay. Thank you, Brian. We're going to close D.P. 23-09 at D.P. 23-09. Excuse me. We do have a question. This is Greg and Kathy Gando. Hi, Greg and Kathy. Hi. We live across the way on Walker Hill Road. We're wondering if you can show a map of this subdivision. We weren't aware that it was now going to be three units instead of two. Can you see that? Yes, thank you. This is the land of Boardman House. It's the proposed lots shown at this stage are pretty much in the same position and of the same size as the previously a single lot. There's now two of them. So it'll be three three units on this project. It's going to be double. What is the the tree canopy and also the tree species that is down there? So as part of the pre-application request this went to the conservation commission who made a recommendation that the applicant conduct a habitat disturbance assessment for part of their discretionary permit so that will examine the habitat areas that are affected by the development. We'll come back to the Board at a later date. Should they be granted allocation of this hearing? Because we do have Bobcat that crossed just below us. I don't know if that's a corridor for them or not. As Emily mentioned at the start, at the moment we're considering growth management which is one chapter in the Williston Development bylaws and we're scoring this proposal against those criteria. The impact on a conservation area like wildlife habitat is not for the DRB to weigh in on at this stage. It's something that they do consider at a later stage. So it would come back for another hearing. Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the public participating by Zoom that would like to weigh in? No raised hands? Okay. DP23-09 is closed at 812. Thank you, Brian. Okay, so at this point the DRB is going to go into deliberative session. Okay, welcome back to the DRB. This is March 28, 2023. We are out of deliberative session at 847. Is there a motion for WDB 11.7 Growth Center allocation? As authorized by Chapter 11 of the Williston Development bylaw, I, Paul Christensen, move that the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed all the materials, including the recommendations of the town staff, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of 28 March, 2023, make the following allocation of dwelling units within the growth target established by Chapter 5 of the Williston Comprehensive Plan within the town's Growth Center, as shown in Table 4, established by the Development Review Board on 28 March, 2023. Thank you, Paul. Is there a second? I'll second. Dave Turner seconds it. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote. Nate Andrews. Yay or nay? Yay. Paul. Yay. Scott Riley is recused. Sam will Garn is not present. Dave Turner. Yay. Lisa Braden Harder is not present, and the chair is a yay. That's four in favor. None opposed. One recused. Motion carries. Is there a motion for WDB 11.8 other sewer service area allocation? Yes. As authorized by Chapter 11 of the Williston Development Bylaw, I, Scott Riley, move that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed all of the submitted materials, including the recommendations of the town's staff. And having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at the public hearing of March 28, 2023, make the following allocation of dwelling units within the growth target established by Chapter 5 of the Williston Comprehensive Plan within the town's other sewer service area, as shown in Table 4 established by the Development Review Board on March 28, 2023. Specifically referencing DP 22-11, we are going to change the scoring proposed by staff from 29 to 33 by adding four points to the 11.7.2 bill of affordable housing category. As part of that category we are changing the we are reallocating the affordable housing dwelling units out of a total of 25.5 dwelling unit equivalents to having one DUE at 120% of AMI, 1.5 DUEs dwelling unit equivalents at 100% AMI and 1.5 dwelling unit equivalents at 80% of area median income. Great. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? All second. Nate seconds it. Any discussion? Yay or nay? Nate? Yay. Paul? Yay. Scott? Yay. Dave? Yay. And the Chair is a yay. And in favor? None opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion for WDP 11.9 outside sewer service area allocation? Yes. As authorized by Chapter 11 of the Williston Development By-law, I, David Turner, move that the Williston Development Review Board having reviewed all the submitted materials including the recommendations of the town staff having heard and duly considered in May 2023 make the following allocations of dwelling units within the growth target established by Chapter 5 of the Williston Comprehensive Plan outside of the town sewer service area as shown in Table 4 established by the Development Review Board on March 28, 2023. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds it. Any discussion? Hearing none, yay or nay? Nate Andrews? Yay. Paul. Yay. Scott. Yay. Dave. Yay. Chair is a yay. Five in favor? None opposed? Motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of March 14, 2023? I'll make a motion to move the minutes of March 20, March 20, 2023 with a couple of quick changes on page 2 of the paragraph down that started with Don. I said Dave Turner asked if people are people. So it looks like there's just a typo there. So the second people should be struck. Right. Second people should be struck. And then on page 3 on page 4 paragraph down where John said that the vehicle has said that Dodge Caravan and she owns a personal trick. I think it should be trucked. Yep. Any further edits? Okay. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second for the amended minutes that Dave just noted? I'll second it. Thank you, sir. Any further comments? Any other questions, comments? Okay. Yay or nay on the minutes. Nate? Yeah. Paul? Yeah. Scott? Yeah. Dave? Yeah. Chairs are yay. Five in favor. None opposed. Motion carries. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? Is there a motion to adjourn? All in favor?